Policy

Executive Summary Energy and National Security Will Drive the Market Energy and National Security Will Drive the Market Energy and National Security Will Drive the Market Our 2022 key views are broadly on track. Biden’s shift from domestic to foreign policy is dominating the other views.   However, Democrats still have a 65% chance of passing a reconciliation bill that will raise taxes to pay for green energy and prescription drug caps. Then gridlock will set in. The US is developing a new national consensus. Generational change is promoting the shift to proactive fiscal policy to address the country’s social unrest and rising foreign policy challenges. Polarization is still at peak levels in the short term but will fall over the coming decade as the US pursues “nation building” at home while confronting geopolitical rivals. The return of Big Government is being priced into the bond market today. But it will be Limited Big Government, as the sharp spike in inflation today will provoke a backlash. Recommendation Inception Level Inception Date Return Long Aerospace And Defense Vs. Broad Market (Cyclical)   30-Mar-22   Long Oil And Gas Transportation And Storage Vs. Broad Market (Cyclical)   30-Mar-22   Long Refinitive Renewable Energy Vs. Broad Market (Tactical)   30-Mar-22   Bottom Line: Investors dedicated to the US market should stay tactically defensive. Cyclically favor the new US policy consensus on national defense, infrastructure, cyber security, and energy security. Feature The title of our annual outlook was “Gridlock Begins Before The Midterms.” We argued that Biden would still have some room for legislative maneuver in the first half of 2022 but that checks and balances would grow as the year went on. Checks will grow due to (1) the looming midterm elections; (2) Biden’s falling political capital and need to rely on executive action; (3) rising foreign policy challenges. Of these, foreign policy has proven decisive, with Russia invading Ukraine and the US and Europe imposing economic sanctions. The resulting energy shock is adding to inflation, weighing on consumer confidence, stock market multiples, and investor sentiment (Chart 1). Having said that, we also argued that congressional Democrats still had enough political capital to pass a watered-down fiscal 2022 budget reconciliation bill before the scene of action shifted to the White House. The second quarter is the last chance for this prediction to come true – and we are sticking with our 65% odds. The reconciliation bill will be even more watered down than we expected. But the point is that fiscal policy – especially tax hikes – can still move markets in the second quarter, even though inflation, the Fed, and the war will have a bigger influence. Chart 1US Seeks National Security And Energy Security US Seeks National Security And Energy Security US Seeks National Security And Energy Security Related Report  US Political Strategy2022 Key Views: Gridlock Begins Before The Midterms The war in Europe is clearly the most important political, geopolitical, and policy dynamic for investors this year. It is prompting some important congressional action that speaks to Biden’s room for maneuver in the first half of the year. In so doing it reinforces our long-term themes of “Peak Polarization” and “Limited Big Government.” As Americans face rising foreign policy challenges, a new bipartisanship is emerging, particularly on industrial and trade policy. Checking Up On Our Three Key Views For 2022 Here are our three key trends for 2022 with comments about their development over the past three months: 1.   From Single-Party Rule To Gridlock: We argued that the Biden administration would pass a watered-down reconciliation bill on a party-line vote by June at latest. Then Congress would grind to a halt for election campaigning, to be followed by Republicans taking one or both chambers of Congress, restoring gridlock and making it hard to pass major legislation from the second half of 2022 through 2024. This view is still generally on track. The basis for believing that a bill will still pass is that the Democrats are in trouble in the midterms and badly need a legislative victory. Public opinion polls suggest they face a beating reminiscent of President Trump and the Republicans in 2018 (Chart 2). Democrats trail Republicans in enthusiasm. Only about 45% of Democrats and 42% of Biden voters are enthusiastic to vote, while 50% of Republicans and 54% of Trump voters are enthusiastic. Men, who lean Republican, are more enthusiastic than women, by 51% to 38%, according to the pollster Morning Consult.1 With the economy and foreign policy rising as the most important issues of the election, Democrats have lost their key issues of health care and the pandemic. Notably Democrats have also lost ground on traditional strengths like education. However, the Ukraine war has put a new emphasis on energy security which Democrats are harnessing to repackage their climate agenda. Hence Democrats will make a last-ditch effort to pass a reconciliation bill before the summer campaigning gets under way. The “Build Back Better” plan was always going to be watered down but now it will be extensively revised. The bill will now have to be closer to neutral in its impact on the deficit so as not to feed inflation. Public opinion polls back in January, when the bill was primarily a social welfare bill, showed 61% of political independents in favor, not to mention 85% of Democrats. A majority of independents supported the bill even when asked about each provision separately and when the tax hikes were made plain.2 By halting progress on the left-wing version of the bill that the House of Representatives passed late last year, West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin saved his party from passing a highly stimulative fiscal bill in the middle of the biggest outbreak of inflation since the 1980s, when the output gap was virtually closed (Chart 3). Chart 2Democrats Not Faring Much Better Than Trump Republicans In 2018 Second Quarter Outlook: Gridlock Looms Second Quarter Outlook: Gridlock Looms Chart 3Output Gap Closed, No More Stimulus Needed Output Gap Closed, No More Stimulus Needed Output Gap Closed, No More Stimulus Needed Now Manchin will face a “Build Back Slimmer” bill that will be harder to oppose when Congress comes back from Easter.3 Our research over the past year suggests that Manchin is likely to vote for a bill that meets his main demands. The bill will be crafted for his approval. Manchin supports corporate tax hikes, funding for green energy transition (as long as it is not punitive toward certain sources or technologies), and a cap on prescription drug costs.4 Tax hikes, such as a minimum 15% corporate tax rate on book earnings, will be included, albeit diluted from the original proposals. Most investors have forgotten about the risk of tax hikes altogether so stock investors may not be happy that the US is hiking taxes amid inflation. Earnings estimates for the year are not reflecting any negative news, whether energy shock, or weak consumer confidence, or new taxes (Chart 4). If the bill fails to pass, equity investors may well cheer, since they are worried about inflation rather than deflation and the bill will not truly be deficit-neutral. Chart 4Inflation, War, Potentially Tax Hikes Will Weigh On Earnings Estimates Inflation, War, Potentially Tax Hikes Will Weigh On Earnings Estimates Inflation, War, Potentially Tax Hikes Will Weigh On Earnings Estimates Given Democrats’ thin majorities in both houses (222 versus 210 seats in the House and 50 versus 50 seats in the Senate), a single defection in the Senate can derail the bill, so we cannot have high conviction that it will pass. We are sticking with our 65% subjective odds. Passage of a reconciliation bill will slightly help Democrats’ fortunes ahead of the midterm but Republicans are still highly likely to win at least the House of Representatives. So the transition to gridlock will still occur. Only very rarely do ruling parties gain seats in the midterms. Biden’s loss of support among women voters is a tell-tale sign that trouble looms, as was the case for the Obama administration at this stage in its first term (Chart 5). The implication for financial markets is that the budget reconciliation bill will bring a negative surprise in the form of tax hikes that will weigh on bullish or pro-cyclical sentiment in the second quarter, at least marginally. Chart 5Women Like Biden Less Than Obama, Who Suffered Midterm Losses Second Quarter Outlook: Gridlock Looms Second Quarter Outlook: Gridlock Looms Chart 6Biden's Energy Shock Biden's Energy Shock Biden's Energy Shock 2.   From Legislative To Executive Power: Similarly we anticipated a transition from legislative action to executive action over the course of 2022. After the budget reconciliation bill is decided, the president will have to rely on executive action to achieve any policy goals. We expected this trend to derive from Biden’s regulatory aims as well as from the need to respond to rising geopolitical challenges, especially the energy shock (Chart 6). This shock is the single biggest reason for the market consensus that Democrats will lose Congress this year. The chief equity sector winner was the energy industry, as we expected. Now Biden needs to encourage rather than discourage supply. Until Biden decides whether to lift sanctions on Iran, volatility will prevail in energy markets. But Biden will condone domestic energy production, with a view to alleviating shortages prior to 2024. He will abandon his left wing and adopt the Obama administration’s permissiveness toward domestic energy, which will help oil and natural gas rig counts to rise (Chart 7). Renewable energy policy will gain traction as it will now clearly be seen in the context of national security and energy security. It also combines trade policy with national security in the form of exports to allies. The US now has a free pass to help Europe diversify away from Russian energy. Not that the US can replace Russia but merely that it can make a dent in both oil and liquefied natural gas (Chart 8). Subsidies for green energy are still likely but not a carbon tax or punitive measures toward the fossil fuel industry. Chart 7Biden Revives Obama Truce With O&G Biden Revives Obama Truce With O&G Biden Revives Obama Truce With O&G Chart 8US Helps Europe Diversify Away From Russia Second Quarter Outlook: Gridlock Looms Second Quarter Outlook: Gridlock Looms 3.   From Domestic To Foreign Policy: We fully expected Biden to be forced to pay attention to foreign affairs in 2022, despite his desire to focus on the voter ahead of midterms. We argued that he would maintain a defensive or reactive foreign policy since he would not want to create higher inflation ahead of the midterms and yet oil producers like Russia or Iran would go on offensive due to energy shortage. While Biden has imposed harsh sanctions on Russia, we still define his foreign policy as defensive rather than offensive. First, Biden is reacting to a Russian attack and will not sabotage a ceasefire. Second, Biden is carving out exceptions to US sanctions rather than disciplining or coercing allies into adopting US policy. The administration’s chief foreign policy aim is to refurbish US alliances. Hence the US condones the EU’s continued energy imports from Russia, thus ensuring that Russian energy makes it into the global market, unless the Russians cut natural gas exports (Chart 9). Nevertheless a risk to our view is that Biden will start to adopt a more offensive foreign policy, especially if Democrats are floundering ahead of the midterms. He could turn more aggressive about sanction enforcement if Russia starts bombarding Kyiv again. Or he could slap broad sanctions on China for helping Russia bypass sanctions. To be clear, we fully expect secondary sanctions on China, based on US record of doing so, but we expect them to be targeted rather than broad (Table 1). Chart 9Russian Energy Still Reaches Global Market Russian Energy Still Reaches Global Market Russian Energy Still Reaches Global Market Table 1US Will Slap China With Sanctions Over Russia – Sooner Or Later Second Quarter Outlook: Gridlock Looms Second Quarter Outlook: Gridlock Looms Foreign policy will define US politics and policy in 2022. What matters for markets is whether the energy supply shock gets worse as a result of Biden’s handling of Russia and Iran. A worse energy shock will amplify stock market volatility. On one hand, if Biden suffers a humiliating foreign policy defeat, it will reinforce the negative trends for Democrats in the 2022-24 cycle. Since Republicans, especially former President Trump, would be expected to pursue an offensive rather than defensive foreign and trade policy (e.g. toward Iran’s nuclear program and China’s economy), global economic policy uncertainty would rise and investor risk appetite would fall in this situation (Chart 10). On the other hand, investors will be surprised if Biden achieves a remarkable domestic or foreign policy success that boosts Democrats’ odds in 2022. An early ceasefire in Ukraine combined with a reconciliation bill would give Biden and Democrats a boost. Global policy uncertainty might rise anyway but it would not be super-charged and it would be flat-to-down relative to US policy uncertainty. Democrats could conceivably retain control of the Senate in the latter case. Our quantitative election model says Democrats have a 49% chance of retaining the Senate (Chart 11). This means the election is too close to call, though subjectively we would agree with the model and bet on the Republicans since they only need to gain one seat on a net basis. The model shows Georgia and Arizona flipping back to the Republican side. If the economy and opinion polling improve between now and November, the swing states will see higher probabilities of Democrats staying in power but the model is trending against Democrats and shows their odds of victory falling in every state. Chart 10US Political Outlook Affects Relative Policy Uncertainty US Political Outlook Affects Relative Policy Uncertainty US Political Outlook Affects Relative Policy Uncertainty Chart 11Senate Race Too Close To Call, But Quant Model Now Tips Republicans Second Quarter Outlook: Gridlock Looms Second Quarter Outlook: Gridlock Looms Anything that pares Democrats’ expected losses in Congress will cause US economic policy uncertainty to rise since it goes against the consensus view. Moreover if Republicans only win the House, they will be obstructionist and disruptive in 2023-24, whereas if they win all of Congress they will have to produce bills and try to compromise with Biden. Thus a Republican House but Democratic Senate would imply an increase in policy uncertainty. By contrast, anything that hurts the Democrats will reinforce current expectations and imply that tax hikes might fail, or that they will freeze after the reconciliation bill, which would be marginally positive for US equity investors in an inflationary context. Bottom Line: Democrats still have a 65% subjective chance of passing a reconciliation bill that raises taxes. Investors should favor defensives over cyclicals. Checking Up On Our Strategic Themes For The 2020s Our central long-term thesis is that generational change, social instability, and foreign policy threats are generating a new national consensus in the United States, particularly on economic policy. Hence US political polarization is peaking in the short run and will decline over the long run. The new consensus rests on proactive fiscal policy and a larger government role in the economy to reduce social unrest and improve national security. Table 2 shows our three strategic US political themes. The past year’s inflation surge and the Ukraine war will affect these themes, so we make the following points: Table 2US Political Strategy Structural Themes Second Quarter Outlook: Gridlock Looms Second Quarter Outlook: Gridlock Looms 1.   Millennials/Gen Z Rising: Labor market participation is recovering rapidly from the pandemic. However, workers older than 55 years are not rejoining rapidly, implying that retirees are staying retired and not yet chasing rising wages. Prime age women, however, are rejoining the work force, in a sign that as kids get back to school mothers can return to work (Chart 12). The implication is that the labor shortage will continue for the foreseeable future due to the generational transition but not due to any shift toward traditional values or lifestyles among young women. 2.   