US Dollar

Special Report

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

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

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

Executive Summary 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 Chart 1The 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 Chart 4Bond 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 Chart 5BThe 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 Chart 6Investors 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 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 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   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Strategic View Tactical Holdings (0-6 months) Limit Orders Forecast Summary

Executive Summary Higher Prices Expected Global oil supply will move lower for a few months, until shipping can be re-routed and re-priced in response to sanctions against Russian oil producers and refiners.  In the wake of another outbreak of COVID-19 in China, oil demand will likely move marginally lower in the near term.  Chinese fiscal stimulus to support demand and Chinese equity markets will be bullish for oil, natgas and metals. Work-arounds by China and India to circumvent Western sanctions likely will keep the hit to Russian oil production contained to March and April.  However, longer term – 2024 and beyond – sanctions will put Russia's oil output on a downward trajectory. Saudi Arabia will launch an experiment this year to be paid in yuan for oil exports to China.  As a risk-management strategy, KSA needs USD alternatives for storing wealth and retaining access to its foreign reserves, given the success of sanctions in restricting Russia's access to its foreign reserves following its invasion of Ukraine. Our Brent forecast is higher, averaging $93/bbl for this year and in 2023. Bottom Line: We recommend buying the dip in any oil-and-gas equity sell-off.  We remain long the XOP ETF.  We also remain long the S&P GSCI and COMT ETF – long commodity-index based vehicles that benefit from higher commodity prices and increasing backwardation in these markets, particularly oil. Feature Shipping delays in the wake of sanctions – official and self-imposed – against Russian oil and gas exports will stretch out global hydrocarbon supply chains in 1H22. This will have the effect of reducing actual supply, as these vessels are re-routed, and work-arounds are found to get oil to ports accepting Russian material.1 Related Report  Commodity & Energy Strategy2022 Key Views: Past As Prelude For Commodities So far, China and India appear to be moving quickly to develop sanctions work-arounds. Both have long-term trading relationships with Russia, and, in the case of India, the capacity to revive a treaty covering rupee-invoicing of trade in commodities and arms. Estimates of the total hit to Russian oil production resulting from export sanctions imposed by the West following its invasion of Ukraine last month range as high as 5mm b/d in output losses, but we do not share that view.2 There is a strong desire for discounted oil in China and India, and to find alternatives to USD-denominated trade. This has been catalyzed by the sanctions on Russia's central bank and the shutdown of access to its foreign reserves. Payment-messaging systems competitive with the Brussels-based SWIFT network have been stood up already. These will be refined in the wake of the Ukraine war by states with a long-standing desire to diversify payment systems away from the world's reserve currency (i.e., the USD). Among these states, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) is reported to be exploring alternatives for diversifying away from USD-based payment systems, and foreign-reserves custodial relationships dependent on Western central-bank oversight – particularly the US Fed.3 In addition, as ties between China and GCC states have strengthened, the Kingdom might also be looking to diversify its defense partnerships, particularly given the open hostility between the Biden administration in the US and KSA's leadership. Monitoring Chinese state media coverage of this will provide a good indication of the extent of such cooperation. Assessing Highly Uncertain Supply In our base case, Russian output likely falls by ~ 1mm b/d over the March-April period because of shipping delays that force production to be throttled back at the margin due to storage constraints. In its magnitude, this is a similar assumption to the reference case considered by the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies (OIES) but is extended for two months (Table 1).4 We expect shipping delays and payment work-arounds to be sorted out in a couple of months, which, given the incentives of all involved, does not seem unreasonable. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) To Dec23 In our base case modeling, supply changes by core-OPEC 2.0 in 2022 are required to meet physical deficits brought about by less-than-expected volumes returned to the market by the entire coalition from August 2021 to now. This amounts to ~ 1.2mm b/d by our reckoning. For all of 2022, we assume core-OPEC 2.0 will lift supply by 1.3mm b/d, with most of this being provided to markets beginning in May 2022. In 2023, supplies from KSA, UAE and Kuwait are assumed to increase by roughly 0.2mm b/d, led by KSA (Chart 1). This is higher relative to our previous estimates, given our expectation, this core group will have to lift output to compensate not only for reduced Russian output and supply-chain delays this year and next, but falling output within the producer coalition's other non-core states. Outside OPEC 2.0, stronger WTI futures prices in spot markets and along the entire forward curve drive our estimate of US shale output (L48 ex-GoM) to 9.89mm b/d in 2022 (0.86mm b/d above 2021 levels) and 10.58mm b/d in 2023 (0.69mm above our 2022 levels). Supply-chain disruptions and cost inflation showing up in US shale producers' operations likely will dampen output increases.5 For the US, we expect 2022 average US production of 12.1mm b/d, or 900k b/d higher than 2021 output, and 12.8mm b/d in 2023, which is 700k b/d higher than 2022 levels (Chart 2). Chart 1Still Expecting Core-OPEC 2.0 Production Increases Chart 2US Oil Output Slightly Higher   Higher Brent prices will encourage short-term production increases from North Sea producers and others. However, it is not clear whether this will incentivize the years-long projects that will be needed to offset the lack of capex in the sector over the past decade or so. One of our high-conviction views resulting from the dearth of capex in oil and gas production is increasingly tighter markets by mid-decade – likely apparent by 2024 – which will require higher prices to reverse the lack of investment in new production. In line with our House view, we are not restoring the return of up to 1.3mm b/d of Iranian production to markets, given the guidance from this source proved unreliable earlier this month when it suspended talks with the US on its nuclear deal. We also are not assuming ceasefire talks between Ukraine and Russia will end to the Ukraine war, given the unreliability of the source (Russia) in these reports. Softer Demand Near Term Over the next few months, we expect the recent upsurge in COVID-19 cases in China to reduce Asian demand, but not tank it relative to our existing assumptions.6 Even though this was expected in our balances estimates, we are reducing our 2Q22 demand estimate by an additional 250k b/d, which is split evenly between DM and EM economies. This reflects the direct short-term hit to EM demand from China's lockdowns and a stronger USD, which raises the local-currency costs of oil, as well as the knock-on effects of additional supply-chain disruptions. Global consumption for 2022 is expected to be 4.4mm b/d higher on average vs 2021 levels, coming in at 101.54mm b/d, and 1.7mm b/d higher in 2023 vs. 2022 levels. We expect the Russian sanctions work-arounds being pursued by China and India – together accounting for a bit more than 20% of global oil demand – will be effective and will put overall EM demand back on trend in 2H22, assuming China's COVID-19 outbreak is brought under control (Chart 3).   Chart 3COVID-19 Hits China Demand, But Does Not Tank EM Overall While markets remain highly fluid – subject to sharp changes in perceptions of fundaments and their trajectories – these supply-demand estimates continue to point to relatively a balanced market this year and next (Chart 4). That said, the supply-demand fundamentals still leave inventories extremely tight, which means they will  provide limited buffering against sudden shifts in supply, demand or both (Chart 5). This will, in our estimation, keep forward curves backwardated, which will support our long-term positions in long commodity-index exposure (i.e., the S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF).  Chart 4Markets Remain Balanced... Chart 5...And Inventories Remain Tight Our base-case balances estimates translate into a 2022 Brent price forecast that averages $93/bbl, and a 2023 average estimate of $93/bbl, which are lower than our previous forecasts of $94/bbl and $98/bbl, respectively. For 1Q22, we now expect prices to average $98/bbl; 2Q22 to average $98.25/bbl; 3Q22 $88.45/bbl; and 4Q22 $87.30/bbl. Risks To Our View The supply side of our modeling remains exposed to exogenous political risks, chiefly: A failure on the part of core-OPEC 2.0 to increase production to offset lower-than-expected output outside the coalition's core; Lower-than-expected US oil output, given stronger-than-expected production discipline; and A return of up to 1.3mm b/d of Iranian barrels, which we no longer are assuming in our balances. We continue to believe core-OPEC 2.0 will increase production because it is in their interest not to allow inventory depletion to accelerate and for prices to move higher faster. The local-currency cost of oil in EM economies – the growth engine for oil demand – is high and going higher. In real terms – i.e., inflation-adjusted terms – it is even higher, as the real effective USD trade-weighted FX rate exceeds that of the nominal rate (Chart 6). This can be seen in the local-currency costs of oil in the world's largest consumers (Chart 7). We expect an announcement from core-OPEC 2.0 by the end of this month regarding a production increase. Chart 6High Real USD FX Rates Increase Local Oil Costs Chart 7Local-Currency Oil Costs In Large Consuming States   Of course, KSA's diversification to USD alternatives as a risk-management strategy makes it less certain it will lead an output increase in exchange for an increased US commitment to its defense. Regarding US shale output, producers remain disciplined in their capital allocation. Even though we expect higher prices across the WTI forward curve will incentivize additional production, we could be over-estimating the extent of this increase in our modeling. Lastly, as noted above, Iran and Russia are indicating their trade concerns have been addressed by the US, which presumably will presumably will be followed by the return up to 1.3mm b/d of production to export markets. However, forward guidance from these producers has not been particularly reliable, and we could be wrong here as well. This would be a bearish fundamental on the supply side, which would pressure prices lower. Investment Implications Given the breakdown in talks between the US and Iran – presumably under pressure from Russia for guarantees the US would not sanction its trade with Iran – our Brent price forecast remains above $90/bbl (Chart 8). We expect the near-term price increase will dissipate as the sanctions work-arounds – particularly by China and India – re-route oil flows. Core OPEC 2.0 producers – KSA, the UAE and Kuwait – have sufficient surplus capacity to increase production to allow refiners to re-build inventories. This big question for markets now is will they bring it to market in the near term? KSA's interest in exploring yuan-linked oil trade with China adds an element of uncertainty to whether production will be increased. Perhaps that is a goal of this exercise: The US is being shown there are alternatives available to large oil exporters re terms of trade and providers of defense services. Chart 8Higher Prices Expected There is sufficient spare capacity available at present to address the current physical deficits in global markets. Our analysis indicates markets are balanced but still tight, as can be seen in current and expected inventory levels. We remain long the XOP ETF and the S&P GSCI and COMT ETF. The latter ETFs provide long commodity-index based exposure that benefits from higher commodity prices and increasing backwardation in commodity markets generally, particularly oil.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com     Commodities Round-Up Precious Metals: Bullish Markets expected the Federal Reserve's rate hike of 25 basis points in the March and was not disappointed. Further rate hikes this year will occur against the backdrop of high geopolitical uncertainty and inflation, both of which are bullish for gold. The Russia-Ukraine crisis has added a new layer of complexity, and the Fed will need to proceed with caution to curb inflation but not over-tighten the economy.       Footnotes 1     Please see All at sea: Russian-linked oil tanker seeks a port, published by straitstimes.com on March 10, 2022 for examples of shipping delays. 2     Please see Could Russia Look to China to Export More Oil and Natural Gas? published by naturalgasintell.com on March 9, and India says it’s in talks with Russia about increasing oil imports., published on March 15, for additional reporting. See also Besides China, Putin Has Another Potential De-dollarization Partner in Asia published by cfr.org, which discusses India-Russia trade agreements between 1953-92 with the signing of the 1953 Indo-Soviet Trade Agreement. 3    Please see Saudi considering China’s yuan for oil purchases published by al-monitor.com on March 16. 4    Please see the OIES Oil Monthly published on March 14. 5    Oil producers in a ‘dire situation’ and unable to ramp up output, says Oxy CEO published on March 8 by cnbc.com. 6    A resurgence of COVID-19 in China was not unexpected. It was one of our key views going into 2022. Please see 2022 Key Views: Past As Prelude For Commodities, which we published on December 16, 2021. In that report, we noted, "… China still is operating under a zero-tolerance COVID-19 policy, and has relied on less efficacious vaccines that appear to offer no protection against the omicron variant of the coronavirus. This also is a risk for EM economies that rely on these vaccines. However, the roll-out of mRNA vaccines globally via joint ventures will be gathering steam in 2H22, which is bullish for commodity demand." We continue to expect Chinese authorities to deploy mRNA vaccines or antivirals to combat this outbreak.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed in 2021