Peak Polarization: Polarization has fallen after the 2020 election, as expected, but will likely stay at or near peak levels over the 2022-24 election cycle (Chart 13). Chart 12Generational Shift Evident In Labor Participation Generational Shift Evident In Labor Participation Generational Shift Evident In Labor Participation Chart 13Polarization Near Peak Levels But Will Fall Over Long Run Polarization Near Peak Levels But Will Fall Over Long Run Polarization Near Peak Levels But Will Fall Over Long Run For example, Biden’s reconciliation bill will feed polarization in 2022, since it can only pass on a party-line vote. But its tax and spending programs will have majority support, will redirect funds from corporations that pay low effective tax rates toward corporations that provide renewable energy solutions. Domestic manufacturing will benefit. Another example: Another Biden-Trump showdown in 2024 will fuel polarization but 2024 or 2028 and subsequent elections will see fresh faces with updated policy platforms. The merging of trade protectionism and renewable energy exemplifies the new policy evolution. Again, with polarization at historic levels, domestic terrorism of whatever stripe is a pronounced risk in 2022 and the coming years. But any significant political violence will ultimately drive a new national consensus in favor of federalism. 3.   Limited Big Government: The story of the 2000s and 2010s was the revival of Big Government, first in the George W. Bush national security state, then in the Barack Obama liberal spending tradition, then in the big spending Republican tradition with Trump, and finally in the liberal tradition again with Biden. The combination of popular discontent at home and great power struggle abroad means that the US is unlikely to slash either social programs or defense spending. As for tax hikes, aggressive tax hikes are impractical. Biden may pass some tax hikes but the budget deficit will continue to expand over the long run (Chart 14). At the same time, the shift to Big Government is occurring with an American context. The geography, constitution, and political system militate against centralization. The return of inflation means that fiscal conservatism will also make a comeback, starting with Republicans in the House in 2023, who will oppose new spending as a standard opposition tactic. So while Big Government has returned, and bond investors are pricing this sea change by pushing up Treasury yields, nevertheless the market will also need to price the fact that the growth of government still faces structural limits. Chart 14Reconciliation Bill Will Have Miniscule Impact On Budget Outlook Second Quarter Outlook: Gridlock Looms Second Quarter Outlook: Gridlock Looms These structural themes face crosswinds in 2022. The Millennials and younger generations will not carry the day in the midterm election – the Baby Boomers and Greatest Generation will. Peak polarization will bring negative surprises for investors over the 2022-24 election cycle and potentially even in 2024-28 if Trump is reelected. A Democratic reconciliation bill will expand government programs in 2022, while Republicans will revert to big spending ways if they gain full control of government again in 2025. Nevertheless the evidence suggests that generational change, peak polarization, and limited big government will prevail over time. The younger generations favor more proactive fiscal policy. Fiscal policy will address social unrest and geopolitical threats. But big government will drive inflation, which will in turn force voters to impose limits on government over the long run. Bottom Line: The US will opt to inflate away its debt over the long run – but it will also need growth and some structural reform once the ills of inflation become fully absorbed by voters. The huge bout of inflation in 2022 is only the beginning of this political process, though it will also accelerate the process. Investment Takeaways Stocks tend to be flattish ahead of midterm elections. This includes elections when a united government becomes gridlocked as is likely in 2022-23. Equities tend to perform better after election uncertainty passes. The transition from single-party government to gridlock also tends to imply higher yields until after the election is over, at which point yields decline (Chart 15). Single-party governments can manipulate fiscal policy to try to stay in power. Chart 15Stocks Tend To Be Flat, Bond Yields High, Until After Midterm Elections Stocks Tend To Be Flat, Bond Yields High, Until After Midterm Elections Stocks Tend To Be Flat, Bond Yields High, Until After Midterm Elections Defensives are outperforming cyclicals on slowing growth, rising interest rates, rising labor costs and energy prices, and rising uncertainty. Our worst call for Q1 was our tactical long growth over value stocks. We made this trade knowing it went against our strategic approach, which has favored value over growth since we launched the US Political Strategy in January 2021. Our reasoning was that a geopolitical crisis would cause a temporary spike in energy prices but a longer drop in bond yields. In fact bond yields rose anyway. We still think tech is increasingly attractive, especially after the corporate minimum tax passes. The brief inversion of the 2-year/10-year yield curve suggests the US economy is flirting with recession. Other parts of the curve are not yet confirming this signal and there can be a long lead time between inversion and recession. However, there is not yet a ceasefire in Ukraine and certainly not a durable ceasefire. The US and Iran do not yet have a deal to avoid a major increase in geopolitical tensions. The risk of a bigger energy shock from Russia or Iran or both is significant and could shorten the cycle. We recommend going strategically long S&P 500 oil and gas transportation and storage relative to the broad market. We also recommend taking advantage of the lull in fighting in Ukraine to join our Geopolitical Strategy in going strategically long US defense stocks relative to the broad market. Tactically we recommend going long renewable energy since the Democrats’ pending reconciliation bill will benefit from broader public recognition of the need for the energy security of both the US and its allies (Chart 16). Chart 16Go Long Defense, Energy Storage, And Renewables Go Long Defense, Energy Storage, And Renewables Go Long Defense, Energy Storage, And Renewables Matt Gertken Senior Vice President Chief US Political Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1     See “National Tracking Poll,” Morning Consult and Politico, #2202029, February 5-6, 2022, assets.morningconsult.com. 2     Admittedly this poll is by a left-leaning organization but polling throughout 2021 supports the general conclusion that a majority of political independents support the key proposals. See Anika Dandekar and Ethan Winter, “Majority of Voters Still Want the Build Back Better Act Passed,” Data for Progress, January 4, 2022, dataforprogress.org. 3    See Nick Sobczyk and Nico Portuondo, “Democrats eye ‘Build Back Slimmer’ on reconciliation,” E&E News, March 24, 2022, eenews.net. 4    See Eugene Daniels, “The Left Gears Up to Take on Manchin Again,” Politico, March 29, 2022, politico.com. See also “Regan, McCarthy, Wyden talk revival of BBB,” The Fence Post, March 25, 2022, thefencepost.com.   Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Table A2Political Risk Matrix Second Quarter Outlook: Gridlock Looms Second Quarter Outlook: Gridlock Looms Table A3US Political Capital Index Second Quarter Outlook: Gridlock Looms Second Quarter Outlook: Gridlock Looms Chart A1Presidential Election Model Second Quarter Outlook: Gridlock Looms Second Quarter Outlook: Gridlock Looms Chart A2Senate Election Model Second Quarter Outlook: Gridlock Looms Second Quarter Outlook: Gridlock Looms Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Second Quarter Outlook: Gridlock Looms Second Quarter Outlook: Gridlock Looms Table A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Second Quarter Outlook: Gridlock Looms Second Quarter Outlook: Gridlock Looms Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Second Quarter Outlook: Gridlock Looms Second Quarter Outlook: Gridlock Looms

Executive Summary Refreshing Our Tactical Trade List A Post-Invasion Reassessment Of Our Tactical Trade Recommendations A Post-Invasion Reassessment Of Our Tactical Trade Recommendations Our current list of tactical trade recommendations centers around two broad themes that predate the Ukraine conflict – rising global inflation expectations and relatively stronger upward pressure on US interest rates. Both themes have been strengthened by the spillovers from the war in Eastern Europe, most notably the link between soaring commodity prices and rising inflation. We still see value in holding our recommended cross-country spread trades that will benefit from continued US bond underperformance (short US Treasuries versus government bonds in Germany, Canada and New Zealand, all at the 10-year maturity). We also maintain our bias to lean against the yield curve flattening trend in the US, but we now prefer to do it solely via our existing SOFR futures calendar spread position. Finding attractively valued inflation breakeven spread trades is more difficult after the latest oil-fueled run-up in developed market inflation expectations. Canadian breakevens, however, stand out as having the greatest upside potential according to our Comprehensive Breakeven Indicators. Bottom Line: Remain in US-Germany, US-Canada an US-New Zealand 10-year government bond yield spread widening trades. Maintain our recommended position in the US SOFR futures curve (long Dec/22 futures, short Dec/24 futures). Add a new inflation-linked bond trade, going long 10-year Canadian breakevens. Feature One month has passed since Russia invaded Ukraine, and investors are still struggling to sort out the financial market implications. Equity markets in the US and Europe have recovered the losses incurred immediately after the conflict began. Equity market volatility has also fallen back to pre-invasion levels according to the VIX index (and its European counterpart, the VStoxx index). That decline in equity volatility has also coincided with a narrowing of corporate credit spreads in both the US and Europe, with the former now fully back to pre-invasion levels. Yet while credit spread volatility has calmed down, government bond yield volatility remains elevated thanks to rising commodity prices putting upward pressure on expectations for inflation and monetary policy (Chart 1). Chart 1Global Bond Yields Are Above Pre-Invasion Levels Global Bond Yields Are Above Pre-Invasion Levels Global Bond Yields Are Above Pre-Invasion Levels ​​​​​​ Table 1Refreshing Our Tactical Trade List A Post-Invasion Reassessment Of Our Tactical Trade Recommendations A Post-Invasion Reassessment Of Our Tactical Trade Recommendations We have already made some “wartime” adjustments to our global bond market cyclical recommendations, with those changes reflected in our model bond portfolio. This week, we review our shorter-term tactical trade recommendations. Our current list of tactical trades revolves around two broad themes that predate the Ukraine conflict – rising global inflation expectations and relatively stronger cyclical upward pressure on US interest rates. Both themes have been strengthened by the spillovers from the war in Eastern Europe, most notably the link between soaring commodity prices and rising inflation. We continue to see the value in holding on to most of our existing tactical trades, with only a couple of adjustments to be made to our US yield curve and global inflation-linked bond positions (Table 1). US Yield Curve Tactical Trades: Shift Focus To SOFR Steepeners We have recommended trades that lean against the aggressive flattening of the US Treasury curve discounted in forward rates since late 2021. Our view has been that markets were discounting too rapid a pace of Fed rate increases in 2022. With the Fed likely delivering fewer hikes than expected, Treasury curve steepening trades would benefit as the spot Treasury curve would flatten by less than implied by the forwards. Related Report  Global Fixed Income StrategyFive Reasons To Tactically Increase US Duration Exposure Now Needless to say, that view has not panned out as we anticipated. The spread between 10-year and 2-year US Treasury yields now sits at a mere +13bps, down from +104bps when we initiated our 2-year/10-year steepener trade last November. The forwards now discount an inversion of that curve starting in June of this year, which would be an extraordinary outcome by historical standards. Typically, the US Treasury curve inverts only after the Fed has delivered an extended monetary tightening cycle that delivers multiple rate hikes over at least a 1-2 year period (Chart 2). Today, the curve has nearly inverted with the Fed having only delivered only a single 25bp rate increase earlier this month. Chart 2The UST Curve Is Unusually Flat Right Now The UST Curve Is Unusually Flat Right Now The UST Curve Is Unusually Flat Right Now Of course, the Fed’s reaction function in the current cycle is different compared to the past. The Fed now follows an average inflation targeting framework that tolerates temporary inflation overshoots after periods when US inflation ran below the Fed’s 2% target. Now, however, the Fed has no choice but to respond to surging US inflation, which has been accelerating since September and is now at levels last seen in 1982. Chart 3Our SOFR Trade Is Similar To Our UST Curve Trade Our SOFR Trade Is Similar To Our UST Curve Trade Our SOFR Trade Is Similar To Our UST Curve Trade We still see the market pricing in too much Fed tightening this year and too few rate hikes in 2023/24. The US overnight index swap (OIS) curve now discounts 218bps of rate hikes in 2022, but 44bps of rate cuts between June 2023 and December 2024. We think a more likely scenario is the Fed doing less than discounted this year, as US inflation should show some deceleration in the latter half of 2022, but then continuing to raise rates in 2023 into 2024. We have expressed this view more specifically through an additional tactical trade that was initiated last month, going long the December 2022 3-month SOFR futures contract versus shorting the December 2024 3-month SOFR futures contract. This new trade is essentially a calendar spread trade between two futures contracts, but with a return profile that has looked quite similar to our 2-year/10-year US Treasury curve flattening trade (Chart 3). Having two tactical trades that are highly correlated, and which both are driven by the same theme of the Fed doing less this year and more over the next two years, is inefficient. We see the SOFR calendar spread trade as a more precise expression of our Fed policy view compared to the 2-year/10-year Treasury curve steepener. In addition, the SOFR trade now offers slightly better value after it has lagged the performance of the Treasury curve trade over the past couple of weeks. Thus, we are keeping this trade in our Tactical Overlay portfolio (see the table on page 15), while closing out our 2-year/10-year steepener at a loss of -92bps.1 Cross-Country Spread Trades: Keeping Betting On Relatively Higher US Yields In our Tactical Overlay portfolio, we currently have three recommended cross-country government bond spread trades that all have one thing in common – a sale of 10-year US Treasuries. The long side of the three trades are different (Germany, New Zealand and Canada), but the logic underlying all three trades is the same. The Fed will deliver more rate hikes than the central banks in the other countries. 10-year US Treasury-German Bund spread Chart 4UST-Bund Spread Is Too Low UST-Bund Spread Is Too Low UST-Bund Spread Is Too Low Expecting a wider US Treasury-German Bund spread remains our highest conviction view in G-10 government bond markets. This is a trade we have described as a more efficient way to position for rising US bond yields than a pure below-benchmark US duration stance. We have maintained that recommendation in both our model bond portfolio and our Tactical Overlay portfolio. For the latter, that trade was implemented using 10-year bond futures in both markets and is up 3.9% since initiation back in October 2021. The case for expecting even more Treasury-Bund spread widening remains strong, for several reasons: Underlying inflation remains higher in the US, particularly when looking at domestic sources of inflation like wages and service sector prices. Europe, which relies more heavily on Russia for its energy supplies than the US, is more at risk of a negative growth shock from the Ukraine conflict. Our fundamental model of the 10-year Treasury-Bund spread shows that the current level of the spread (+197bps) is about one full standard deviation below fair value, which itself is rising due to stronger US economic growth, faster US inflation and a more aggressive path for monetary tightening from the Fed relative to the ECB (Chart 4). The spread between our 24-month discounters in the US and Europe, which measure the amount of rate hikes priced into OIS curves for the two regions over the next two years, has proven to be good leading indicator of the 10-year Treasury-Bund spread. That discounter spread is currently at 99bps, levels last seen when the 10-year Treasury-Bund spread climbed to the 250-300bps range in 2017/18 (Chart 5). With the relative forward curves now discounting a slight narrowing of the US-German 10-year spread over the next year, betting on a wider spread does not suffer from negative carry. We are maintaining this trade in our Tactical Overlay portfolio with great conviction. 10-year US Treasury-Canada government bond spread We entered another cross-country spread trade involving a US Treasury short position earlier this month, in this case versus 10-year Canadian government bonds. This trade is a bet on relative monetary policy moves between the Fed and the Bank of Canada (BoC). Like the Fed, the BoC is facing a problem of high inflation and tight labor markets. Canadian core CPI inflation hit a 19-year high of 3.9% in January, while the Canadian unemployment rate is at a 3-year low of 5.5%. The US is facing even higher inflation and even lower unemployment, but one major difference between the two nations is the degree of household sector debt loads. Canada’s household debt/income ratio now stands at 180%, 55 percentage points higher than the equivalent US ratio, thanks to greater residential mortgage borrowing in Canada (Chart 6). Chart 5Stay Positioned For More UST-Bund Spread Widening Stay Positioned For More UST-Bund Spread Widening Stay Positioned For More UST-Bund Spread Widening The Canadian OIS curve is now discounting a peak policy rate of 3.1% in 2023, which is at the high end of the BoC’s estimated 1.75-2.75% range for the neutral policy rate. Chart 6The BoC Will Have Trouble Matching Fed Hawkishness The BoC Will Have Trouble Matching Fed Hawkishness The BoC Will Have Trouble Matching Fed Hawkishness ​​​​​ Elevated household debt will limit the BoC’s ability to lift rates that high, as this would trigger a major retrenchment of housing demand and a significant cooling of house prices. While the US is also facing issues with robust housing demand and high house prices, this is less of a factor that would limit Fed tightening relative to the BoC because US household balance sheets are not as levered as their Canadian counterparts. We are keeping our short US/long Canada spread trade (implemented using bond futures) in our Tactical Overlay portfolio, with the BoC unlikely to keep pace with the expected Fed rate increases over the next year (Chart 7). Chart 7Stay Positioned For A Narrower Canada-US Spread Stay Positioned For A Narrower Canada-US Spread Stay Positioned For A Narrower Canada-US Spread 10-year US Treasury-New Zealand government bond spread The third cross-country trade in our Tactical Overlay is 10-year New Zealand-US spread widening trade. Chart 8A Big Gap In NZ-US Relative Interest Rate Expectations A Big Gap In NZ-US Relative Interest Rate Expectations A Big Gap In NZ-US Relative Interest Rate Expectations ​​​​​​ Like the Germany and Canada spread trades, we expect the Fed to deliver more rate hikes than the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) which should push up US Treasury yields versus New Zealand equivalents. In the case of this trade, however, interest rate expectations in New Zealand are far more aggressive. Chart 9Stay Positioned For NZ-US Spread Tightening Stay Positioned For NZ-US Spread Tightening Stay Positioned For NZ-US Spread Tightening The RBNZ has already lifted its Official Cash Rate (OCR) by 75bps since starting the tightening cycle in mid-2021. The New Zealand OIS curve is now discounting an additional 253bps of rate hikes in this cycle, eventually reaching a peak OCR of 3.5% in June 2023. This would put the OCR into slightly restrictive territory based on the range of neutral rate estimates from the RBNZ’s various quantitative models (Chart 8). This contrasts to the pricing in the US OIS curve that places the peak in the fed funds rate at 2.8% next year before falling back to the low end of the FOMC’s 2.0-3.0% range of neutral estimates in 2024. Both the US and New Zealand are suffering from similarly high rates of inflation, with New Zealand headline inflation reaching 5.9% in the last available data from Q4/2021. However, while markets are already pricing in restrictive monetary settings in New Zealand, markets are yet to price in a similarly restrictive move in the fed funds rate. We continue to see scope for a narrowing of the New Zealand-US 10-year bond yield spread over at least the next six months. There has already been meaningful compression of the 2-year yield spread as US rate expectations have converged towards New Zealand levels (Chart 9) – we expect the 10-year spread to follow suit. Inflation Breakeven Trades: Swap Canada For Australia We currently have one inflation-linked bond (ILB) trade in our Tactical Overlay portfolio, betting on higher inflation breakevens in Australia. We initiated this trade last October, largely based on the signal from our suite of Comprehensive Breakeven Indicators (CBI) for the major developed economy ILB markets. The CBIs contain three components: the deviation from fair value from our 10-year breakeven spread models, the distance between realized headline inflation and the central bank target, and the gap between the 10-year breakeven and survey-based measures of longer-term inflation expectations. Those three measures are standardized and aggregated to form the CBI. Countries with lower CBIs have more upside potential for breakevens, and their ILBs should be favored over those from nations with higher CBIs. Chart 10Breaking Down Our Comprehensive Breakeven Inflation Indicators A Post-Invasion Reassessment Of Our Tactical Trade Recommendations A Post-Invasion Reassessment Of Our Tactical Trade Recommendations Chart 11Favor Canadian Inflation-Linked Bonds Vs. Australia Favor Canadian Inflation-Linked Bonds Vs. Australia Favor Canadian Inflation-Linked Bonds Vs. Australia Given the latest run-up in global inflation breakevens on the back of soaring oil prices, there are now no countries in our CBI universe that have a negative CBI (Chart 10). Canada has the lowest CBI, and thus the highest upside potential for breakeven spread widening. We are taking a modest profit of +40bps in our Australian breakeven trade, as we are approaching the self-imposed six-month holding period limit on our tactical trades and our Australian CBI is not indicating major upside for Australian breakevens.2 Based on the message from our indicators, we see a better case for entering a new tactical spread widening position in 10-year Canadian ILBs. A comparison of the CBIs between Canada and Australia shows that the Canadian 10-year inflation breakeven is well below our model-implied fair value, which incorporates both oil prices and currency levels (Chart 11). This contrasts to the Australian breakeven which is now well above fair value. A similar divergence appears when comparing breakeven spreads to survey-based measures of inflation expectations, with Canadian breakevens looking too “undervalued” compared to Australia. While realized headline inflation is above the respective central bank targets, especially in Canada, the valuation cushion makes the ILBs of the latter the better bargain of the two. The details of our new Canadian 10-year breakeven trade, where we go long the cash ILB and sell 10-year Canadian bond futures against it, are shown in our Tactical Overlay table on page 15.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      The Treasury curve trade is actually a “butterfly” trade, where we have included an allocation to US 3-month Treasury bills (cash) to make the curve steepener duration-neutral. Thus, the trade is more specifically a position where we are long a 2-year US Treasury bullet and short a cash/10-year US Treasury barbell with a duration equal to that of the 2-year. 2     We have recently discovered an error in our how we have calculated the returns on the 10-year Australian futures leg of our Australian 10-year inflation breakeven widening trade. The final total return for our trade shown in the Tactical Overlay table on page 15 corrects for our error, and fortunately shows a significantly higher return than we have published in past reports. GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark A Post-Invasion Reassessment Of Our Tactical Trade Recommendations A Post-Invasion Reassessment Of Our Tactical Trade Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) A Post-Invasion Reassessment Of Our Tactical Trade Recommendations A Post-Invasion Reassessment Of Our Tactical Trade Recommendations Tactical Overlay Trades

Executive Summary Expansion In European Defense Expanding Military Spending Expanding Military Spending European yields have significant upside on a structural basis. European government spending will remain generous, which will boost domestic demand; meanwhile, lower global excess savings will lift the neutral rate of interest and structurally higher inflation will boost term premia. A short-term pullback in yields is nonetheless likely; however, it will not short-circuit the trend toward higher yields on a long-term basis. CYCLICAL INCEPTION DATE RETURN SINCE INCEPTION (%) COMMENT EQUITIES Favor European Aerospace & Defense Over European Benchmark 3/28/2022     Favor European Aerospace & Defense Over Other Industrials 3/28/2022     Bottom Line: Investors should maintain a below-benchmark duration in their European fixed-income portfolios. Higher yields driven by robust domestic demand and strong capex also boost the appeal of industrial, materials, and financials sectors. Aerospace and defense stocks are particularly appealing.     The economic impact of the war in Ukraine continues to drive the day-to-day fluctuations of the market; however, investors cannot ignore the long-term trends in the economy and markets. The direction of bond yields over the coming years is paramount among those questions. Does the recent rise in yields only reflect the current inflationary shock caused by both supply-chain impairments and commodity inflation—that is, is it finite? Or does that rise mirror structural forces and therefore have much further to run? We lean toward yields having more upside over the coming years, propelled higher by structural forces. As a result, we continue to recommend investors structurally overweight sectors that benefit from a rising yield environment, such as financials and industrials, while also favoring value over growth stocks. The defense sector is particularly attractive. Three Structural Forces Behind Higher Yields The current supply-chain disruptions and inflation crises have played a critical role in lifting European yields. However, a broader set of factors underpins our bearish bond view—namely, the lack of fiscal discipline accentuated by the consequences of the Ukrainian war, the likely move higher in the neutral rate of interest generated by lower savings, and the long-term uptrend in inflation. Profligate Governments Chart 1 The Lasting Bond Bear Market The Lasting Bond Bear Market Larger government deficits will contribute to higher European yields. Europe is not as fiscally conservative as it was before the COVID-19 crisis. Establishment politicians must fend off pressures caused by voters attracted to populist parties willing to spend more. Consequently, IMF estimates published prior to the Ukrainian war already tabulated that, for the next five years, Europe’s average structurally-adjusted budget deficit would be 2.4% of GDP wider than it was last decade (Chart 1). Chart 2Expanding Military Spending Expanding Military Spending Expanding Military Spending The Ukrainian crisis is also prompting a fiscal response that will last many years. Europe does not want to stand still in the face of the Russian threat. Today, Western Europe’s military spending amounts to 1.5% of GDP, or €170 billion. This is below NATO’s threshold of 2% of GDP. Rebuilding military capacity will take large investments. Thus, European nations are likely to move toward that target and even go beyond. Conservatively, if we assume that military spending hits 2% of GDP by the end of the decade, it will rise above €300 billion (Chart 2). Weaning Europe off Russian energy will also prevent a significant fiscal retrenchment. This effort will take two dimensions. The first initiative will be to build infrastructures to receive more LNG from the rest of the world to limit Russian intake. Constructing regasification and storage facilities as well as re-directing pipeline networks be costly and require additional CAPEX over the coming years. The second initiative will be to double-up on green initiatives to decrease the need for fossil fuel. The NGEU funds are already tackling this strategic goal. Nonetheless, the more than €100 billion reserved for renewable energy and energy preservation initiatives was only designed to kick-start hitting the EU’s CO2 emission target for 2050. Accelerating this process not only helps cutting the dependence on Russian energy, but it is also popular with voters. The path of least resistance is to invest in that sphere and to increase such investment beyond the current sums from the NGEU program. The last fiscal push is likely to be more temporary. The UN estimates that four million refugees have left Ukraine, with the vast majority settling in the EU. Accommodating that many individuals will be costly and will add to government spending across the region. Even if mostly transitory, this spending will have an important impact on activity. Larger fiscal deficits push yields higher for two reasons. Greater sovereign issuance that does not reflect a negative shock to the private sector will need to offer higher rates of returns to attract investors. Moreover, greater government spending will boost aggregate demand, which increases money demand. As a result, the price of money will be higher than otherwise, which means that interest rates will rise—as will yields. Decreasing Global Excess Savings Decreasing global excess savings will put upward pressure on the global neutral rate of interest, a phenomenon Peter Berezin recently discussed in BCA’s Global Investment Strategy service. This process will be visible in Europe as well. The US will play an important role in the process of lifting global neutral rates because the dollar remains the foundation of the global financial system. Compared to last decade, the main drag on US savings is that household deleveraging is over. As households decreased their debt load following the global financial crisis, a large absorber of global savings vanished, putting downward pressure on the price of those savings. Today, US households enjoy strong net worth equal to 620% of GDP and have resumed accumulating debt (Chart 3). Consequently, the downward trend in US total private nonfinancial debt loads has ended. The US capex cycle is likely to experience a boost as well. As Peter highlighted, the US capital stock is ageing (Chart 4). Moreover, the past five years have witnessed three events that underscore the fragility of global supply-chains: a disruptive Sino-US trade war, a pandemic, and now a military conflict. This realization is causing firms to move from a “just-in-time” approach to managing supply-chains to a “just-in-case” one. The process of building redundancies and localized supply chains will add to capex for many years, pushing up ex-ante investments relative to savings, and thus, interest rates. Chart 3US Households Are Done Deleveraging US Households Are Done Deleveraging US Households Are Done Deleveraging Chart 4An Ageing US Capital Stock An Ageing US Capital Stock An Ageing US Capital Stock China’s current account surplus is also likely to decline. For the past two decades, China has been one of the largest providers of savings to the global economy. This is a result of an annual current account surplus that first averaged $150 billion per year from 2000 to 2010 and then $180 billion from 2010 to 2020, and now stands at $316 billion. Looking ahead, China wants to use fiscal policy more aggressively to support demand, which often boosts imports without increasing exports. Also, more domestically-oriented supply chains around the world will limit the growth of Chinese exports. This combination will compress Chinese excess savings, which will place upward pressure on the global neutral rate of interest. Europe is not immune to declining savings. Over the past ten years, the Euro Area current account surplus has