Executive Summary For the Fed, maintaining its credibility with a long sequence of rate hikes that does not crash the economy, real estate market, and stock market is akin to the ‘Hail Mary’ move of (American) football. The likelihood that the Fed completes the straight sequence of eight rate hikes which the market is now pricing seems very low. Hence, today we are opening a new trade. Go long the September 2023 Eurodollar futures contract. Additionally, stay underweight Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) versus T-bonds. And on a 12-month horizon, underweight the commodity complex, whose elevated prices are highly vulnerable to a near-certain upcoming demand destruction. Fractal trading watchlist: US interest rate futures, 3-year T-bond, Canada versus Japan, AUD/KRW, and EUR/CHF. Spending On Goods Looks Like An Earthquake On A Seismograph Bottom Line: The likelihood that the Fed completes the straight sequence of eight rate hikes which the market is now pricing seems very low. Feature Amid the uncertainties of the Ukraine crisis, there is one certainty. The latest surge in energy and grain prices is a classic supply shock. Prices have spiked because vital supplies of Russian and Ukrainian energy and grains have been cut. This matters for central banks, because to the extent that they can bring down inflation, they can do so by depressing demand. They can do nothing to boost supply. In fact, depressing demand during a supply shock is a sure way to start a recession. But what about the inflation that came before the Ukraine crisis, wasn’t that due to excess demand? No, that inflation came not from a demand shock, but from a displacement of demand shock – as consumers displaced their firepower from services to goods on a massive scale. This matters because central banks are also ill placed to fix such a misallocation of demand. Chart I-1 looks like a seismograph after a huge earthquake, and in a sense that is exactly what it is. The chart shows the growth in spending on durable goods, which has just suffered an earthquake unlike any in history. Zooming in, we can see the clear causality between the surges in spending on durables and the surges in core inflation. The important corollary being that when the binge on durables ends – as it surely must – or worse, when durable spending goes into recession, inflation will plummet (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Spending On Goods Looks Like An Earthquake On A Seismograph Chart I-2The Goods Binges Caused The Core Inflation Spikes But, argue the detractors, what about the uncomfortably high price inflation in services? What about the uncomfortably high inflation expectations? Most worrying, what about the recent surge in wage inflation? Let’s address these questions. Underlying US Inflation Is Running At Around 3 Percent In the US, the dominant component of services inflation is housing rent, which comprises 40 percent of the core consumer price index. Housing rent combines actual rent for those that rent their home, with the near-identically behaving owners’ equivalent rent (OER) for those that own their home. Given the state of the jobs market, there is nothing unusual in the current level of rent inflation. Housing rent inflation closely tracks the tightness of the jobs market, because you need a job to pay the rent. With the unemployment rate today at the same low as it was in 2006, rent inflation is at the same high as it was in 2006: 4.3 percent. In other words, given the state of the jobs market, there is nothing unusual in the current level of rent inflation (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Given The Jobs Market, Rent Inflation Is Where It Should Be Given its dominance in core inflation, rent inflation running at 4.3 percent would usually be associated with core inflation running at around 3 percent – modestly above the Fed’s target, rather than the current 6.5 percent (Chart I-4). Confirming that it is the outsized displacement of spending into goods, and its associated inflation, that is giving the Fed and other central banks a massive headache. Yet, to repeat, monetary policy is ill placed to fix such a misallocation of demand. Chart I-4Given Rent Inflation, Core Inflation Should Be 3 Percent Still, what about the surging expectations for inflation? Many people believe that these are an independent and forward-looking assessment of how inflation will evolve. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. The bond market’s expected inflation is just the result of an algorithm that uses historic inflation. And at that, an extremely short period of historic inflation, just six months.1  The upshot is that when the backward-looking six month inflation rate is low, like it was in the depths of the global financial crisis in late 2008 or the pandemic recession in early 2020, the market assumes that the forward-looking ten year inflation rate will be low. And when the backward-looking six-month inflation rate is high, like early-2008 or now, the bond market assumes that the forward-looking ten year inflation rate will be high. In other words: Inflation expectations are nothing more than a reflection of the last six months’ inflation rate (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Inflation Expectations Are Just A Reflection Of The Last Six Months' Inflation Rate Turning to wage inflation, with US average hourly earnings inflation running close to 6 percent, it would appear to be game, set, and match to ‘Team Inflation.’  Except that this is a flawed argument. To the extent that wages contribute to inflation, it must come from the inflation in unit labour costs, meaning the ratio of hourly compensation to labour productivity. After all, if you get paid 6 percent more but produce 6 percent more, then it is not inflationary (Chart I-6). Chart I-6If You Get Paid 6 Percent More But Produce 6 Percent More, Then It Is Not Inflationary In this regard, US unit labour costs increased by 3.5 percent through 2021, and slowed to just a 0.9 percent (annualised) increase in the fourth quarter.2 Still, 3.5 percent, and slowing, is modestly above the Fed’s inflation target, and could justify a slight nudging up of the Fed funds rate. But it could not justify the straight sequence of eight rate hikes which the market is now pricing. The Fed Is Praying For A ‘Hail Mary’ Fortunately, the bond market understands all of this. How else could you say 7 percent inflation and 2 percent long bond yield in the same breath?! This is crucial, because it is the long bond yield that drives rate-sensitive parts of the economy, such as housing and construction. And it is the long bond yield that sets the level of all asset prices, including real estate and stocks. Although the Fed cannot admit it, the central bank also understands all of this and hopes that the bond market continues to ‘get it.’ Meaning that it hopes that the long end of the interest rate curve does not lift too far and crash the economy, real estate market, and stock market. So why is the Fed hiking the policy interest rate? The answer is that there will be a time in the future when it does need to lift the entire interest rate curve, and for that it will need its credibility intact. Not hiking now could potentially shred the credibility that is the lifeblood of any central bank. Still, to maintain its credibility without crashing the economy the Fed will have to make the ‘Hail Mary’ move of (American) football. For our non-American readers, the Hail Mary is a high-risk desperate move with little hope of completion. Go long the September 2023 Eurodollar futures contract. To sum up, the likelihood that the Fed completes the straight sequence of eight rate hikes which the market is now pricing seems very low. Hence, today we are opening a new trade. Go long the September 2023 Eurodollar futures contract (Chart I-7). Chart I-7The Likelihood That The Fed Completes A Straight Sequence Of Eight Rate Hikes Seems Low Additionally, stay underweight Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) versus T-bonds (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Underweight TIPS Versus T-Bonds And on a 12-month horizon, underweight the commodity complex, whose elevated prices are highly vulnerable to a near-certain upcoming demand destruction. Fractal Trading Watchlist Confirming the fundamental analysis in the preceding sections, the strong trend in both the 18 month out US interest rate future and the equivalent 3 year T-bond has reached the point of fragility that has identified previous turning-points in 2018 and 2021 (Chart I-9 and Chart I-10). This week we are also adding to our watchlist the commodity plays Canada versus Japan and AUD/KRW, whose outperformances are vulnerable to reversal. From next week you will be able to see the full watchlist of investments that are vulnerable to reversal on our website. Stay tuned. Finally, the underperformance of EUR/CHF has reached the point of fragility on its 260-day fractal structure that has identified the previous major turning-points in 2018 and 2020 (Chart I-11). Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is long EUR/CHF, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 3.6 percent. Chart I-9The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Is Fragile Chart I-10The Strong Trend In The 3 Year T-Bond Is Fragile Chart I-11Go Long EUR/CHF Canada Versus Japan Is Vulnerable To Reversal AUD/KRW Is Vulnerable To Reversal   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The expected 10-year inflation rate = (deviation of 6-month annualized inflation from 1.6)*0.2 + 1.6. 2  Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Executive Summary On a tactical (3-month) horizon, the inflationary impulse from soaring energy and food prices combined with the choke on growth from sanctions will weigh on both the global economy and the global stock market. As such, bond yields could nudge higher, the global stock market has yet to reach its crisis bottom, and the US dollar will rally. But on a cyclical (12-month) horizon, the short-term inflationary impulse combined with sanctions will be massively demand-destructive, at which point the cavalry of lower bond yields will charge to the rescue. Therefore: Overweight the 30-year T-bond and the 30-year Chinese bond, both in absolute terms and relative to other 30-year sovereign bonds. Overweight equities. Overweight long-duration US equities versus short-duration non-US equities. Fractal trading watchlist: Brent crude oil, and oil equities versus banks equities. The DAX Has Sold Off ##br##Because It Expects Profits To Plunge… …But The S&P 500 Has Sold Off ##br##Because The Long Bond Has Sold Off   Bottom Line: In the Ukraine crisis, the protection from lower bond yields and fiscal loosening will not come as quickly and as powerfully as it did during the pandemic. If anything, the fixation on inflation and sanctions may increase short-term pain for both the economy and the stock market, before the cavalry of lower bond yields ultimately charges to the rescue. Feature Given the onset of the largest military conflict in Europe since the Second World War, with the potential to escalate to nuclear conflict, you would have thought that the global stock market would have crashed. Yet since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24 to the time of writing, the world stock market is down a modest 4 percent, while the US stock market is barely down at all. Is this the stock market’s ‘Wile E Coyote’ moment, in which it pedals hopelessly in thin air before plunging down the chasm? Is this the stock market’s ‘Wile E Coyote’ moment, in which it pedals hopelessly in thin air before plunging down the chasm? Admittedly, since the invasion, European bourses have fallen – for example, Germany’s DAX by 10 percent. And stock markets were already falling before the invasion, meaning that this year the DAX is down 20 percent while the S&P 500 is down 12 percent. But there is a crucial difference. While the DAX year-to-date plunge is due to an expected full-blooded profits recession that the Ukraine crisis will unleash, the S&P 500 year-to-date decline is due to the sell-off in the long-duration bond (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). This difference in drivers will also explain the fate of these markets as the crisis evolves, just as in the pandemic.   Chart I-1The DAX Has Sold Off Because It Expects Profits To Plunge...   Chart I-2...But The S&P 500 Has Sold Off Because The Long Bond Has Sold Off During The Pandemic, Central Banks And Governments Saved The Day… We can think of a stock market as a real-time calculator of the profits ‘run-rate.’ In this regard, the real-time stock market is several weeks ahead of analysts, whose profits estimates take time to collect, collate, and record. For example, during the pandemic, the stock market had already discounted a collapse in profits six weeks before analysts’ official estimates (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). Chart I-3The German Stock Market Is Several Weeks Ahead Of Analysts Chart I-4The US Stock Market Is Several Weeks Ahead ##br##Of Analysts We can also think of a stock market as a bond with a variable rather than a fixed income. Just as with a bond, every stock market has a ‘duration’ which establishes which bond it most behaves like when bond yields change. It turns out that the long-duration US stock market has the same duration as a 30-year bond, while the shorter-duration German stock market has the same duration as a 7-year bond. Pulling this together, and assuming no change to the very long-term structural growth story, we can say that: The US stock market = US profits multiplied by the 30-year bond price (Chart I-5 and Chart I-6). The German stock market = German profits multiplied by the 7-year bond price (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). Chart I-5US Profits Multiplied By The 30-Year Bond Price... Chart I-6...Equals The US Stock Market Chart I-7German Profits Multiplied By The 7-Year Bond Price... Chart I-8...Equals The German Stock Market When bond yields rise – as happened through December and January – the greater scope for a price decline in the long-duration 30-year bond will hurt the US stock market both absolutely and relatively. But when bond yields decline – as happened at the start of the pandemic – this same high leverage to the 30-year bond price can protect the US stock market. When bond yields decline, the high leverage to the 30-year bond price can protect the US stock market. During the pandemic, the 30-year T-bond price surged by 35 percent, which more than neutralised the decline in US profits. Supported by this surge in the 30-year bond price combined with massive fiscal stimulus that underpinned demand, the pandemic bear market lasted barely a month. What’s more, the US stock market was back at an all-time high just four months later, much quicker than the German stock market. …But This Time The Cavalry May Take Longer To Arrive Unfortunately, this time the rescue act may take longer. One important difference is that during the pandemic, governments quickly unleashed tax cuts and stimulus payments to shore up demand. Whereas now, they are unleashing sanctions on Russia. This will choke Russia, but will also choke demand in the sanctioning economy. Another crucial difference is that as the pandemic took hold in March 2020, the Federal Reserve slashed the Fed funds rate by 1.5 percent. But at its March 2022 meeting, the Fed will almost certainly raise the interest rate (Chart I-9). Chart I-9As The Pandemic Took Hold, The Fed Could Slash Rates. Not Now. As the pandemic was unequivocally a deflationary shock at its outset, it was countered with a massive stimulatory response from both central banks and governments. In contrast, the Ukraine crisis has unleashed a new inflationary shock from soaring energy and food prices. And this on top of the pandemic’s second-round inflationary effects which have already dislocated inflation into uncomfortable territory. Our high conviction view is that this inflationary impulse combined with sanctions will be massively demand-destructive, and thereby ultimately morph into a deflationary shock. Yet the danger is that myopic policymakers and markets are not chess players who think several moves ahead. Instead, by fixating on the immediate inflationary impulse from soaring energy and food prices, they will make the wrong move. In the Ukraine crisis, the big risk is that the protection from lower bond yields and fiscal loosening will not come as quickly and as powerfully as it did during the pandemic. If anything, the fixation on inflation and sanctions may increase short-term pain for both the economy and the stock market. Compared with the pandemic, both the