averaged €253 billion. Germany’s current account surplus stood at 7.4% of GDP before the pandemic. Those excess savings depressed global rates in general and European ones especially (Chart 5). As in the US, Europe’s capital stock is ageing and needs some upgrade (Chart 6). Moreover, greater government spending boosts aggregate demand. Because investment is a form of derived demand, stronger overall spending promotes capex to a greater extent. Thus, Europe’s public infrastructure push will lift private capex and curtail regional excess savings beyond the original drag from wider fiscal deficits. Additionally, the European population is getting older and will have to tap into their excess savings as they retire. This process will further diminish Europe’s current account surplus, that is, its excess savings. Chart 5Excess Savings Cap Relative Yields Excess Savings Cap Relative Yields Excess Savings Cap Relative Yields Chart 6An Ageing European Capital Stock Too An Ageing European Capital Stock Too An Ageing European Capital Stock Too Structurally Higher Inflation BCA believes that the current inflation surge is temporary and mostly reflects a mismatch between demand and supply. However, we also anticipate that, once this inflation climax dissipates, inflation will settle at a level higher than that prior to COVID-19 and will trend higher for the remainder of this decade. Labor markets will tighten going forward because policy rates remain well below neutral interest rates. Output gaps will close because of robust government spending and capex. This will keep wage growth elevated in the US and reanimate moribund salary gains in the Eurozone (Chart 7). This process, especially when combined with less efficient global supply chains and lower excess savings (which may also be thought of as deficient demand), will maintain inflation at a higher level than in the past two decades. Higher inflation will lift yields for two main reasons. First, investors will require both greater long-term inflation compensation and higher policy rates than in the past. Second, higher inflation often generates greater economic volatility and policy uncertainty, which means that today’s minimal term premia will increase over time (Chart 8). Together, these forces will create a lasting upward drift in yields. Chart 7European Wages Will Eventually Revive European Wages Will Eventually Revive European Wages Will Eventually Revive Chart 8Term Premia Won't Stay This Low Term Premia Won't Stay This Low Term Premia Won't Stay This Low Bottom Line: European yields will sport a structural uptrend for the remainder of the decade. Three forces support this assertion. First, European government spending will remain generous, supported by infrastructure and military spending. Second, global excess savings will recede as US consumer deleveraging ends, global capex rises, and the Chinese current account surplus narrows. Europe will mimic this process in response to an ageing population, greater government spending, and capex. Finally, inflation is on a structural uptrend, which will warrant higher term premia across the world. Not A Riskless View There are two main risks to this view, one in the near-term and one more structural. The near-term risk is the most pertinent for investors right now. Global yields may have embarked on a structural upward path, but a temporary pullback is becoming likely. As Chart 9 highlights, the expected twelve-month change in the US policy rate is at the upper limit of its range of the past three decades. Historically, when the discounter attains such a lofty level, a retrenchment in Treasury yields ensues, since investors have already discounted a significant degree of tightening. The same is true in Europe, where the ECB discounter is also consistent with a temporary pullback in German 10-year yields (Chart 10). Chart 9Discounters Point To A Treasury Rally... Discounters Point To A Treasury Rally... Discounters Point To A Treasury Rally... Chart 10... And A Bund Rally ... And A Bund Rally ... And A Bund Rally Chart 11A Mixed Message A Mixed Message A Mixed Message Investor positioning confirms the increasing tactical odds of a yield correction. The BCA Composite Technical Indicator for bonds is massively oversold, which often anticipates a bond rally (Chart 11). This echoes the signals from the JP Morgan surveys that highlight the very low portfolio duration of the bank’s clients. However, the BCA Bond Valuation Index suggests that bonds remain expensive. Together, these divergent messages point toward a temporary bond rally, not a permanent one. The longer-term risk is regularly highlighted by Dhaval Joshi in BCA’s Counterpoint service. Dhaval often shows that the stock of global real estate assets has hit $300 trillion or 330% of global GDP. Real estate is a highly levered asset class and global cap rates have collapsed with global bond yields. With little valuation cushion, real estate prices could become very vulnerable to higher yields. Nevertheless, real estate is also a real asset that produces an inflation hedge. Moreover, rental income follows global household income, and stronger aggregate demand will likely lift median household income especially in an environment in which globalization has reached its apex and populism remains a constant threat. Bottom Line: Global investor positioning has become stretched; therefore, a near-term pullback in yield is very likely, especially as central bank expectations have become aggressive. Nonetheless, a bond rally is unlikely to be durable in an environment in which bonds are expensive and in which growth and inflation will remain more robust than they were last decade. A greater long-term risk stems from expensive global real estate markets. However, real estate is sensitive to global economic activity and inflation, which should allow this asset class ultimately to weather higher yields. Investment Conclusions An environment in which yields rise will inflict additional damage on global bond portfolios. This is especially true in inflation-adjusted terms, since real yields stand at a paltry -0.76% in the US and -2.5% in Germany. Hence, we continue to recommend investors maintain a structural below-benchmark duration bias in their portfolios. Nonetheless, investors with enough flexibility in their investment mandate should take advantage of the expected near-term pullback in yields. Those without this flexibility should use the pullback as an opportunity to shorten their portfolio duration. Higher yields will also prevent strong multiple expansion from taking place; hence, the broad stock market will also offer paltry long-term real returns. Another implication of rising yields, especially if they reflect stronger growth and rising neutral interest rates, is to underweight growth stocks relative to value stocks (Chart 12). Growth stocks are expensive and very vulnerable to the pull on discount rates that follows rising risk-free rates. Meanwhile, stronger economic activity driven by infrastructure spending and capex will help the bottom line of industrial and material firms. Financials will also benefit. Higher yields help this sector and robust capex also boosts loan growth, which will generate a significant tailwind for banking revenues. Hence, rising yields will boost the attractiveness of banks, especially after they have become significantly cheaper because of the Ukrainian war (Chart 13). Chart 12Favor Value Over Growth Favor Value Over Growth Favor Value Over Growth Chart 13Bank Remain Attractive Bank Remain Attractive Bank Remain Attractive Related Report  European Investment StrategyFallout From Ukraine Finally, four weeks ago, we highlighted that defense stocks were particularly appealing in today’s context. The re-armament of Europe in response to secular tensions with Russia is an obvious tailwind for this sector. However, it is not the only one. A long-term theme of BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy service is the expanding multipolarity of the world.  The end of an era dominated by a single hegemon (the US) causes a rise in geopolitical instability and tensions. The resulting increase in conflict will invite a pickup in global military spending. Chart 14Defense Will Outshine The Rest Defense Will Outshine The Rest Defense Will Outshine The Rest European defense and aerospace stocks are expensive, with a forward P/E ratio approaching the top-end of their range relative to the broad market and other industrials. However, their relative earnings are also depressed following the collapse in airplane sales caused by the pandemic. Our bet on the sector is that its earnings will outperform the broad market as well as other industrials because of the global trend toward military buildup. As relative earnings recover their pandemic-induced swoon, so will relative equity prices (Chart 14). Bottom Line: Higher yields warrant a structural below-benchmark duration in European fixed-income portfolios, even if a near-term yield pullback is likely. As a corollary, value stocks will outperform growth stocks while industrials, materials, and financials will also beat a broad market whose long-term real returns will be poor. Within the industrial complex, aerospace and defense equities are particularly appealing because a global military buildup will boost their earnings prospects durably.   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com   Tactical Recommendations Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Trades

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 The Geopolitical Consequences Of The Ukraine War The Geopolitical Consequences Of The Ukraine War 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 The Geopolitical Consequences Of The Ukraine War The Geopolitical Consequences Of The Ukraine War 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 The Geopolitical Consequences Of The Ukraine War The Geopolitical Consequences Of The Ukraine War 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 The Geopolitical Consequences Of The Ukraine War The Geopolitical Consequences Of The Ukraine War 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 The Geopolitical Consequences Of The Ukraine War The Geopolitical Consequences Of The Ukraine War 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 The Geopolitical Consequences Of The Ukraine War The Geopolitical Consequences Of The Ukraine War Chart 5Economically, Germany Will Cleave To The West Economically, Germany Will Cleave To The West Economically, 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 The Geopolitical Consequences Of The Ukraine War The Geopolitical Consequences Of The Ukraine War 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 China Will Delay Any Break With Europe China 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 The Geopolitical Consequences Of The Ukraine War The Geopolitical Consequences Of The Ukraine War 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 Offers Key To China's Eurasian Strategy Russia 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 Geopolitical Consequences Of The Ukraine War The Geopolitical Consequences Of The Ukraine War 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 The Geopolitical Consequences Of The Ukraine War The Geopolitical Consequences Of The Ukraine War 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 The Geopolitical Consequences Of The Ukraine War The Geopolitical Consequences Of The Ukraine War 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 US Cannot Deter China Without Triggering Crisis US 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 The Geopolitical Consequences Of The Ukraine War The Geopolitical Consequences Of The Ukraine War 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 The Geopolitical Consequences Of The Ukraine War The Geopolitical Consequences Of The Ukraine War 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 Yet US Polarization Is Peaking... Aided By Foreign Threats Yet 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 Investment Takeaways Investment Takeaways Europe and China will strive to maintain their economic relationship, which will delay a total breakdown in East-West relations. However, Germany and Europe will ultimately cleave to the US, while China will ultimately cleave to Russia, and the pace of transition into a new bifurcated world will accelerate depending on events. If the energy shock escalates to the point of triggering a European or global economic crash, the pace of strategic confrontation will accelerate. The global peace that emerged in 1945 is encountering very significant strains comparable to the most precarious moments of the Cold War. The Cold War period was not peaceful everywhere but the US and USSR avoided World War III. They did so on the basis of the peace settlement of 1945. The reason the 1945 peace regime is decaying is because the US, the preponderant power, is capable of achieving global hegemony, which is threatening to other great powers. The US combines the greatest share of wealth and military power and no single power can resist it. Yet a number of powers are capable of challenging and undermining it, namely China, but also Russia in a military sense, as well as lesser powers. The US is internally divided and struggling to maintain its power and prestige. The result is a return to the normal, anarchic structure of international relations throughout history. Several powerful states are competing for national security in a world that lacks overarching law. Great Power struggle is here to stay. Investors must adjust their portfolios to keep them in tune with foreign policies – in addition to monetary and fiscal policies. Given that US and Indian equities are already richly valued, in great part reflecting this geopolitical dynamic, investors should look for opportunities in international markets that are relatively secure from geopolitical risk, such as in the Americas, Western Europe, and Oceania (Chart 17).   Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)

Executive Summary Biden’s Low Approval On Foreign Policy Biden's Foreign Policy And The Midterms Biden's Foreign Policy And The Midterms   The energy shock stemming from President Biden’s foreign policy challenges could get worse, especially if US-Iran talks fail. The energy and inflation shocks condemn the Democrats to a dismal midterm election showing, even if Biden handles the Ukraine crisis reasonably well and his approval rating stabilizes. Biden’s foreign policy is still somewhat defensive, focusing on refurbishing US alliances, and as such should not force the EU to boycott Russian energy outright. Biden’s foreign policy doctrine will likely be set in stone with his imminent decision on whether to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. We doubt it will happen but if it does the market impact will be fleeting due to lack of implementation. Biden’s foreign policy toward China will likely grow more aggressive over time. Recommendation (Cyclical) Inception Level Initiation Date Return Long ISE Cyber-Security Index  647.53  Dec 8, 2021 -4.6% Bottom Line: President Biden foreign policy challenges are creating persistent downside risks for equity markets. Feature External risk is one of our key views for US politics in 2022. This risk includes but is not limited to the war in Ukraine. The Biden administration’s urgent foreign policy challenges are creating persistent downside risks for the global economy and financial markets in the short run – embodied in rising energy costs (Chart 1). Related Report  US Political Strategy2022 Key Views: Gridlock Begins Before The Midterms Chart 1Oil Prices And Prices At The Pump Oil Prices And Prices At The Pump Oil Prices And Prices At The Pump Ukraine Can Still Hurt US Stocks The Ukraine war is not on the verge of resolution – more bad news is likely to hit US equity markets. The Russian military is bombarding the port city of Mauripol, which will fall in the coming days or weeks (Map 1). Given that Mauripol is refusing to surrender, it is highly unlikely that the central government in Kiev will surrender anytime soon. Map 1Russian Invasion Of Ukraine 2022 Biden's Foreign Policy And The Midterms Biden's Foreign Policy And The Midterms The military situation is approaching stalemate and yet ceasefire talks are not promising. The Ukrainians do not accept Russian control of Donbas and Crimea and will need to hold a referendum on the terms of any peace agreement. Lack of progress will drive the Russians to escalate the conflict, whether by means of bombardment, troop reinforcements, or bringing the Belarussian military into the fight. The United States and its allies are increasing defense support for Ukraine while warning that Russia could use chemical, biological, or even tactical nuclear weapons. In our sister Geopolitical Strategy service we argue that the war to get worse before it gets better, with Russia determined to replace the government in Kiev. US investors should expect continued equity market volatility. US and global growth expectations are yet to be fully downgraded as a result of the global energy shortage – the Fed now expects GDP growth of 2.8% while the Atlanta Fed shows GDP clocking in at 1.3%, well below consensus expectations (Chart 2). Corporate earnings will suffer downgrades as a result of higher energy costs. The Federal Reserve just started hiking interest rates and it is not discouraged by foreign affairs. Real rates will rise. Chairman Jerome Powell sounded a hawkish tone by saying that he is willing to hike by 50 basis points at a time if required. The threat of a wage-price spiral is real. The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope is on the verge of inverting. The Fed’s new interest rate projections suggest that the interest rate will rise above the neutral rate in 2023-24. Chart 2Growth Will Take A Hit chart 2 Growth Will Take A Hit Growth Will Take A Hit Ukraine’s Impact On The Midterm Elections A negative foreign policy and macroeconomic background will compound the Democratic Party’s woes in the midterm elections. Biden’s approval rating is languishing at Donald Trump levels, yet without Trump’s high marks on the economy (Chart 3). Biden will not be able to turn the economy around because even if inflation starts to abate, voters will react to the one-year and two-year increase in inflation rather than any month-on-month improvement. Republicans have pulled ahead of Democrats in generic congressional ballot opinion polling (Chart 4). Even if Biden’s ratings stabilize ahead of the midterms (even if he handles Ukraine well), Democrats face a shellacking. The market is rightly priced for Republicans to take over all of Congress, though the GOP’s odds of taking the Senate are lower than consensus holds (Chart 5). A Republican victory is not negative for US corporate earnings but uncertainty over the general direction of US policy will continue to weigh on the equity market this year. Chart 3Biden’s Approval Ratings Biden's Foreign Policy And The Midterms Biden's Foreign Policy And The Midterms Chart 4Republicans Take The Lead Biden's Foreign Policy And The Midterms Biden's Foreign Policy And The Midterms Biden’s foreign policy can and will get a lot more aggressive if the Democratic Party views its election odds as so dismal that foreign tensions come to be seen as a source of badly needed popular support. That is not yet the case but developments with Russia and Iran could force the administration to adopt a more offensive foreign policy, which would be negative for financial markets. Hence investors will have to worry about rising policy uncertainty over the 2022-24 political cycle. Chart 5Midterm Election Odds Biden's Foreign Policy And The Midterms Biden's Foreign Policy And The Midterms Biden’s Policy Toward Russia And Europe It is too soon to say precisely what is the “Biden Doctrine” of foreign policy. The withdrawal from Afghanistan and the war in Ukraine were thrust upon Biden. What will define his foreign policy is how he handles Russia, Iran, and China going forward. By the end of the year, Biden will have forged his foreign policy doctrine, for better or worse. Biden began with a defensive foreign policy. His administration’s primary intention is to refurbish US alliances in Europe and Asia to counter Russia and China. Consider: In 2021, Biden condoned Germany’s deepening economic and energy integration with Russia (i.e. the Nord Stream II pipeline). Russia’s invasion forced Germany to change its mind and join the US and other democracies in imposing harsh sanctions on Russia. Even so, the US is calibrating its actions to what the European allies can stomach. Biden is attempting to negotiate new trade deals with allies, by contrast with President Trump’s tendency to slap tariffs on allies as well as rivals.1 Biden is likely to try to revive the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with Europe, he is scheduled to restart talks with the UK about a post-Brexit trade deal, and he will probably attempt to rejoin the Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) in future. Now that Russia has invaded Ukraine, Biden’s foreign policy is becoming more aggressive, albeit still within certain limitations: The US is not willing to send troops to defend Ukraine or impose a no-fly zone, which would trigger direct conflict with Russia. But the US is continuing to provide Ukraine with lethal weapons, which helped precipitate the war. Congress recently voted to increase Ukraine aid by $13.6 billion, including $6.5 billion in defense support, including drones, Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, and Javelin anti-tank missiles. These are supposed to start arriving in Ukraine in a few days. The US is reportedly looking into providing Ukraine with Soviet-era SA-8 air defense, though not the S-300s missile defense.2 The US is bulking up its military presence across Europe to deter Russia from broadening its attacks beyond Ukraine. Biden has declared a red line in that he will defend “every inch” of NATO territory. This means that a single Russian attack that spills over into Poland or another NATO country will precipitate a new and bigger crisis (and financial market selloff). The risk going forward is that American policy could grow increasingly aggressive to the point that tensions with Russia escalate. Unlike Russia and Europe, the US does not have vital national interests at stake in Ukraine. American national security is not directly threatened by the war there. Hence the US can afford to take actions that its European allies would prefer not to take. As long as Biden prioritizes solidarity with the Europeans, geopolitical risks may be manageable for the markets. But if Biden attempts to lead an even bolder charge against Russia (or China), then risks will become unmanageable. So far Biden is allowing Europe to impose sanctions at its own pace and intensity. The Europeans must tread more carefully than the US, lest sanctions cause a broad energy cutoff that plunges their economy into recession along with Russia’s. This would destabilize the whole Eurasian continent and increase the chances of strategic miscalculation and a broader military conflict. Europe has opted for a medium-term strategy of energy diversification while avoiding the US’s outright boycott of Russian energy. The EU depends on Russia for 26% of its oil and 16% of its natural gas imports (Chart 6). The dependency is higher for certain countries. Germany, Italy, Hungary, and others oppose an outright boycott – and a single EU member can veto any new sanctions. Theoretically the Europeans could ban oil while still accepting natural gas. Natural gas trade routes are fixed due to physical pipelines, whereas oil is more easily rerouted, leaving Russia with alternatives if Europe stops importing oil. But Russia exports 63% of its oil to developed markets and 65% of its natural gas, with the bulk of that going to the European Union at 48% and 15% respectively (Chart 7). Russia’s economy would suffer from an oil ban and it would assume that a natural gas ban would soon follow, which could unhinge expectations that war tensions can be contained. Chart 6EU Mulls Boycott Of Russian Oil Biden's Foreign Policy And The Midterms Biden's Foreign Policy And The Midterms Chart 7Russian Regime Depends On O&G Biden's Foreign Policy And The Midterms Biden's Foreign Policy And The Midterms Given the damaged state of the Russian economy and high costs of war, Moscow will probably keep accepting energy revenues as long as Europe is buying. But if it believes Europe will cut off the flow, then it has an incentive to act first. This is a risk, not our base case. Still, as Russia targets the capital Kiev with intense shelling and civilian casualties increase, US pressure for an expansion of sanctions will increase. This is the risk that investors need to monitor. If the US brings the EU around to adopting sanctions on Russian energy then equity markets will plunge anew. And since Europe is diversifying over time anyway, Russia will have to escalate the war now to try to achieve its aims before its source of funds dries up. Biden’s Policy Toward China Biden’s foreign policy also started out defensively with regard to China. Biden intended to stabilize relations, i.e. engage in some areas like climate policy and avoid expanding President Trump’s trade war. Both the Democratic Party and the Communist Party face important political events in 2022 and their inclination is to prevent global instability from interfering. But the Ukraine war has made this goal harder. As with Europe the immediate question is whether Biden will try to force China to cooperate on Russia sanctions. But in China’s case Biden is more likely to use punitive measures – at least eventually. After a two-hour bilateral phone call on March 18, Biden “described the implications and consequences if China provides material support to Russia as it conducts brutal attacks against Ukrainian cities and civilians.”3 Biden’s threat of sanctions is a negative for Chinese exporters and banks (Chart 8). Chinese stock markets were already suffering from China’s historic confluence of internal and external political and economic risks. The Ukraine war has increased the fear of western investors that investing in China will result in stranded capital when strategic tensions rise explode, as with Russia. Chart 8Biden Threatens China With Sanctions Biden Threatens China With Sanctions Biden Threatens China With Sanctions Economically, China is much more dependent on the West than Russia. While Germany and Russia take a comparable share of Chinese exports, at 3.4%and 2.0% respectively, the EU takes up more than three times as many Chinese exports as the Commonwealth of Independent States, at 15.4% versus 3.2% (Chart 9A Chart 9B). China was never eager to commit to an exclusive economic relationship with Russia at the expense of its western markets. Strategically, however, China cannot afford to reject Russia. Chart 9AEU Wary Of Targeting China EU Wary Of Targeting China EU Wary Of Targeting China Chart 9BEU Wary Of Targeting China EU Wary Of Targeting China EU Wary Of Targeting China   Russia has now severed ties with the West and has no choice but to offer favorable deals to China on the whole range of relations. China’s greatest strategic threat is US sea power; Russia offers a strategically vital overland source of natural resources. Russia also offers intelligence and security assistance in critical regions like Central Asia and the Middle East that China needs to access. Like Russia, China fears US containment policy and views US defense relations with its immediate neighbors as a fundamental national security threat. President Biden reassured China that US policy toward the Taiwan Strait has not changed but also said that the US opposes any unilateral attempt to change the status quo. The implication is that China will segregate its EU and Russia networks of trade and finance to minimize the impact of any US secondary sanctions. China will offer Russia some assistance while making diplomatic gestures to maintain economic relations with Europe. The Europeans will lobby the Americans not to expand sanctions on China. The Biden administration will be reluctant to increase sanctions on China immediately, since it wants to maintain global stability in general, control the pace of rising global tensions, and maintain maneuverability for immediate problems with Russia and Iran. Biden’s priority is to rebuild US alliances and Europe will be averse to expanding the sanction regime to China. Therefore any sanctions on China will come only slowly and with ample warning to global investors. But sanctions are possible over the course of the year. If the Biden administration concludes that it has utterly lost domestic support, that the midterm elections are a foregone conclusion, then it can afford to get tougher in the international arena in hopes that it can improve its standing with voters. Biden’s Policy Toward Iran While Afghanistan and Ukraine were thrust upon Biden, the major foreign policy challenge in which he retains the initiative is whether to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. Thus it may be policy toward Iran and the Middle East that defines the Biden doctrine. The Ukraine war has not stopped the Biden administration from seeking to rejoin the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which was a strategic US-Iran détente that sought to freeze Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for its economic development. The original nuclear deal occurred with Russia’s blessing after the US and EU overlooked Russia’s invasion of Crimea. Now negotiations toward rejoining that deal are reaching the critical hour. The US has supposedly offered Russia guarantees to retain Russian support. The reason for Biden to rejoin the 2015 deal is to open Iran’s oil and natural gas reserves to the global and European economy and thus mitigate the global energy shock ahead of the midterm elections. Iran could return one million barrels per day to global markets. There is also a strategic logic for normalizing relations with Iran: to maintain a balance of power in the Middle East, reduce US military commitment there, provide Europe with greater security, and free up resources to counter Russia and China. Whether the deal will fulfill these ends is debatable but the Biden administration apparently believes it will. Biden is capable of rejoining the deal because the critical concessions do not require congressional approval. Through executive action alone, Biden could meet Iran’s demands: sanctions relief, delisting the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization, and ensuring that Russo-Iranian trade (especially nuclear cooperation) is not exempted from the new Russia sanctions. There will be domestic political blowback for each of these concessions but not as much as there will be if gasoline prices continue to rise due to greater global instability stemming from the Middle East. The Iranians are also capable of rejoining the deal. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, in his Persian New Year speech, gave a green light for President Ebrahim Raisi’s administration to pursue policies that would remove US sanctions. Khamanei implied that Iran should let the West lift sanctions while continuing to fortify its economy to future US sanctions.4 While the US and Iran are clearly capable of a stop-gap deal, it will not be a durable agreement – and hence any benefits for global energy supply will be called into question. The reason is that the underlying strategic logic is suffering: Biden will appear incoherent if he alienates Saudi Arabia and the UAE while appealing to them to increase oil production – and they are more capable than Iran on this front (Chart 10). Biden will appear incoherent if he agrees to secure Russo-Iranian trade at the same time as he seeks to cut Russia off from all other trade. Biden may not achieve a reduction in regional tensions through an Iran deal, since Israel insists that it is not bound to the nuclear deal. If Iran does not comply with the nuclear freeze, Israel will ramp up military threats. The Iranians cannot trust American guarantees that the next president, in 2025, will not tear up the nuclear deal and re-impose sanctions on Iran. The Iranians need Russian and Chinese assistance so they cannot afford to embark on a special new relationship with the West. Ultimately the Iranians are highly likely to pursue deliverable nuclear weapons for the sake of regime survival, as our Geopolitical Strategy has argued. Chart 10US-Iran Deal Will Not Be Durable US-Iran Deal Will Not Be Durable US-Iran Deal Will Not Be Durable   Thus Biden may choose a deal with Iran but we would not bet on it. Moreover any stop-gap deal will be undermined in practice, so that the investment repercussions will be ephemeral. If Biden fails to clinch his Iran deal as expected, then the world faces an even larger energy shock due to rising tensions in the Middle East. Investment Takeaways The Biden administration’s foreign policy challenges will compound its macroeconomic challenges and weigh on the Democratic Party in the midterm elections. The war in Ukraine will hurt Biden and the Democrats primarily because of the energy shock. The energy shock will get worse if Biden fails to agree to a stop-gap deal with Iran. But we expect either the US or Iran to back out for strategic reasons. With Republicans likely to reclaim Congress this fall, US political polarization will remain at historically high levels over the course of the 2022-24 election cycle. However, Russia’s belligerence underscores our view that rising geopolitical threats will cause the US to unify and reduce polarization over the long run. The war reinforces our US Political Strategy themes of “Peak Polarization” and “Limited Big Government,” as a new bipartisan consensus is forming around the view that the federal government should take a larger role in the economy to address national challenges both at home and abroad. One of our cyclical investment ideas stemming from these themes is to buy cyber-security stocks. President Biden warned US government and corporations on March 21 that Russia could stage cyber attacks against the United States and that private businesses must be prepared. Cyber stocks have suffered amid the general rout in tech stocks but they are starting to recover. Year to date, they are outperforming the S&P 500, and the tech sector, and look to be starting to outperform defensive sectors (Chart 11). Chart 11Biden Warns Of Cyber Attacks Biden Warns Of Cyber Attacks Biden Warns Of Cyber Attacks   Matt Gertken Senior Vice President Chief US Political Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1     See Yuka Hayashi, “U.S., U.K. Strike Trade Deal to End Tariffs on British Steel and American Whiskey”, Wall Street Journal, March 22, wsj.com 2     See Nancy Youssef and Michael Gordon, “U.S. Sending Soviet Air Defense Systems It Secretly Acquired to Ukraine”, Wall Street Journal, March 21, wsj.com. 3    White House, “Readout of President Joseph R. Biden Jr. Call with President Xi Jinping of the People’s Republic of China,” March 18, 2022, whitehouse.gov. 4    Ayatollah Ali Khamenei implied at his Persian New Year speech that a deal with the Americans could go forward. He emphasized the need to improve the economy and implied that some of the economic burdens will go away starting this year. He pointed to a way forward with US sanctions intact, while also saying that he did not discourage attempts to remove sanctions. “We should not tie the economy to sanctions... It is possible to make economic advances despite U.S. sanctions. It is possible to expand foreign trade, as we did, enter regional agreements and have achievements in oil and other areas … I never say to not go after sanctions relief, but I am asking you to govern the country in a way in which sanctions do not hurt us.” See “Iran's Khamenei Says Economy Should Not Be Tied to U.S. Sanctions,” Reuters, March 21, 2022, usnews.com.   Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Table A2Political Risk Matrix Biden's Foreign Policy And The Midterms Biden's Foreign Policy And The Midterms Table A3US Political Capital Index Biden's Foreign Policy And The Midterms Biden's Foreign Policy And The Midterms Chart A1Presidential Election Model Biden's Foreign Policy And The Midterms Biden's Foreign Policy And The Midterms Chart A2Senate Election Model Biden's Foreign Policy And The Midterms Biden's Foreign Policy And The Midterms Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Biden's Foreign Policy And The Midterms Biden's Foreign Policy And The Midterms Table A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Biden's Foreign Policy And The Midterms Biden's Foreign Policy And The Midterms Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Biden's Foreign Policy And The Midterms Biden's Foreign Policy And The Midterms

Executive Summary Tracking Inflation In 2022 Tracking Inflation In 2022 Tracking Inflation In 2022 Our base case view is that inflation will moderate in the coming months, allowing the Fed to deliver a steady pace of tightening (25 bps per meeting). A 50 bps rate hike is possible at some point this year, but only if long-maturity inflation expectations become un-anchored or core PCE inflation prints consistently above 0.30%-0.35% per month. Historical evidence suggests that Treasury securities perform best when the yield curve is very steep or very flat. All else equal, an inversion of the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope would make us more bullish on bonds. High-yield corporates have performed better than investment grade corporates during the recent sell-off. Investors should continue to favor high-yield corporates over investment grade. Bottom Line: Investors should maintain “at benchmark” portfolio duration and buy Treasury curve steepeners. We also maintain an overweight allocation to high-yield corporate bonds and a neutral allocation to investment grade corporates. We Have Liftoff The Fed followed through on its earlier promise and lifted the funds rate by 25 basis points last week. FOMC participants also sharply revised up their expectations for the future pace of tightening, though this revision mostly just made the Fed’s forecast more consistent with what was already priced in the yield curve. Market rate hike expectations, as inferred from the overnight index swap curve, shifted up only slightly after the Fed’s announcement (Chart 1). Chart 1Rate Expectations Rate Expectations Rate Expectations As of Monday morning, the bond market is priced for 208 bps of tightening during the next 12 months and 174 bps between now and the end of the year. This is close to the median FOMC forecast which calls for 150 bps of further tightening this year followed by an additional 92 bps in 2023. Last week’s report highlighted the tricky situation faced by the Fed.1 On the one hand, the Fed must tighten quickly enough to keep long-dated inflation expectations anchored. On the other hand, the Fed wants to avoid tightening so quickly that it causes a recession. For investors, we think it makes sense to assume that the Fed will try to split the difference by lifting rates at a pace of 25 bps per meeting for at least the next 12 months. However, there are significant risks to both the upside and downside of this projection. The Odds Of A 50 bps Hike The upside risk is that inflation is sufficiently sticky that the Fed will feel the need to deliver a 50 bps rate hike at some point this year. Last week’s Fed interest rate projections show that 7 out of 16 FOMC participants think that at least one 50 bps rate hike will be necessary. Meanwhile, market prices are consistent with one 50 basis point rate hike and five 25 basis point rate hikes at this year’s six remaining FOMC meetings. We think the Fed will only deliver a 50 bps rate hike if inflation looks to be tracking above the committee’s 2022 forecast or if long-maturity inflation expectations become un-anchored to the upside. Related Report  Global Investment StrategyIs A Higher Neutral Rate Good Or Bad For Stocks? On the inflation front, the FOMC’s central tendency forecast calls for core PCE inflation of between 3.9% and 4.4% in 2022, with a median of 4.1%. To match this forecast, core PCE will have to average a monthly growth rate of between 0.30% and 0.35% in each of this year’s eleven remaining months (Chart 2).2 Every monthly inflation print above that range increases the odds of a 50 bps Fed move, every print below that range brings the odds down. As for long-maturity inflation expectations, the Fed likely views them as “well anchored” for the time being. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has broken meaningfully above the Fed’s target range but the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate remains consistent with the Fed’s goals (Chart 3). The University of Michigan’s survey measure of 5-10 year household inflation expectations has risen sharply, but it has not yet broken meaningfully above recent historical levels (Chart 3, bottom panel). Chart 2Tracking Inflation In 2022 Tracking Inflation In 2022 Tracking Inflation In 2022 Chart 3Inflation Expectations Inflation Expectations Inflation Expectations Our sense is that inflation is very close to peaking and that lower inflation in the back half of the year will apply downward pressure to inflation expectations and prevent the Fed from delivering a 50 bps hike at any single FOMC meeting. However, we will be closely tracking the evolution of Charts 2 and 3 to see if this situation changes. The Odds Of Skipping A Meeting Chart 4Financial Conditions Financial Conditions Financial Conditions The downside risk to the Fed’s expected rate hike path results from the fact that financial conditions have already responded aggressively to the Fed’s actions and communications. While it’s certainly true that financial conditions remain extremely accommodative in level terms (Chart 4), we must also acknowledge that, historically, the sort of rapid tightening of financial conditions that we have already seen is almost always followed by a significant slowdown in economic activity (Chart 4, panel 2). On top of all that, the yield curve is now completely flat beyond the 5-year maturity point and the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope is a mere 22 bps away from inversion (Chart 4, bottom panel). The Fed’s new interest rate projections show the median expected interest rate moving above estimates of the long-run neutral rate in 2023 and 2024. This sort of rate hike path is consistent with a mild inversion of the yield curve, and the Fed will likely downplay the yield curve’s recession signal during the next few months. That said, a deepening inversion of the yield curve will only increase market worries about an over-tightening of monetary policy. This could lead to a sell-off in risk assets that would accelerate the tightening of financial conditions and lead to expectations of even slower economic growth. The next section of this report explores what an inverted 2-year/10-year yield curve has historically meant for Treasury returns. Investment Implications Our base case view is that inflation will moderate in the coming months, allowing the Fed to deliver a steady pace of tightening (25 bps per meeting). We also see economic growth slowing but remaining solid enough to prevent a significant sell-off in risk assets and a deep inversion of the yield curve. We also acknowledge, however, that the risks to this view (in both directions) are unusually high. Given all that, our recommended investment strategy is to keep portfolio duration close to benchmark. The market is already well priced for a steady 25 bps per meeting pace of tightening and bond yields will merely keep pace with forwards if that pace is delivered. We also see yield curve steepeners profiting during the next 6-12 months as the yield curve’s flattening trend takes a pause now that market expectations have fully adjusted to the likely path of Fed rate increases. We remain neutral TIPS versus nominal Treasuries at the long-end of the curve, but underweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries at the front-end. Short-maturity TIPS will underperform as inflation moderates in H2 2022. The Yield Curve And Treasury Returns The historical relationship between the slope of the yield curve and Treasury returns is very interesting. To examine it, we first looked at historical data on excess Treasury index returns versus cash since 1989 (Table 1). Table 112-Month Treasury Excess Returns* Given Different Starting Points For 2-Year / 10-Year Treasury Slope The Implications Of Yield Curve Inversion The Implications Of Yield Curve Inversion Specifically, we show 12-month excess Treasury returns given different starting points for the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope. For example, when the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope has been between 0 bps and 25 bps, the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Index has historically outperformed a position in cash by an average of 2.75% during the next 12 months. A 90% confidence interval places expected returns between 1.75% and 3.73%, and excess Treasury returns were positive in 73% of historical observations. The first big conclusion that jumps out from Table 1 is that Treasuries perform best when the yield curve is either very steep or very flat. The worst periods for Treasury returns have tended to occur when the slope is between 25 bps and 100 bps. It’s easy to understand why a very steep yield curve would lead to strong Treasury returns. A steep curve means that Treasuries offer a large yield advantage versus cash, or put differently, an extremely rapid pace of rate hikes would be necessary for cash returns to overcome the carry advantage in bonds. It’s more difficult to understand why Treasury returns have been strong after instances of curve inversion. The most likely reason is that market participants have tended to overestimate the odds of the Fed achieving a “soft landing” and have underestimated the odds of an upcoming recession and rate cuts. The data used in Table 1 are limited in that observations only begin in 1989. As such, the table misses the Paul Volcker period of the early 1980s when Treasuries continued to sell off well after the curve inverted. Chart 5 extends the historical period back to the mid-1970s and uses shading to indicate periods of 2-year/10-year yield curve inversion. Chart 5Yields Tend To Peak Shortly After Curve Inversion Yields Tend To Peak Shortly After Curve Inversion Yields Tend To Peak Shortly After Curve Inversion Chart 5 reveals a pretty clear pattern. With the exception of the late-1970s/early-1980s episode, the 10-year Treasury yield tends to peak right around the time of 2-year/10-year yield curve inversion, or shortly after in the case of 1989. What can we take away from this analysis? First, the evidence suggests that we should have a bias toward taking more duration risk in our portfolio if and when the yield curve inverts. A more deeply inverted yield curve should also be viewed as a stronger bond-bullish signal than a modestly inverted yield curve. Second, we must acknowledge the major risk to this strategy. Specifically, the risk that inflation will be so high that the Fed will continue to tighten aggressively even after the yield curve inverts, as Paul Volcker did in the early-1980s. Our sense is that the odds of a repeat “Volcker moment” are low. Inflation will naturally fall as the pandemic’s impact wanes and the Fed won’t be forced to deliver another hawkish shock to market expectations. Therefore, we maintain our “at benchmark” recommendation for portfolio duration for now, but we may turn more bullish on bonds if the yield curve inverts. The Poor Performance Of Investment Grade Bonds Chart 6IG Has Lagged HY IG Has Lagged HY IG Has Lagged HY One notable aspect of recent bond market moves has been that the performance of investment grade corporate bonds has significantly lagged the performance of high-yield corporate bonds during the recent period of spread widening (Chart 6). This is highly unusual. Typically, we expect bonds with more credit risk to behave like “higher beta” securities. That is, we expect lower-rated bonds to perform better in bull markets and worse in bear markets.3 The typical relationships held earlier in the cycle. Chart 7A shows that high-yield corporate bonds delivered stronger excess returns than investment grade corporate bonds from the March 2020 peak in spreads through the end of that year. Chart 7B shows that high-yield continued to outperform investment grade throughout the bull market for spreads in 2021. Chart 7ACorporate Bond Excess Returns* Versus DTS: March 2020 To December 2020 The Implications Of Yield Curve Inversion The Implications Of Yield Curve Inversion Chart 7BCorporate Bond Excess Returns* Versus DTS: January 2021 To September 2021 The Implications Of Yield Curve Inversion The Implications Of Yield Curve Inversion Chart 7CCorporate Bond Excess Returns* Versus DTS: September 2021 To Present The Implications Of Yield Curve Inversion The Implications Of Yield Curve Inversion Based on that relationship, we would expect high-yield to perform worse than investment grade since spreads troughed in September 2021, but that has not been the case (Chart 7C). How do we explain the relatively weak performance of investment grade corporates relative to high-yield? One possible explanation is that the industry composition of the investment grade and high-yield bond universes is different. High-yield has a large concentration in the Energy sector while investment grade is more geared toward Financials. Given the recent surge in oil prices, it’s possible that the strong performance of Energy credits is driving the return divergence between investment grade and high-yield. Chart 8 shows the performance of each individual industry group within both investment grade and high-yield since the September 2021 trough in spreads. It shows that Energy bond returns have indeed been stronger than for other sectors. In fact, high-yield Energy excess returns have been positive! Chart 8Corporate Bond Excess Returns* Versus DTS: September 2021 To Present The Implications Of Yield Curve Inversion The Implications Of Yield Curve Inversion However, Chart 8 mainly reveals that industry composition only explains part of the divergence between investment grade and high-yield returns. Notice that every single high-yield industry group has outperformed its investment grade counterpart since September 2021. This suggests that there is a more fundamental reason for the divergence between investment grade and high-yield performance. Chart 9Following The 2018 Roadmap Following The 2018 Roadmap Following The 2018 Roadmap Our own sense is that the corporate bond market is following the roadmap from early 2018 (Chart 9). At that time, Fed tightening pushed the Treasury slope below 50 bps and investment grade corporates started to perform poorly, presumably because the removal of monetary accommodation justified somewhat wider corporate bond spreads. However, high-yield performed well in early 2018 as there was no material increase in corporate default risk, even though the Fed was tightening. A similar market narrative could easily be applied to today. Back in 2018, the market narrative shifted late in the year when investors suddenly decided that Fed tightening had gone too far. High-Yield sold off sharply and caught up with investment grade. The Fed was then forced to end its tightening cycle and corporate bonds rallied in early 2019. We see this 2018 roadmap as a significant risk, but not destiny. While there’s a chance that the market will soon decide that the Fed has over-tightened, leading to a sharp sell-off in high-yield. There’s also a chance that gradual Fed rate hikes will continue for much longer than the market anticipates without meaningfully slowing the economy. In that case, high-yield returns would remain solid for some time and the recent spread widening in investment grade would probably abate. For the time being, we find ourselves more inclined toward the latter scenario. Bottom Line: Investors should maintain an overweight allocation to high-yield and a neutral allocation to investment grade corporate bonds within a US bond portfolio. We may soon get a chance to upgrade our corporate bond allocation if inflationary pressures abate and the war in Ukraine shows signs of de-escalation. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Soft Landing Is Still Possible”, dated March 15, 2022. 2 PCE data is so far only updated to January 2022. 3 In this report we use Duration-Times-Spread (DTS) as a simple measure of a bond index’s credit risk. A higher DTS means that a bond has greater credit risk and vice-versa. Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns Recommended Portfolio Specification The Implications Of Yield Curve Inversion The Implications Of Yield Curve Inversion Other Recommendations The Implications Of Yield Curve Inversion The Implications Of Yield Curve Inversion

Executive Summary Fed Chair Powell is attempting to steer the US economy between the Scylla of a recession and the Charybdis of entrenched high inflation. In the benign soft-landing outcome, the economy will continue to grow well above trend while inflation abates as spending transitions from goods to services, supply chains are untangled and base effects offer arithmetic relief. Entrenched high inflation would yield the most bearish outcome as it would leave the Fed with no choice but to squash the economy to stuff the inflation genie back into the bottle. We expect that rate hikes will eventually short-circuit the expansion and the equity bull market, but not for at least another year. Disruptions from the Ukraine conflict and China’s COVID surge place the most bullish case out of reach but the bearish end of the continuum is overly defeatist. The biggest threats to our constructive view are worsening Russia-Ukraine shortages, a conflict with Russia beyond Ukraine, new COVID obstacles and a consumer retreat. The Rates Market Thinks The Fed's Overly Ambitious The Rates Market Thinks The Fed's Overly Ambitious The Rates Market Thinks The Fed's Overly Ambitious Bottom Line: We continue to recommend overweighting equities and credit over our cyclical 6-12-month timeframe, but risks are heightened and we will change course if conditions dictate. Feature As telegraphed, the Fed began its rate hiking campaign at last week’s FOMC meeting. It lifted its target range for the fed funds rate 25 basis points (bps) from 0 – 0.25% to 0.25 – 0.5%. In addition to making the nearly unanimously expected 25-bps hike, it indicated that the median FOMC participant expects the funds rate to rise by 25 bps at each of the year’s six remaining meetings and by 87.5 bps in 2023, though Chair Powell stressed the projections are merely a baseline expectation subject to change as economic conditions evolve. Both projections slightly exceeded market expectations going into the meeting. After it ended, the fed funds rate implied by the December 2022 futures contract rose 15 bps to align with the median FOMC voter and the rate implied by the December 2023 fed funds contract rose 18 bps, though it remains about a quarter-point hike shy of the median FOMC projection (Chart 1). Chart 1It Looks Like The Fed Can Only Surprise Hawkishly It Looks Like The Fed Can Only Surprise Hawkishly It Looks Like The Fed Can Only Surprise Hawkishly Chart 2The Dots Turn More Hawkish Between A Rock And A Hard Place Between A Rock And A Hard Place Widening the lens to consider the entire distribution of projected rate hikes (the Fed’s dots), and considering the mean value instead of the median, the dots get slightly more ambitious, revealing that disappointingly high inflation readings would prod the committee to ramp up the pace of its 2022 hikes. Seven of the sixteen FOMC participants expect at least 200 bps of hikes in 2022, with the mean funds rate projection nudging up to 2.05% (Chart 2, top panel). The rates market has the funds rate topping out between 2½ and 2⅝%, about one 25-bps hike below the average participant’s 2.81% and 2.75% year-end 2023 (Chart 2, middle panel) and 2024 (Chart 2, bottom panel) projections. With five FOMC voters expecting a terminal rate of 3% or above, there is scope for an upside surprise if inflation comes in hotter or lasts longer than anticipated. The other changes in the Summary of Economic Projections related to the committee’s GDP and inflation outlook. Participants marked down their median real 2022 GDP growth projection to 2.8% from 4% while increasing their headline and core PCE price index projections about one-and-a-half percentage points to 4.3% and 4.1%, respectively. 2023 and 2024 real GDP growth forecasts were unchanged while inflation expectations were bumped a little higher. The FOMC’s outlook has dimmed slightly, though it is still calling for a soft landing with the economy growing at an above-trend rate and supporting full employment while inflation eases to near its target level. You Can’t Get There From Here Any central bank’s long-run projections will show the economy moving toward its desired target conditions. One probably wouldn’t toil as a central banker if s/he didn’t think the bank’s tools would work and couldn’t say it out loud (even when voting anonymously) if s/he doubted that they might. An investor should therefore never place too much stock in the FOMC’s projections for key economic indicators two and three years out. “[A]ppropriate[ly] firming … monetary policy” is easier said than done, even in the best of times. Related Report  US Investment StrategyThe Last Line Of Inflation Defense (Is Holding Fast) The combination of monetary and fiscal largesse almost certainly staved off a COVID recession, at the cost of fostering some asset-market excesses while quite possibly overstimulating aggregate demand over the intermediate term. The Fed is now left to confront the aftermath with blunt policy tools that work with long and variable lags. It is always a tall order to steer an economy smoothly through the ups and downs of the business cycle; sticking the landing after the pandemic’s emergency monetary and fiscal routines involves a much higher degree of difficulty. Chair Powell put on a brave face in his post-meeting press conference, but he and his colleagues are embarking on this rate hiking cycle under less-than-ideal conditions. “In hindsight, yes, it would have been appropriate to move [to hike rates] earlier. … No one wants to have to put really restrictive monetary policy on in order to get inflation back down. So, frankly, [we] need … [to] … get rates back up to more neutral levels as quickly as we practicably can and then mov[e] beyond [neutral], if [it] turns out to be appropriate.” Bottom Line: Having to move as quickly as is practicable implies that the committee and financial markets might be in for some white-knuckle moments in the months ahead. Soft landings are more common in theory than in practice and it will be especially hard to pull one off now. A Recession Is Not Likely … A narrow margin for error does not mean the Fed is walking a tightrope over two negative extremes, however, and we believe the risks of a growth shortfall are modest. We share Powell’s view that “the probability of a recession within the next year is not particularly elevated.” Aggregate demand is strong and will be supported by households’ and businesses’ fortified balance sheets while the labor market has strength to burn. We think the chair had it just right when he said, “all signs are that this is a strong economy and, indeed, one that will be able to flourish … in the face of less accommodative monetary policy.” Our simple recession indicator, built from components that have reliably provided advance warning, reinforces Powell’s conclusion. The 3-month/10-year segment of the yield curve is not yet close to inverting1 (Chart 3). The year-over-year change in the Conference Board’s Leading Economic Index is way above the zero line that has signaled past recessions (Chart 4). The fed funds rate is nowhere near its equilibrium/neutral level, which we judge to be north of 3%, and it is highly unlikely to get there by the end of the year (Chart 5). Ex-the pandemic, recessions over the last 50-plus years have only occurred when all three components sound the alarm; not one is flashing red now and not one is likely to do so during 2022. Chart 3Recessions Occur When The Yield Curve Inverts, ... Recessions Occur When The Yield Curve Inverts, ... Recessions Occur When The Yield Curve Inverts, ... Chart 4... The Year-Over-Year Change In The LEI Turns Negative ... ... The Year-Over-Year Change In The LEI Turns Negative ... ... The Year-Over-Year Change In The LEI Turns Negative ... Chart 5... And The Target Fed Funds Rate Is Above Its Equilibrium Level ... And The Target Fed Funds Rate Is Above Its Equilibrium Level ... And The Target Fed Funds Rate Is Above Its Equilibrium Level … But Inflation Is A Pressing Concern The Fed is right to take action to try to stem inflation, which has found especially fertile soil. Extraordinary monetary and fiscal stimulus have given demand a persistent tailwind; social distancing funneled spending to goods while rolling global COVID surges slowed production and hampered transport, crimping supply; and domestic COVID infections limited labor force participation, tightening the labor market and exerting upward pressure on wages. Just when COVID was finally relaxing its grip, Russia invaded Ukraine, taking major sources of crude oil, natural gas, wheat, corn and several base metals offline while creating new cargo and shipping bottlenecks. The Omicron variant’s emergence in China could bring new supply disruptions. The upshot is that the Ukraine invasion and COVID’s Asian revival could keep inflation elevated, obscuring mitigating factors like a consumption shift from goods to services (Chart 6), diminishing shipping backlogs (Chart 7), increasing labor force participation and more forgiving year-over-year comparisons (base effects). Upside inflation surprises could open the door to a faster pace of rate hikes than markets have already discounted, especially if stubbornly high inflation begins to push up longer-run inflation expectations. Despite their recent rise, long-run expectations remain well anchored for now (Chart 8), while households’ sizable savings cushion better positions them to withstand higher prices. Chart 6A Transitory Inflation Catalyst A Transitory Inflation Catalyst A Transitory Inflation Catalyst ​​​​​ Chart 7Shipping Bottlenecks Had Been Easing Shipping Bottlenecks Had Been Easing Shipping Bottlenecks Had Been Easing ​​​​​ Chart 8Long-Run Inflation Expectations Are Still Manageable Long-Run Inflation Expectations Are Still Manageable Long-Run Inflation Expectations Are Still Manageable Financial Market Impacts Equities took heart from Powell’s talk of the Fed’s commitment to prevent high inflation from becoming entrenched, but his comments were not uniformly reassuring. He specifically called out the red-hot labor market, a key pillar of the favorable growth outlook, as a source of concern. “[I]f you take a look … at today’s labor market, what you have is 1.7-plus job openings for every unemployed person (Chart 9). So that’s a very, very tight labor market, tight to an unhealthy level, I would say.” The Phillips Curve trade-off between growth and inflation still applies after all, but after a dozen years when policymakers and investors were able to ignore it, equity multiples, credit spreads and Treasury yields may no longer account for it. They seem to still be discounting a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too environment in which growth, even when it’s above trend, is continuously goosed by accommodative policy. Chart 9Too Tight For The Fed Chair Too Tight For The Fed Chair Too Tight For The Fed Chair There’s also the issue that the Fed’s tools are not suited to fine-tuning economic outcomes. One does not have to be a card-carrying Austrian to harbor some skepticism about central bankers' ability to make targeted tweaks. “[I]n principle, … the idea is we’re trying to better align demand and supply[.] [I]n the labor market, … if you were just moving down the number of job openings so that they were more like one to one, you would have less upward pressure on wages. You would have a lot less of a labor shortage. … And basically across the economy, we’d like to slow demand so that it’s better aligned with supply. … Of course, the plan is to restore price stability while also sustaining a strong labor market. That is our intention, and we believe we can do that. But we have to restore price stability.” It’s a happy circumstance when attaining a goal doesn’t involve a sacrifice, but no pain, no gain is adulthood’s default condition. To paraphrase Powell’s press conference guidance, price stability with full employment would be really nice, but if push comes to shove, price stability has to take precedence. The tight monetary policy needed to restore lost price stability would constitute a major headwind for risk assets and the economy. It would spell the end of the equity and credit bull markets while ushering in the next recession. It is our view that the perception that price stability sacrifices are inevitable is still far away enough that risk assets have roughly nine to twelve good months ahead of them, although we hold it with less conviction than we did before Russia attacked Ukraine and Omicron reached China. Both events have the potential to hasten the end of monetary accommodation and drive investors to reconsider their terminal (peak) fed funds rate expectations. We do not expect that investors will revisit their terminal rate expectations until they can glean some empirical evidence of how the economy behaves when the funds rate exceeds 2.25%. If it takes the FOMC at least a year to get to that level, we expect that any major repricing of longer-term Treasury yields is over a year away. The bottom line is that we remain constructive on financial markets and the US economy over our six-to-twelve-month cyclical timeframe, but the clock is ticking and European fighting and Asian COVID infections are threats to our view. We believe that the decline in equity prices and the widening of high-yield credit spreads adequately compensate investors for the increased potential pitfalls, but we remain vigilant and are maintaining our tactically cautious ETF portfolio positioning until some of the clouds lift.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      We use the 3-month/10-year segment instead of the more common 2-year/10-year because the 3-month bill is a cleaner proxy for short rates than the 2-year note, which embeds estimates of the Fed’s future actions. 2s/10s also fail to measure up empirically, inverting even earlier than the habitually premature 3-month/10-year.