sell-off and the recovery will take longer to play out. In the Ukraine crisis, the big risk is that the protection from lower bond yields and fiscal loosening will not come as quickly and as powerfully as it did during the pandemic. One further thought. The Ukraine crisis has ‘cancelled’ Covid from the news and our fears, as if it were just a bad dream. Yet the virus has not disappeared and will continue to replicate and mutate freely. Probably even more so, now that we have dismissed it, and Europe’s largest refugee crisis in decades has given it a happy hunting ground. Hence, do not dismiss another wave of infections later this year. The Investment Conclusions Continuing our chess metaphor, a tactical investment should consider only the next one or two moves, a cyclical investment should be based on the next five moves, while a long-term structural investment (which we will not cover in this report) should visualise the board after twenty moves. All of which leads to several investment conclusions: On a tactical (3-month) horizon, the inflationary impulse from soaring energy and food prices combined with the choke on growth from sanctions will weigh on both the global economy and the global stock market. As such, bond yields could nudge higher, the global stock market has yet to reach its crisis bottom, and the US dollar will rally (Chart I-10). Chart I-10When Stock Markets Sell Off, The Dollar Rallies But on a cyclical (12-month) horizon, the short-term inflationary impulse combined with sanctions will be massively demand-destructive, at which point the cavalry of lower bond yields will charge to the rescue. Therefore: Overweight the 30-year T-bond and the 30-year Chinese bond, both in absolute terms and relative to other 30-year sovereign bonds. Overweight equities. Overweight long-duration US equities versus short-duration non-US equities. How Can Fractal Analysis Help In A Crisis? When prices are being driven by fundamentals, events and catalysts, as they are now, how can fractal analysis help investors? The answer is that it can identify when a small event or catalyst can have a massive effect in reversing a trend. In this regard, the extreme rally in crude oil has reached fragility on both its 65-day and 130-day fractal structures. Meaning that any event or catalyst that reduces fears of a supply constraint will cause an outsized reversal (Chart I-11). Chart I-11The Extreme Rally In Crude Oil Is Fractally Fragile Equally interesting, the huge outperformance of oil equities versus bank equities is reaching the point of fragility on its 260-day fractal structure that has reliably signalled major switching points between the sectors (Chart I-12). Given the fast-moving developments in the crisis, we are not initiating any new trades this week, but stay tuned. Chart I-12The Huge Outperformance Of Oil Equities Versus Banks Equities Is Approaching A Reversal Fractal Trading Watchlist Biotech To Rebound US Healthcare Vs. Software Approaching A Reversal Norway's Outperformance Could End Greece’s Brief Outperformance To End Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Executive Summary No Contagion Yet The risk of contagion into other FX pairs from the collapse of the RUB remains contained but is rising. The main transmission mechanism will be a global rush into dollars, should the crisis trigger a global recession. For now, European countries with big trade and financial relationships with Russia are the ones in the firing range of any escalation. The euro has already adjusted lower. As such, while the crisis could get worse before it gets better, the broad DXY index is unlikely to rally much beyond 100. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve will be swift in addressing any offshore dollar funding crises, via facilities revived during the depths of the COVID-19 crisis. Crude prices could be near capitulation highs. A reversal in oil prices (as the forward curve suggests) will benefit oil consumers versus producers. Long EUR/CAD and short NOK/SEK positions are on our shopping list.   Recommendations Inception Level Inception Date Return Short NOK/SEK 1.11 Mar 3/2022 - Bottom Line: Bottom Line: If a further escalation in the crisis triggers a global recession, it will lead to another down leg in stocks, and a rally in the dollar. Meanwhile, a détente will allow the bull market in stocks to continue, and the dollar rally to reverse. As we argue below, while the crisis could get worse before it gets better, the broad DXY index is unlikely to rally much beyond 100. Feature The market is treating the Russo-Ukrainian conflict as a localized event that is unlikely to trigger a global recession. While the DXY index is fast approaching the psychological 100 level, other FX pairs forewarning a major risk-off event on the horizon remain rather sanguine. For example, the AUD/JPY cross is toppy but has tracked the mild correction in global stocks. The big losers in the DXY index have been the Swedish krona and the euro, currencies directly in the firing range of any escalation in the crisis (Chart 1). Chart 2Investors Have Bought FX Hedges Chart 1No Contagion Yet Specific to the euro, risk reversals — the difference in implied volatility between out-of-the-money calls versus puts — have collapsed below COVID-19 lows. Across a broad spectrum of currencies, investors have been building hedges against losses (Chart 2). The mirror image of this is near record-high net speculative positioning in the dollar. Given this market configuration, the key question is where next? Clearly, if a further escalation in the crisis triggers a global recession, it will lead to another down leg in stocks, and a rally in the dollar. Meanwhile, a détente will allow the bull market in stocks to continue, and the dollar rally to reverse. As we argue below, while the crisis could get worse before it gets better, the broad DXY index is unlikely to rally much beyond 100. A Review Of The Fed Put Chart 3The Fed And Liquidity Crises Both a global pandemic and fear of a global war are existential threats which have occurred throughout history. As such, should we survive an escalation in tensions, the DXY could behave as it did during the COVID-19 crisis. Specifically, the pandemic triggered a rush into dollars amidst a global shortage. This was a key reason why the DXY punched above 100. Fast forward to today, and a lot of the facilities that were tapped into during the COVID-19 crisis can be reactivated. A review of the sequence of events back then is instructive: The Fed began by offering unlimited funding through swap lines to five major central banks at the overnight index swap + 25 basis points.1 This was effective as of the week of March 16, 2020 (Chart 3). When this proved insufficient to satiate the demand for dollars, the swap lines were extended to nine more central banks, with a cap of US$60 billion and a maturity of 84 days.2 This was announced on March 19, 2020. Finally, FIMA account holders were allowed to temporarily exchange their Treasury securities held with the Fed for US dollars. This was announced on March 24, 2020. In hindsight, it turned out that the Fed’s actions on March 19 marked the peak in the dollar at 103, even though we continue to live with Covid-19 today. That peak was 5% above current levels. What ensued was a period of volatility, with periodic rallies towards 100, but these provided excellent shorting opportunities for the DXY. The behavior of the DXY today could be more sanguine, with the benefit of hindsight. Barometers Of Contagion Chart 4Defaults Less Likely Outside Russia No two crises are the same. It is likely that holders of Russian US dollar debt will never be made whole, with coupon payments already suspended. As a result, the risk is that investors liquidate other holdings of emerging market dollar bonds to cover margin calls. This will lead to a self-reinforcing spiral which will transform a localized liquidity crisis into a global solvency one. Credit default swaps in major EM economies are rising, as they blow out for Russian debt (Chart 4). That said, there are a few similarities with past Russian incursions: The selloff in Russian debt during the invasion of Crimea was a localized event. The invasion of Georgia took place at the heart of the global financial crisis of 2008. In the former, a self-reinforcing feedback loop of higher refinancing rates and defaults did not ensue. The reaction from other EM currencies and equity markets has been rather constructive, despite the wholesale liquidation in Russian assets (Chart 5). As adjustment mechanisms, currencies are good at sniffing out the risk of contagion. That is not the case yet. Finally, the DXY and the RUB have already decoupled, as they did in previous episodes of a Russian invasion (Chart 6). In the past, this was a good indication that the event was localized, even though the RUB only bottomed after falling 35% and 47% in 2008 and 2014, respectively. While the risk today can be characterized as much greater, this dynamic remains the same (the dollar is up only 1.6% since the incursion).  Chart 5Spot The Outlier Chart 6The Dollar And Rouble Have Already Decoupled What is clear is that the longer the conflict lasts, the less likely it is that the Fed will deliver the aggressive rate hikes originally priced by the market this year. This will keep US policy very accommodative, at a time when the real fed funds rate is still well below estimates of neutral (Chart 7). Chart 7The Fed Is Still Very Accomodative The message from the Bank of Canada this week could be a model for other central banks, where quantitative tightening (QT) and rate hikes complement each other. This could signal a slower pace of hikes than the market expects and, in turn, could help lead to a steeping of yield curves, especially as growth eventually recovers. Applying The Russian Template The bigger question for currency markets longer term is what happens to foreign holders of US assets when the dust settles. Russian holdings of US Treasurys peaked during the Georgian war and have since fallen to nearly 0% of total reserves (Chart 8). This has been replaced by gold, RMB assets, euro assets, and other currencies. With US geopolitical rivals having seen how vulnerable the Russian economy has been to a cut-off from the SWIFT messaging system, currency alliances outside the scope of the dollar are likely to solidify. China is the number one contributor to the US trade deficit, which is hitting record lows. It is also the largest holder of US Treasurys, which it continues to destock. This could be a subtle retaliation against past US policies, or perhaps a way to make room for the internationalization of the RMB (Chart 9). What is clear is that nations getting cutoff from the US financial system can only accelerate this trend. Chart 8Template For US Geopolitical Rivals? Chart 9China Has Stopped Recycling Surpluses Into Treasurys From a broader perspective, the process of reserve diversification out of US dollars, into other currencies has been accelerating in recent years. International Monetary Fund (IMF) data shows that the global allocation of foreign exchange reserves to the US dollar peaked at about 72% in the early 2000s and has been in a downtrend ever since. Meanwhile, allocations to other currencies as well as gold have been surging. Ever since the trend began to accelerate in 2015, the DXY has been unable to sustainably punch through the 100 level (Chart 10). Chart 10The DXY: 100 Is The Line In The Sand Portfolio Strategy Deflationary shocks tend to be bullish for US Treasurys and the dollar. An inflationary dislocation will push investors towards gold (and currencies that act as an inflation hedge such as the NOK, CAD, AUD, and NZD). So far, the market seems to be betting on stagflation, where both Treasury yields and gold rise in tandem (Chart 11). The response of the Federal Reserve will be the key arbiter. A growth slowdown arising from the pandemic will slow the pace of rate hikes. As such, rising inflation and low real yields will reduce the appeal of US Treasurys and boost the appeal of gold in the near term. Historically, this has been bearish for the US dollar (Chart 12). Chart 11Competing Safe-Haven Assets Have Diverged Chart 12The Bond-To-Gold Ratio And The Dollar In our portfolio, we have two trades: A short CHF/JPY position, as we believe the yen will be a better hedge than the franc given higher real rates in Japan; and a long EUR/GBP position, given that the euro is closer to pricing in a recession, compared to the pound (or even the Canadian dollar). We will adjust our positions accordingly as the crisis unfolds.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 These included the Bank of Canada, the Bank of Japan, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank, and the Swiss National Bank. 2 These include the Reserve Bank of Australia, the Banco Central do Brasil, the Danmarks Nationalbank (Denmark), the Bank of Korea, the Banco de Mexico, the Norges Bank, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, the Monetary Authority of Singapore, and the Sveriges Riksbank. Trades & Forecasts Strategic View Tactical Holdings (0-6 months) Limit Orders Forecast Summary

Executive Summary Russian Stocks Are Breaking Below Their 2008 And 2015 Lows The Kremlin will not halt its military operations in Ukraine for now. The strategic objective of Putin is to bring Ukraine back into its geopolitical and economic orbit. His immediate goal is to unseat the current government in Kyiv and install a pro-Kremlin administration. Russia is embracing a long period of economic and financial isolation. Russian financial markets will remain uninvestable for an extended period. We are downgrading Central European equities and local currency bonds to underweight within their respective EM portfolios. As a new trade, we recommend shorting the Polish zloty versus the US dollar. Recommendation Inception Date Return Short PLN / Long USD Mar 02, 2022   Bottom Line: The security situation in Europe will continue to deteriorate, especially if the Russian army fails to secure a rapid military victory. This poses a risk to global and EM risk assets. Within a global equity portfolio, investors should overweight the US, and underweight EM and Europe. Feature Global macro has taken a back seat and geopolitics has become the dominant driver of financial markets. Still, we believe geopolitical risks are underappreciated by global financial markets. Will Western Sanctions Halt Russia’s Military Operation? While sanctions have started and will continue to hurt the Russian economy and its financial system, the Kremlin will not halt its military operations in Ukraine for now. The strategic objective of Putin is to bring Ukraine back into its geopolitical and economic orbit. His immediate goal is to unseat the current government in Kyiv and install a pro-Kremlin administration. In fact, having already incurred considerable economic and financial costs, Russia will not pull back its army anytime soon. If anything, Russia’s rhetoric and actions will get more aggressive in the coming weeks. For now, the Kremlin will not agree to anything short of the surrender of Ukraine’s government and its army. In turn, Ukraine authorities and its military intend to continue fighting with the support of arms supplies from the West. As a result, any peace talks will be futile. The situation will thus continue to escalate and the risk premium in global financial markets will rise further. The global political uncertainty index will be rising and, as a rule of thumb, it heralds a lower P/E ratio for global equities (Chart 1). Chart 1Rising Geopolitical Risks = Lower P/E Ratio The main question is, therefore, how bad could it get? We believe the conflict might take a turn for the worse. If the Russian military fails to achieve its goal to remove the current government in Kyiv, Putin will go all out. Losing this