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

Executive Summary The Market Has Priced An Aggressive Path For US Rate Hikes The Market Has Priced An Aggressive Path For US Rate Hikes The Market Has Priced An Aggressive Path For US Rate Hikes The Federal Reserve has joined other G10 central banks in increasing interest rates this week. However, this has been well priced by both the dollar and short rates in the US (Feature Chart). The key call for currencies therefore is whether the Fed delivers more or less hikes than is currently priced by markets over the course of the next few months. More aggressive rate hikes will boost US bond yields, and send the dollar higher. But it will also undermine US equity multiples, given the tight correlation between the price-to-earnings ratio in the US and the real bond yield. More importantly, US equity market leadership has been an important driver of portfolio inflows into the dollar. Should the Fed deliver less hikes than the aggressive path currently priced by markets, currency investors will also be caught offside. This conundrum puts the DXY at risk. The caveat is that if the US economy is genuinely stronger than the rest of the world, and more insulated from the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, this will warrant higher real US interest rates. We went short NOK/SEK last week given our bias that oil prices had overshot. Tighten stops to protect profits. Bottom Line: Being long the dollar is a consensus trade. While in the near term, this could prove to be the right call, the dollar is also expensive and overbought, which is bearish from a contrarian perspective. Feature The 25 basis point interest rate hike by the Federal Reserve this week has probably been one of the most telegraphed macro events. Interest rate expectations in the US have risen sharply compared to last year (Chart 1). More importantly, as Chart 2 shows, two-year bond yields (a proxy for short rates) have climbed in the US relative to pretty much every other G10 country. Correspondingly, rising interest rate expectations in the US have led to substantial speculative flows into the US dollar. Chart 2The Market Expects The Fed To Hike Faster Than Other Central Banks This Year The Market Expects The Fed To Hike Faster Than Other Central Banks This Year The Market Expects The Fed To Hike Faster Than Other Central Banks This Year Chart 1The Market Has Priced An Aggressive Path For US Rate Hikes The Market Has Priced An Aggressive Path For US Rate Hikes The Market Has Priced An Aggressive Path For US Rate Hikes On the flipside, the outperformance of the US equity market is being threatened by rising interest rates. If rates rise substantially, that could derate US equity multiples, as portfolio inflows are curtailed. US profits also tend to underperform when rates rise. However, if US rates rise by less than what the market expects, net long speculative positioning in the dollar will surely reverse. Non-US Markets Benefit More When Bond Yields Rise Profits tend to drive the equity market over the short run, with valuation starting to matter over longer horizons. When it comes to the US, it is also true that profits tend to underperform the rest of the world as bond yields rise. Why it matters for the dollar is because a better profit picture in the US helps drive portfolio flows into US equities, buffeting the exchange rate (Chart 3). Related Report  Global Investment StrategyA Two-Stage Fed Tightening Cycle Chart 4 shows that US profits lag the rest of the world when bond yields are in an uptrend. This is because of the composition of the US equity market. Specifically, the US equity market is underweight financials, energy, materials, and industrials, while overweight information technology, health care, and communication services. Rising inflation benefits commodity-linked sectors, the income statements of which are directly juiced by rising prices. Similarly, banks tend to do better as interest rates rise because net interest margins improve. In a nutshell, rising rates and inflation tend to be better for the profits of value stocks and cyclicals, sectors that are underrepresented in the US. Chart 3The Dollar And US Equities The Dollar And US Equities The Dollar And US Equities Chart 4Bond Yields And US Profits Bond Yields And US Profits Bond Yields And US Profits There is also a valuation angle to higher rates. Because the US market is more overweight sectors with cash flows that backwardated, higher rates will undermine the valuation premium currently commanded by these sectors. This is true both in absolute terms and relative to other markets (Chart 5A and 5B). Chart 5AThe S&P 500 P/E Ratio And Real ##br##Yields The S&P 500 P/E Ratio And Real Yields The S&P 500 P/E Ratio And Real Yields Chart 5BThe Valuation Premium In The US Is Inversely Correlated To Bond Yields The Valuation Premium In The US Is Inversely Correlated To Bond Yields The Valuation Premium In The US Is Inversely Correlated To Bond Yields The key point is that the US equity market is at risk relatively from higher global yields that could undermine relative profit growth and its valuation premium. The US trade deficit currently runs at $90 billion. In 2021, at least 45% of that was financed via foreign equity purchases. A reversal in these flows could undermine the dollar. The Dollar And Relative Interest Rates While portfolio flows into US equities have been reversing, bond inflows have improved (Chart 6). Over the long term, bond flows tend to be the key driver of the US dollar. As Chart 2 shows, most market participants expect the Fed to be among the most hawkish central banks in 2022 and beyond. In fact, December Eurodollar contracts are pricing the Fed to hike interest rates by 218 bps more than the ECB, and 235 bps more than the Bank of Japan (allowing for a small risk premium in this pricing) (Chart 7). Chart 7Investors Are Very Bullish On US Rate Expectations Investors Are Very Bullish On US Rate Expectations Investors Are Very Bullish On US Rate Expectations Chart 6Investors Have Been Aggressively Purchasing US Treasurys Investors Have Been Aggressively Purchasing US Treasurys Investors Have Been Aggressively Purchasing US Treasurys There are two key risks to a hawkish Fed view, relative to other central banks: First, the Fed is already behind the curve relative to its G10 counterparts. The BoE, RBNZ, BoC, and the Norges Bank have already increased rates. Even the rhetoric at the ECB is shifiting. Relative bond yields do not reflect this reality. Second, and related, rising inflation is a global phenomenon and not specific to the US. Almost every central bank is acknowledging that inflation is a key risk to their mandate, compared to the transitory narrative last year. Chart 8 plots headline inflation across G10 countries. On this basis, it becomes difficult to justify why two-year yields in the UK, for example, are much lower, compared to the US. Chart 8Rising Inflation Is Not A US-Centric Problem Rising Inflation Is Not A US-Centric Problem Rising Inflation Is Not A US-Centric Problem If inflation does indeed prove to be sticky, other central banks will have to keep hiking interest rates along with the Fed. If inflation subsides, the Fed might not be as aggressive in tightening policy as the market expects. On a relative basis, this suggests there is a mispricing of how the market views Fed action, relative to other central banks. The key risk to this view is that the US economy can actually withstand much higher rates compared to the rest of the world. While this could be the case, higher rates in Norway and New Zealand are not yet hurting domestic conditions. In fact, it can be argued that weakness in their currencies has unwound a lot of the tightening in financial conditions from higher interest rates. A commodity boom also suggests that these currencies will benefit from rising terms of trade. Conclusion Bond markets have priced higher relative rates in the US, but the Fed could actually lag market expectations, especially relative to commodity-linked currencies (Chart 9). Chart 9Commodity Currencies Have Been Tracking Rate Expectations With A Lag Commodity Currencies Have Been Tracking Rate Expectations With A Lag Commodity Currencies Have Been Tracking Rate Expectations With A Lag Specifically, higher rates than the market expects in the US will undermine US equity market leadership, reversing substantial portfolio inflows in recent years. This is already occurring at the margin. On the other hand, fewer rate hikes will severely unwind speculative inflows into the US dollar. Housekeeping We went short NOK/SEK on the expectation that oil prices had overshot, especially relative to forward markets (Chart 10). We are tightening the stop loss on this trade to 1.09. Finally, the Bank of England met this week and its transcript reinforced our stance that the BoE will be cornered as it attempts to raise rates amidst a slowing economy. Stay long EUR/GBP. Chart 10Stay Short NOK/SEK But Tighten Stops Stay Short NOK/SEK But Tighten Stops Stay Short NOK/SEK But Tighten Stops   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Strategic View Tactical Holdings (0-6 months) Limit Orders Forecast Summary

Executive Summary Major EM’s Defense Spends Will Be Comparable To That Of Developed Countries Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War ​​​​ 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 Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War 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 Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War ​​​​​ Chart 3Despite Slower Growth, Inflation In Major EMs Remains High Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War ​​​​​ 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 Unemployment - A Bigger Problem In Major EMs Today Unemployment - A Bigger Problem In Major EMs Today ​​​​​ Chart 5Smaller EMs Must Also Deal With Rising Debt, Alongside Slowing Growth Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War ​​​​​ Chart 6The Debt Surge In EMs This Time, Poses Unique Challenges Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War 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 India's Performance Had Flatlined Post Mild Populist Tilt India'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 Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War 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 Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War ​​​​​​ Chart 9Back In 1900, Developed Countries Like UK And Japan Were Top Military Spenders Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War ​​​​​​ Chart 10By 2000, EMs Had Begun Spending Generously On Armament Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War 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 Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War Chart 12EMs Today Are Top Military Spenders, Even In Absolute Terms Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War 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 Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War ​​​​​​ Chart 14The ‘Triple Entente’ Too Had Increased Defense Spends In The Run Up To WWI Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War ​​​​​​ 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 Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War ​​​​​ Chart 16Allied Powers Too Had Been Increasing Defense Spends In The Run Up To WWII Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War ​​​​​ Chart 17Militarily Active States Have Been Ramping Up Defense Spends Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War 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 Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War 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 Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War Chart 188 Countries Located Near The Eurasian Rimland, Spend Large Sums On Defense Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War ​​​​ 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 Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War 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 Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War ​​​​​​ Chart 20Defense Market: Russia’s Loss Could Be Europe’s Gain Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War Beware EMs That Borrow Too Much Or Wage War ​​​​​ 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