war is not an option for him. The failure of the Kremlin to secure a rapid military victory implies a massive escalation on two fronts: (1) the military actions of the Russian army in Ukraine will intensify and civilian infrastructure and potentially the population at large might be threatened; and (2) Russia will become more aggressive in its threats to the West. If and when Putin perceives that his military operation is failing or his power is threatened at home, he will resort to the extreme actions he has been warning about. Putin will bolster his military threats to Europe and to the US. In such a scenario, global risk assets will tank. Bottom Line: The security situation in Europe will continue to deteriorate, especially if the Russian army fails to secure a rapid military victory. Investors should position their portfolio to account for the fact that things will get worse before they improve. Russian Markets Are Uninvestable Chart 2No Buyers For Russian Bonds Russian markets have become uninvestable and will remain so for some time (Chart 2). The elevated odds of further military escalation in Ukraine entails more downside in Russian financial assets. Additional sanctions on the Russian economy cannot be ruled out at this point. These sanctions as well as the capital controls imposed by Russia on both residents and non-residents make Russian financial markets uninvestable. We downgraded Russian stocks to underweight within an EM equity portfolio on December 17, 2021, arguing that geopolitical tensions surrounding Ukraine would escalate. Chart 3 suggests that Russian share prices in USD terms are about to break below their 2008 and 2015 lows. Technically speaking, if this transpires, it will entail considerable downside. Similarly, the ruble versus an equally-weighted basket of the US dollar and euro on a total return basis has formed a technically bearish head-and-shoulders configuration (Chart 4, top panel). Notably, the ruble’s real effective exchange rate based on both CPI and PPI is not as cheap as it was in 1998 and 2015 (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 4More Downside In The Ruble Chart 3Russian Stocks Are Breaking Below Their 2008 And 2015 Lows The sanctions have effectively cut off the largest Russian commercial banks1 from the SWIFT electronic system and frozen the central bank of Russia’s (CBR) foreign exchange reserves deposited at foreign institutions. As of June 2021, roughly US$ 377 billion out of US$ 585 billion of Russian foreign exchange reserves were held in Western commercial banks or institutions, most of it in liquid financial securities. Meanwhile, the rest were held either in gold physical holdings (US$ 127 billion) or at Chinese institutions (US$ 80 billion). If all western countries freeze the CRB’s assets held at their banks, Russia’s effective foreign exchange reserves will be down to US$ 207 billion. This assumes the amount of international reserves at western banks has not changed since June 2021. As a result, the ratio of the central bank’s foreign reserves-to-broad money supply (all household and corporate local currency deposits) has dropped from 0.9 to 0.6 (Chart 5). This suggests that the central bank’s available amount of foreign exchange reserves coverage of broad money supply has been reduced dramatically in recent days due to economic and financial sanctions. This and a massive flight of capital out of the country has led the authorities to impose capital controls. Also, the government is compelling domestic exporting firms to sell 80% of their foreign generated revenues. Will the West lift sanctions right after the war in Ukraine ends? We doubt it. In our view, Russia is embracing a long period of economic and financial isolation. Besides, Russia lacks the manufacturing capabilities needed to mitigate the effects of these sanctions. Chart 6 shows that Russia has been investing little outside resource sectors and real estate. At 8-8.5% of GDP, investment in non-resource sectors excluding properties has been too low for too long. Chart 5Russia: FX Reserves' Coverage Of Money Supply Chart 6Russia Has Not Been Investing Much   This entails that Russia cannot become self-sufficient in many manufacturing sectors and technology. Trade with China will be the main channel that Russia can secure the manufacturing goods, machinery and technology it requires. Still, this will not allow the Russian economy to avoid a prolonged period of stagflation. Bottom Line: Odds are high that Russian financial markets will remain uninvestable for an extended period. The Russia economy is facing years of stagflation. Central European Financial Markets: Contagion Or An Existential Threat? Chart 7Central European Currencies Will Depreciate Although Central European countries are not at risk from Russia’s military attack, their financial markets will remain jittery for a while. We are downgrading Polish, Czech and Hungarian equities, currencies and domestic bonds to underweight (Chart 7). The likelihood of strikes on Poland, the Baltic states or any other neighboring NATO member country is very low. Attacking a NATO member would trigger Article V of NATO and force the organization to defend its member. Importantly, we do not think the Kremlin has the appetite for war against NATO. Even though Russia is unlikely to stage an attack on any NATO member, there could still be threats from Moscow and escalation involving central European countries. This will be especially so if Putin fails to secure the change of government in Kyiv in the coming weeks and starts threatening the West due to the latter’s support of Ukraine. As a result, Central European financial markets will continue selling off further in response to this potential escalation. Bottom Line: We are downgrading Central European equities and local currency bonds to underweight within a respective EM universe. We are maintaining the long CZK / short HUF trade. As a new trade, we recommend shorting the Polish zloty versus the US dollar. Investment Recommendations Global share prices will continue selling off. Our US equity capitulation indicator has fallen significantly but is not yet at 2010, 2011, 2015-16 and 2018 levels (Chart 8). It will at least reach this level before the S&P 500 bottoms. Chart 8The S&P 500 Selloff Is Not Over Our capitulation indicator for EM stocks is not low yet either (Chart 9). Hence, there is more downside. Investors should continue to take a defensive stance. Chart 9EM Stocks: Is There A Capitulation Phase Still Ahead? Chart 10US Stocks Are About To Resume Their Relative Outperformance Within a global equity portfolio, investors should overweight the US, and underweight EM and Europe. As US/global bond yields drop due to geopolitical jitters, the US stock market and growth stocks will resume their outperformance, at least for a period of time (Chart 10). Within an EM equity portfolio, we recommend overweighting Brazil, Mexico, Chinese A-shares, Singapore and Korea and underweighting Russia, Central Europe, South Africa, Indonesia, Turkey, Peru, Chinese Investable Stocks, Colombia and Chile. EM currencies and fixed-income markets remain vulnerable as the global risk off move causes the US dollar to spike. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Andrija Vesic Associate Editor andrijav@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     Following the invasion of Ukraine on February 26, the US administration added the two largest Russian banks, Sberbank and VTB Bank, to the sanction lists. Both banks combined total assets represent close to 40% of total Russian banking system assets. ​​​​​​

Executive Summary Hopes of an imminent peace deal between Russia and Ukraine will be dashed. The conflict will worsen over the coming days. As was the case during the original Cold War, both sides will eventually forge an understanding that allows the pursuit of mutually beneficial arrangements. A stabilization in geopolitical relations, coupled with fading pandemic headwinds, should keep global growth above trend this year, helping to support corporate earnings. The era of hyperglobalization is over. While central banks will temper their plans to raise rates in the near term, increased spending on defense and energy independence will lead to higher interest rates down the road. How Stocks Fared During The Cuban Missile Crisis Bottom Line: The near-term outlook for risk assets has deteriorated. We are downgrading global equities from overweight to neutral on a tactical 3-month horizon. We continue to expect stocks to outperform bonds on a 12-month horizon as the global economic recovery gains momentum. On an even longer 2-to-5-year horizon, equities are likely to struggle as interest rates rise more than expected.   Dear Client, Given the rapidly evolving situation in Ukraine, we are sending you our thoughts earlier than normal this week. We will continue to update you as events warrant it. Best regards, Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist   False Dawn In the lead-up to the invasion, Vladimir Putin assumed that Ukrainian forces would fold just as quickly as US-backed Afghan forces did last summer. He also presumed that the rest of the world would reluctantly accept Russia’s takeover of Ukraine. Both assumptions appear to have been proven wrong. Even if Putin succeeds in installing a puppet government in Kyiv, a protracted insurgency is sure to follow. In the initial days of the invasion, Russian troops generally tried to avoid harming civilians, partly in the hope that Ukrainians would see the Russian military as liberators. Now that this hope has been dashed, a more brutal offensive could unfold. This would trigger even more sanctions, leading to a wider gulf between Russia and the West. It is highly doubtful that sanctions will dissuade Putin from trying to subdue Ukraine. Putin made a name for himself by staging a successful invasion of Chechnya in 1999, just three years after the Yeltsin government had suffered a major defeat there. To withdraw from Ukraine now, without having fomented a regime change in Kyiv, would be a humiliating outcome for him. In this light, BCA’s geopolitical team, led by Matt Gertken, has argued that ongoing peace talks taking place on the border of Ukraine and Belarus are unlikely to amount to much. The situation will get worse before it gets better. Market Implications It always feels a bit crass writing about finance during times like this, but as investment strategists, it is our job to do so. With that in mind, we would make the following observations: Global equities are likely to suffer another leg down in the near term as hopes of an imminent peace deal fizzle. Consequently, we are downgrading our view on global stocks from overweight to neutral on a 3-month horizon. Nimble investors with a low risk tolerance should consider going underweight equities. We are shifting our stance on US stocks from underweight to neutral on a 3-month horizon. Europe could face significant pressures from near-term disruptions to Russian gas supplies. It does not make much sense for Russia to export gas if it is effectively barred from accessing the proceeds of its sales. Central and Eastern Europe will be particularly hard hit (Chart 1). Chart 1Central and Eastern Europe Would Suffer The Most From A Russian Energy Blockade For now, we are maintaining an overweight to stocks on a 12-month horizon. While it will take a month or two, both sides will ultimately forge an understanding whereby Russia and the West continue to publicly bad-mouth each other while still pursuing mutually beneficial arrangements. Remember that during the Cold War, the Soviet Union continued to sell oil to the West. Even the Cuban Missile Crisis had only a fleeting impact on equities (Chart 2). Chart 2How Stocks Fared During The Cuban Missile Crisis Chart 3European Fiscal Policy Will Remain Structurally Looser Over The Coming Years Assuming that any reduction in Russian energy exports is temporary, oil prices will eventually recede. BCA’s commodities team, led by Bob Ryan, expects Brent to settle to $88/bbl by the end of 2022 (down from the current spot price of $101/bbl and close to the forward price of $87/bbl). Like oil, gold prices have upside in the near term but should edge lower once the dust settles.    Global growth should remain solidly above trend in 2022 as pandemic-related headwinds fade and fiscal policy turns more expansionary. Even before the Ukraine invasion, the structural primary budget deficit in Europe was set to swing from a small surplus to a deficit (Chart 3). The emerging new world order will lead to sizable additional military spending, as well as increased outlays towards achieving energy independence (new LNG terminals, more investment in renewables, and perhaps even some steps towards restarting nuclear power programs). China will also step up credit easing and fiscal stimulus. This will not only benefit the Chinese economy, but it will also provide some much-needed support to European exporters (Chart 4). While credit spreads are apt to widen further in the near term, corporate bonds should benefit from stronger growth later this year. US high-yield bonds are pricing in a jump in the default rate from 1.3% over the past 12 months to 4.2% over the coming year, which seems somewhat excessive (Chart 5).  Chart 4Chinese Policy Will Be A Tailwind For Growth Chart 5Credit Markets Are Pricing In An Excessive Default Rate Central banks will temper their plans to raise rates in the near term. Investors and speculators are net short duration at the moment, which could amplify any downward move in bond yields (Chart 6). However, over a multi-year horizon, recent events will lead to both higher inflation and interest rates. Larger budget deficits will sap global savings. The retreat from globalization will also put upward pressure on wages and prices. As defensive currencies, the US dollar and the Japanese yen will strengthen in the near term as the conflict in Ukraine escalates. Looking beyond the next few months, the dollar will weaken. On a purchasing power parity basis, the dollar is amongst the most expensive currencies (Chart 7). For example, relative to the euro, the dollar is 22% overvalued (Chart 8). The US trade deficit has doubled since the start of the pandemic, even as equity inflows have dipped (Chart 9). Speculators are long the greenback, which raises the risk of an eventual reversal in dollar sentiment. Chart 6Short Duration Is A Crowded Trade Chart 7The US Dollar Is Overvalued…   Chart 8...Especially Against The Euro The freezing of Russia’s foreign exchange reserves will encourage China to diversify away from US dollars towards hard assets such as land and infrastructure in economies where they are less likely to be seized. It will also encourage the Chinese authorities to bolster domestic demand and permit a further modest appreciation of the RMB since these two steps will reduce the current account surpluses that make foreign exchange accumulation necessary. EM currencies will benefit from this trend. Chart 9The Trade Deficit Is A Headwind For The Dollar In summary, the near-term outlook for risk assets has deteriorated. We are downgrading global equities from overweight to neutral on a tactical 3-month horizon. We continue to expect stocks to outperform bonds on a 12-month horizon as the global economic recovery gains momentum. On an even longer 2-to-5-year horizon, equities are likely to struggle as interest rates rise more than expected. Trade Update: We closed our long Brent oil trade for a gain of 24% last week. Earlier today, we were stopped out of the trade we initiated on September 16, 2021 going long the Russian ruble and the Brazilian real. The BRL leg was up 6.2% at the time of termination while the RUB leg was down 23.1% (based on the Bloomberg RUB/USD Carry Return Index as of 4pm EST today). Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores