Diplomacy/Foreign Relations

Executive Summary The Declining Value Of An Old Friendship Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? India may buy cheap oil from Russia, but oil alone cannot expand this partnership. India needs to maintain a balance of power against China and Pakistan. With Russia’s heft set to decline, India will be compelled to explore a configuration with America. India will slowly yet surely move into America’s sphere of influence. Strong geopolitical as well as economic incentives exist for both sides to develop partnership. The US’s grand strategy will continue to collide with that of Russia and China. China will increasingly align with Russia and is doomed to stay entangled in a strategic conflict with India. With India a promising emerging market set to cleave to America, we reiterate our strategic buy call on India. Tactically however we are bearish on India. We also recommend investors go strategically long Indian tech / short Chinese tech. This pair trade is likely to keep rising on a secular basis. Trade Recommendation Inception Date Return LONG INDIAN TECH / CHINESE TECH EQUITIES 2022-04-21   Bottom Line: For reasons of geopolitics as well as macroeconomics, we maintain our constructive view on India and our negative view on China on a strategic time frame. On a tactical timeframe, we remain sellers of India given cyclical political and macro risks. Feature Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has forced all players at the global geopolitical table to show their hand. The one major player at the table who is yet to show her cards is India. Which side India choses matters. Its geopolitical rise is one of the many reasons we live in a brave new multipolar world. India will gain influence in the global economy as a large buyer of oil and guns and as a user of tech platforms and capital. Related Report  Geopolitical StrategyFrom Nixon-Mao To Putin-Xi The situation is complicated by mixed signals. India has played a geopolitically neutral or “non-aligned” role for most of its time since independence in 1947. Those who believe India will stay neutral point to the fact that India has continued buying oil from Russia and has abstained from voting on both anti-Russia and anti-Ukrainian resolutions at the United Nations. Those who predict that India will side with Russia have trouble explaining how India will get along with China, which committed to a “no limits” strategic partnership with Russia prior to the invasion. Those who speculate that India will align with the US have trouble explaining India’s persistent ties with Russia and the Biden administration’s threat of punishment for those who help Russia circumvent US sanctions. In this report we argue that the Indo-Russian friendship is destined to fade over a long-term, strategic horizon. The reason is simple: Russia’s geopolitical power is fading and hence it can no longer help India meet its regional security goals. The growing Russia-China alignment will only alienate India further. Hence, we expect the relationship between India and Russia to be reduced to a transactional status – mainly trade in oil and guns over the next few years, while strategic realities will drive India to tighten relations with the US and its Asian allies. Three geopolitical forces will break down the camaraderie between India and Russia, namely: (1) A collision in the grand strategies of America with that of both China and Russia, (2) India’s need to align with the US to underwrite its own regional security, and (3) China’s rising distrust of India as India aligns with the US and its allies. In fact, we expect China and India to stay embroiled in a strategic conflict over the next few years. Any thaw in their relations will be temporary at best. The rest of this report explains and quantifies these forces. We conclude with actionable investment conclusions. Let’s dive straight in. US Versus China-Russia: A Grand Strategy Collision “For the enemy is the communist system itself – implacable, insatiable, unceasing in its drive for world domination … For this is not a struggle for supremacy of arms alone – it is also a struggle for supremacy between two conflicting ideologies: freedom under God versus ruthless, Godless tyranny. “ – John F. Kennedy, Remarks at Mormon Tabernacle, Utah (September 1960) Chart 1China’s Is An Export-Powered Economic Heavyweight Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? It’s been six decades since these words were spoken and today the quotation is more relevant than at any time since the Cold War ended in 1991. The excerpt captures how the Biden administration has positioned itself with respect to Russia and China, only replacing “communist” with “autocratic” in Russia’s case. The Ukraine war helps America advance its grand strategy with respect to Russia. The Ukraine war is steadily draining Russia’s already limited economic might. Western sanctions aim to weaken Russia further. Russia’s military capabilities are now in greater doubt than before, so that its only remaining geopolitical strengths are nuclear weapons and, significantly, its leverage as an energy supplier. With Russia weakened, yet capable of reinforcing China, America will focus more intensely on China over the coming years and the breakdown in US-China relations will only accelerate. China is a genuine economic competitor to the United States (Chart 1). Its strategic rise worries America. To make matters worse, America poses a unique threat to China. China relies heavily on energy imports (Chart 2) from the Middle East (Chart 3). This is a source of great vulnerability as China’s fuel imports must traverse seas that America controls (Map 1). During peace time, and periods of robust US-China strategic engagement, this vulnerability is not an issue. But China is acutely aware that America has the capability to choke China’s energy access at will in the event of hostilities, just as it did to Japan in World War II. Russia has managed to wage war in Ukraine, against US wishes, since it is a net energy supplier to Europe and the global economy. Chart 2China And India Rely On Imports For Energy Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? ​​​​​ Chart 3India And China Both Depend On Middle East For Oil Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? ​​​​​​ Map 1US Military Footprint In Middle East Threatens China … Yet US Presence In South Asia Is Weak Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? Atop China’s fuel-supply related insecurities, America has begun a strategic pivot to Asia in recent years. For instance, America has pulled troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, declared a trade war on China, and strengthening strategic alliances and partnerships with regional geopolitical powers like India and Australia (Table 1). The US has retained its alliance with the Philippines despite an adverse government there, while South Korea has just elected a pro-American president again. With Japan, South Korea and Australia aligned militarily with the US, China’s naval power pales in comparison (Chart 4). Table 1America’s Influence In Asia Is Rising Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? Chart 4China’s Naval Power Pales Versus US Allies In Asia Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? Now China cannot watch America refurbish its grand strategy in Asia silently. Given China’s need for supply security, geopolitical independence, and regional influence, Beijing will double down on building its influence in Asia and in the eastern hemisphere. Against this backdrop of US-China competition, military conflict becomes increasingly likely, especially in the form of “proxy wars” involving China’s neighbors but conceivably even in the form of US-China naval warfare. China’s plans to modernize and enhance its economic prowess will add to America’s worries (Chart 5). A bipartisan consensus of American lawmakers is focused on reviving America’s economic strength but simultaneously limiting China’s benefit by restricting Chinese imports and American high-tech exports (Chart 6). Since Beijing cannot afford to base its national strategy on the hope of lingering American engagement, US-China trade relations will weaken regardless of which party controls the White House. Chart 5China’s Growing Might Worries America Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? ​​​​​​ Chart 6US Growth Does Not Equal Growth In Imports From China Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? ​​​​​​ The consensus in global financial media (which we never bought) held that the Biden administration would reduce tensions with China – but the détente never occurred and the remaining window for détente is limited by the uncertainty of the 2024 election. The US is currently occupied with Russia but threatening to impose secondary sanctions on China if it provides military assistance or circumvents sanctions. The Russo-Ukrainian war has led to an energy price shock that hurts an industrial economy like China’s. For the rest of this year China’s leaders will be consumed with managing the energy shock, a nationwide Covid-19 outbreak, and the important political reshuffle this fall. Only in 2023 will Beijing have room for maneuver when it comes to the US. But the US cannot return to engagement, which strengthens China’s economy, while China cannot open up to the US economy and become more exposed to future US sanctions. Bottom Line: A grand strategy collision between the US and China is certain. US dominance of sea routes that China uses for energy imports necessarily intimidates China. America’s pivot to Asia threatens China’s regional influence. This will prompt China to restrict American advances in strategic geographies —and not only the Taiwan Strait but also, as we will see, in South Asia. US-India Strategic Alignment: Only A Matter Of Time “If they [nation states] wish to survive, they must be willing to go to war to preserve a balance against the growing hegemonic power of the period.” – Nicholas J. Spykman, America's Strategy in World Politics (Harcourt, Brace and Co, 1942) For reasons of strategy, China will continue to build its influence in South Asia. South Asia offers prospects of sea access to the Indian Ocean, namely via Pakistan. This factor could ease China’s fuel supply insecurities. Also, penetrating northern India helps China set up a noose around India’s neck, thus neutralizing a potential enemy and US ally. In short China will pursue a two-pronged strategy of Eurasian development and naval expansion, both of which threaten India. Against this backdrop, India needs US support to counter Pakistan to its west, China’s latest intrusions into its eastern flank (Map 2), and China’s maritime challenge. India has historically spent generously on defense, but its military might pales in comparison to that of China. Even partial support from America would help India make some progress toward a balance of power in South Asia (Chart 7). Map 2China’s Newfound Interest In India’s Eastern Flank Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? Chart 7America Can Provide Military Heft To India Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? ​​​​​​ Chart 8US Is A Key Trading Partner For India Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? ​​​​​​ There’s another reason why US alignment makes sense for India. Much like China, India is highly import-dependent for its fuel needs (Chart 2). Given India’s high reliance on the Middle East for energy, India stands to benefit from America’s solid military footprint in this region (Map 1). The US too has a motive in exploring this alliance. India can provide a strategic foothold on the Eurasian rimland. America will value this new access route to Eurasia because America knows that its military footprint in South Asia is surprisingly weak – a weakness it needs to address against the backdrop of China’s increasing influence in the region (Map 1). Meaningful economic interests also underpin the US-India relationship. India and the US appear like sparring partners from time to time. The US may raise issues of human rights violations in India and the two may bicker over trade. However there exist strong economic incentives for the two countries to keep their differences under check and develop a long-term strategic partnership. The US is a major user of India’s software services and buys nearly a fifth of India’s merchandise exports. The trading relationship that India shares with the US is far more developed than India’s trading relationship with China and Russia (Chart 8). Capital is a factor of production that India desperately needs to finance its high growth. America and its allies are also major suppliers of capital to India (Chart 9). India is averse to granting China the political influence that would go along with major capital infusions and direct investments. Chart 9US And Its Allies Are Major Suppliers Of Capital To India Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? ​​​​​​ Chart 10India Offers US Firms Access To High Growth Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? ​​​​​​ Chart 11India Is A Key Market For American Big Tech Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? India on its part is a large marketplace which offers high growth prospects (Chart 10) and remains open and accessible to American corporations (unlike say Russia or China). The growth element is something that American firms will value more over time, as the American economy is mature and has a lower potential growth rate. Most importantly if the US imposes sanctions on India, then two key business lobbies are sure to mitigate the damage. In specific: Since India is a key potential market for American tech firms (Chart 11), Big Tech will always desire amicable Indo-US relations. Since India is the third largest buyer of defense goods globally, American defense suppliers will have similar intentions. In both cases, US policy planners will support these industries’ lobbying efforts due to the grand strategic considerations outlined above. Bottom Line: India will slowly yet surely move into America’s sphere of influence. Notwithstanding persistent differences, the Indo-US relationship will strengthen over a strategic timeframe. Strong geopolitical motives as well as notable economic incentives exist for both sides to develop this alignment. Indo-Russian Alignment: Destined To Fade The Indo-Russian friendship can be traced back to the second half of the 20th century. The fulcrum was the fact that Russia was a formidable land-based power and provided an offset against threats from China and Pakistan (Chart 12). The finest hour of this friendship perhaps came in 1971 when Russia sided with India in its war with Pakistan. India’s citizens hold an unusually favorable opinion of Russia (Chart 13). Chart 12The Declining Value Of An Old Friendship Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? ​​​​​​ Chart 13Indians Hold A Favorable Opinion Of Russians Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? ​​​​​​ Despite this rich past, the Indo-Russia friendship is doomed to fade over a strategic timeframe. Even if  Russia’s share in Indian oil rises from current low levels of 2%, this glue alone cannot hold the Indo-Russian relationship together for one key reason: Russia’s geopolitical might has been waning and Russia can no longer help India establish a balance of power against China and Pakistan (Table 2). In fact, since 2006, the Russo-Indian partnership has been commanding lower geopolitical power than that of China (Chart 12). Table 2Russia’s Military Heft Is Of Limited Use To India Today Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? Managing regional security is a key strategic concern for India. As Russia’s geopolitical power wanes so will India’s utility of Russia as an effective guarantor of India’s security. Russia’s war in Ukraine is ominous in this regard, as Russian armed forces were forced to retreat from Kyiv, while the country’s already bleak economic prospects have worsened under western sanctions. The solidification of the China-Russia axis will alienate India further (Chart 14). China is essential to Russia’s economy now while Moscow is essential to China’s Eurasian strategy of bypassing American naval dominance to reduce its supply insecurity. Russia holds the keys to Central Asia, from a military-security point of view, and hence also to the Middle East. Furthermore, limited economic bonds exist to prevent India and Russia from falling out. Russia accounts for a smidgen of India’s trade (Chart 8). India is Russia’s largest arms client (accounting for +20% of its arms sales) but this reliance could also decline over time: The Indian government has been pursuing a range of policies to increase the indigenous production of arms. This is a strategic goal that would also reinforce India’s economic need for more effective manufacturing capabilities. Russia’s own defense franchise had been coming under pressure, even before the Ukraine war (Chart 15). On the contrary, Western arms manufacturers’ franchise has been steadily growing. Chart 14China-Russia Axis Will Alienate India Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? ​​​​​ Chart 15The Rise & Rise Of Western Arms Manufacturers Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? ​​​​​​ While the US may look the other way in the short term when India buys arms from Russia, over a period of time the US is bound to pull India away by using a combination of sticks (mild sanctions) and carrots (heavy discounts). Two aforementioned external factors will also work against the Indo-Russia relationship namely (1) The Russo-Chinese alignment and its clash with US grand strategy and (2) The coming-to-life of a US-India strategic alignment. Bottom Line: India’s need for cheap oil will preserve basic Indo-Russian relations for some time. But oil alone cannot drive a deeper strategic alignment. Regional security concerns are paramount for India. Russia’s geopolitical decline will force India to explore an alignment with America, which will offer India security in the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf in the face of China’s emergence in this region. Is A Realignment In Indo-China Relations Possible? But why should India not join the other Asian giants to balance against America’s threat of global dominance? Would such a bloc not secure India’s interests? And what if the US imposes harsh sanctions for India’s continued trade with Russia and strategic neutrality? Or what if a future US administration grows restless and attempts to force India to choose sides sooner rather than later? Even if the US offends India, it will only lead to a temporary improvement in India’s ties with the China-Russia alliance. This is because America stands to lose if India cleaves towards the Sino-Russian alliance and would thus quickly correct its policy. In specific: Security Interests: America will risk losing all influence in South Asia if India were to cleave towards China. India provides a key foothold for America to control China’s regional ascendance especially given that the US has now withdrawn from Afghanistan and its bilateral relations with Pakistan are weak. Business Interests: India’s movement into the China-Russia sphere of influence can have adverse business implications for American corporations and US allies, given that the US is abandoning the Chinese market over time, while India is a large and fast-growing consumer of American tech exports and services. India could emerge as a major buyer of American defense goods and will import more and more energy provided by the US and its partners in the Persian Gulf. These business groups will lobby for the withdrawal of US sanctions on India given India’s long-term potential. Meanwhile any improvement in Indo-Chinese relations will have a limited basis. In specific: Ascendant Nationalism In China And India: China’s declining potential GDP is motivating a rise in nationalism and an assertive foreign policy. Meanwhile India’s inability to create plentiful jobs for a young and growing population is also fuelling a wave of nationalism. A historic turn toward Sino-Indian economic engagement would require the domestic political ability to embrace and promote each other’s well-being. Pakistan Factor: India’s eastern neighbor Pakistan is controlled by its military. The military’s raison d'être is enforced by maintaining an aggressive stance towards India, while pursuing economic development through whatever other means are available. As long as Pakistan’s military stays influential its stance towards India will be hostile. And as long as Pakistan’s economy remains weak (Chart 16), its reliance on China will remain meaningful (Chart 17). Chart 16Pakistan: High Military Influence, Low Economic Vigor Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? ​​​​​​ Chart 17China & Pakistan: Iron Brothers? Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? ​​​​​​ Chart 18Indians View China And Pakistan Negatively Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis? Indo-Russian Relations: Quo Vadis?   China also benefits from its alliance with Pakistan because it provides an alternative entry point into India and access to the Indian Ocean. Fundamental Distrust: For reasons of history, Indians harbor a negative opinion of both Pakistan and China (Chart 18). This factor reinforces the first point that any Indian administration will see limited political dividends from developing a long-term alignment with China or with Pakistan. Bottom Line: If any Indo-Chinese détente materializes owing to harsh US sanctions, which we do not expect, the result will be temporary. America has limited incentives to push India towards the Sino-Russian camp. More importantly, China and India will stay entangled in a strategic conflict for reasons of both history and geography. Investment Conclusions Chart 19Sell India Tactically But Buy India On A Strategic Horizon Sell India Tactically But Buy India On A Strategic Horizon Sell India Tactically But Buy India On A Strategic Horizon The historic Indo-Russia relationship will weaken over the next few years as India and Russia explore new alignments with USA and China respectively. The relationship may not collapse entirely but has limited basis to grow given Russia’s declining geopolitical clout. Indo-American economic interests are set to deepen not just for reasons of security. India may consider looking for alternatives to Russian arms in the American defense industry while American Big Tech will be keen to grow their footprint in India. With India set to cleave to America, a country whose geopolitical power remains unparalleled today, we reiterate our constructive long-term investment view on India (Chart 19). However, tactically we remain worried about near-term geopolitical and macro headwinds that India must confront. China will strengthen relations with Russia over the next few years. It needs Russia’s help to execute its Eurasian strategy and to diversify its sources of fuel supply, over the long run. Given that the US and its allies will be engaged in a conflict with China over a strategic horizon, we reiterate our strategic sell call on China. Tactically we are neutral on Chinese stocks, given that they have already sold off sharply in accordance with our views over the past two years. In view of both these calls, we urge clients with a holding period mandate of more than 12 months to reduce exposure to Chinese assets and increase exposure to Indian assets. We also recommend investors go strategically long Indian tech / short Chinese tech. This pair trade is likely to keep rising on a secular basis.   Ritika Mankar, CFA Editor/Strategist ritika.mankar@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix

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

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 10-Year US Treasury Yields Are The Lowest Relative To Headline Inflation In Over 60 Years 10-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) Do Excess Savings Explain This Gap? (Spoiler: No) Do 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… No Evidence Of A Structural Decline In Corporate Credit Spreads... No Evidence Of A Structural Decline In Corporate Credit Spreads... Chart II-4…Or Auto Loan Rate Spreads… ...Or Auto Loan Rates Spreads... ...Or Auto Loan Rates Spreads... Chart II-5…Or Personal Loan Rate Spreads… ...Or Personal Loan Rate Spreads... ...Or Personal Loan Rate Spreads... Chart II-6...Or Bank Deposit Rate Spreads ...Or Bank Deposit Rate Spreads ...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 April 2022 April 2022 Identifying Periods Of “Abnormal” Long-Maturity Bond Yields Chart II-7There Have Been Three Distinct Periods Of Abnormal Long-Maturity Bond Yields There Have Been Three Distinct Periods Of Abnormal Long-Maturity Bond Yields There 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 There Was A Global Savings Glut Prior To The Global Financial Crisis There 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 Treasurys The Global Savings Glut Does Seem To Have Lowered The Term Premium On US 10-Year Treasurys The Global Savings Glut Does Seem To Have Lowered The Term Premium On US 10-Year Treasurys Chart 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 Still, The Global Savings Glut Effect Did Not Last Long And Was Not Especially Large In Magnitude Still, 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 Most Of The Post-2007 Decline In 10-Year Yields Is Attributable To Lower Long-Term Fed Funds Rate Expectations Most 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 Household Deleveraging Did Lower The Neutral Rate For Several Years Following The Global Financial Crisis Household 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 The US Balance Sheet Recession Structurally Impaired Credit Demand For Several Years After 2008 The 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. Excess Savings Surged After 2008, But Eventually Normalized. Long-Term Rate Expectations Ignored The Normalization. Excess 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 April 2022 April 2022 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 Fixed-Income Investors Have Been Guided By The Fed To Expect A Low Average Fed Funds Rate Fixed-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... The Fed, Wrongly, Sees The 2019 Experience As Having Confirmed A Low Neutral Rate... The 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 ...Without Appreciating The Damaging Impact The China-US Trade War Had On Global Activity ...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 Expansion In European Defense Expanding Military Spending Expanding Military Spending European yields have significant upside on a structural basis. European government spending will remain generous, which will boost domestic demand; meanwhile, lower global excess savings will lift the neutral rate of interest and structurally higher inflation will boost term premia. A short-term pullback in yields is nonetheless likely; however, it will not short-circuit the trend toward higher yields on a long-term basis. CYCLICAL INCEPTION DATE RETURN SINCE INCEPTION (%) COMMENT EQUITIES Favor European Aerospace & Defense Over European Benchmark 3/28/2022     Favor European Aerospace & Defense Over Other Industrials 3/28/2022     Bottom Line: Investors should maintain a below-benchmark duration in their European fixed-income portfolios. Higher yields driven by robust domestic demand and strong capex also boost the appeal of industrial, materials, and financials sectors. Aerospace and defense stocks are particularly appealing.     The economic impact of the war in Ukraine continues to drive the day-to-day fluctuations of the market; however, investors cannot ignore the long-term trends in the economy and markets. The direction of bond yields over the coming years is paramount among those questions. Does the recent rise in yields only reflect the current inflationary shock caused by both supply-chain impairments and commodity inflation—that is, is it finite? Or does that rise mirror structural forces and therefore have much further to run? We lean toward yields having more upside over the coming years, propelled higher by structural forces. As a result, we continue to recommend investors structurally overweight sectors that benefit from a rising yield environment, such as financials and industrials, while also favoring value over growth stocks. The defense sector is particularly attractive. Three Structural Forces Behind Higher Yields The current supply-chain disruptions and inflation crises have played a critical role in lifting European yields. However, a broader set of factors underpins our bearish bond view—namely, the lack of fiscal discipline accentuated by the consequences of the Ukrainian war, the likely move higher in the neutral rate of interest generated by lower savings, and the long-term uptrend in inflation. Profligate Governments Chart 1 The Lasting Bond Bear Market The Lasting Bond Bear Market Larger government deficits will contribute to higher European yields. Europe is not as fiscally conservative as it was before the COVID-19 crisis. Establishment politicians must fend off pressures caused by voters attracted to populist parties willing to spend more. Consequently, IMF estimates published prior to the Ukrainian war already tabulated that, for the next five years, Europe’s average structurally-adjusted budget deficit would be 2.4% of GDP wider than it was last decade (Chart 1). Chart 2Expanding Military Spending Expanding Military Spending Expanding Military Spending The Ukrainian crisis is also prompting a fiscal response that will last many years. Europe does not want to stand still in the face of the Russian threat. Today, Western Europe’s military spending amounts to 1.5% of GDP, or €170 billion. This is below NATO’s threshold of 2% of GDP. Rebuilding military capacity will take large investments. Thus, European nations are likely to move toward that target and even go beyond. Conservatively, if we assume that military spending hits 2% of GDP by the end of the decade, it will rise above €300 billion (Chart 2). Weaning Europe off Russian energy will also prevent a significant fiscal retrenchment. This effort will take two dimensions. The first initiative will be to build infrastructures to receive more LNG from the rest of the world to limit Russian intake. Constructing regasification and storage facilities as well as re-directing pipeline networks be costly and require additional CAPEX over the coming years. The second initiative will be to double-up on green initiatives to decrease the need for fossil fuel. The NGEU funds are already tackling this strategic goal. Nonetheless, the more than €100 billion reserved for renewable energy and energy preservation initiatives was only designed to kick-start hitting the EU’s CO2 emission target for 2050. Accelerating this process not only helps cutting the dependence on Russian energy, but it is also popular with voters. The path of least resistance is to invest in that sphere and to increase such investment beyond the current sums from the NGEU program. The last fiscal push is likely to be more temporary. The UN estimates that four million refugees have left Ukraine, with the vast majority settling in the EU. Accommodating that many individuals will be costly and will add to government spending across the region. Even if mostly transitory, this spending will have an important impact on activity. Larger fiscal deficits push yields higher for two reasons. Greater sovereign issuance that does not reflect a negative shock to the private sector will need to offer higher rates of returns to attract investors. Moreover, greater government spending will boost aggregate demand, which increases money demand. As a result, the price of money will be higher than otherwise, which means that interest rates will rise—as will yields. Decreasing Global Excess Savings Decreasing global excess savings will put upward pressure on the global neutral rate of interest, a phenomenon Peter Berezin recently discussed in BCA’s Global Investment Strategy service. This process will be visible in Europe as well. The US will play an important role in the process of lifting global neutral rates because the dollar remains the foundation of the global financial system. Compared to last decade, the main drag on US savings is that household deleveraging is over. As households decreased their debt load following the global financial crisis, a large absorber of global savings vanished, putting downward pressure on the price of those savings. Today, US households enjoy strong net worth equal to 620% of GDP and have resumed accumulating debt (Chart 3). Consequently, the downward trend in US total private nonfinancial debt loads has ended. The US capex cycle is likely to experience a boost as well. As Peter highlighted, the US capital stock is ageing (Chart 4). Moreover, the past five years have witnessed three events that underscore the fragility of global supply-chains: a disruptive Sino-US trade war, a pandemic, and now a military conflict. This realization is causing firms to move from a “just-in-time” approach to managing supply-chains to a “just-in-case” one. The process of building redundancies and localized supply chains will add to capex for many years, pushing up ex-ante investments relative to savings, and thus, interest rates. Chart 3US Households Are Done Deleveraging US Households Are Done Deleveraging US Households Are Done Deleveraging Chart 4An Ageing US Capital Stock An Ageing US Capital Stock An Ageing US Capital Stock China’s current account surplus is also likely to decline. For the past two decades, China has been one of the largest providers of savings to the global economy. This is a result of an annual current account surplus that first averaged $150 billion per year from 2000 to 2010 and then $180 billion from 2010 to 2020, and now stands at $316 billion. Looking ahead, China wants to use fiscal policy more aggressively to support demand, which often boosts imports without increasing exports. Also, more domestically-oriented supply chains around the world will limit the growth of Chinese exports. This combination will compress Chinese excess savings, which will place upward pressure on the global neutral rate of interest. Europe is not immune to declining savings. Over the past ten years, the Euro Area current account surplus has averaged €253 billion. Germany’s current account surplus stood at 7.4% of GDP before the pandemic. Those excess savings depressed global rates in general and European ones especially (Chart 5). As in the US, Europe’s capital stock is ageing and needs some upgrade (Chart 6). Moreover, greater government spending boosts aggregate demand. Because investment is a form of derived demand, stronger overall spending promotes capex to a greater extent. Thus, Europe’s public infrastructure push will lift private capex and curtail regional excess savings beyond the original drag from wider fiscal deficits. Additionally, the European population is getting older and will have to tap into their excess savings as they retire. This process will further diminish Europe’s current account surplus, that is, its excess savings. Chart 5Excess Savings Cap Relative Yields Excess Savings Cap Relative Yields Excess Savings Cap Relative Yields Chart 6An Ageing European Capital Stock Too An Ageing European Capital Stock Too An Ageing European Capital Stock Too Structurally Higher Inflation BCA believes that the current inflation surge is temporary and mostly reflects a mismatch between demand and supply. However, we also anticipate that, once this inflation climax dissipates, inflation will settle at a level higher than that prior to COVID-19 and will trend higher for the remainder of this decade. Labor markets will tighten going forward because policy rates remain well below neutral interest rates. Output gaps will close because of robust government spending and capex. This will keep wage growth elevated in the US and reanimate moribund salary gains in the Eurozone (Chart 7). This process, especially when combined with less efficient global supply chains and lower excess savings (which may also be thought of as deficient demand), will maintain inflation at a higher level than in the past two decades. Higher inflation will lift yields for two main reasons. First, investors will require both greater long-term inflation compensation and higher policy rates than in the past. Second, higher inflation often generates greater economic volatility and policy uncertainty, which means that today’s minimal term premia will increase over time (Chart 8). Together, these forces will create a lasting upward drift in yields. Chart 7European Wages Will Eventually Revive European Wages Will Eventually Revive European Wages Will Eventually Revive Chart 8Term Premia Won't Stay This Low Term Premia Won't Stay This Low Term Premia Won't Stay This Low Bottom Line: European yields will sport a structural uptrend for the remainder of the decade. Three forces support this assertion. First, European government spending will remain generous, supported by infrastructure and military spending. Second, global excess savings will recede as US consumer deleveraging ends, global capex rises, and the Chinese current account surplus narrows. Europe will mimic this process in response to an ageing population, greater government spending, and capex. Finally, inflation is on a structural uptrend, which will warrant higher term premia across the world. Not A Riskless View There are two main risks to this view, one in the near-term and one more structural. The near-term risk is the most pertinent for investors right now. Global yields may have embarked on a structural upward path, but a temporary pullback is becoming likely. As Chart 9 highlights, the expected twelve-month change in the US policy rate is at the upper limit of its range of the past three decades. Historically, when the discounter attains such a lofty level, a retrenchment in Treasury yields ensues, since investors have already discounted a significant degree of tightening. The same is true in Europe, where the ECB discounter is also consistent with a temporary pullback in German 10-year yields (Chart 10). Chart 9Discounters Point To A Treasury Rally... Discounters Point To A Treasury Rally... Discounters Point To A Treasury Rally... Chart 10... And A Bund Rally ... And A Bund Rally ... And A Bund Rally Chart 11A Mixed Message A Mixed Message A Mixed Message Investor positioning confirms the increasing tactical odds of a yield correction. The BCA Composite Technical Indicator for bonds is massively oversold, which often anticipates a bond rally (Chart 11). This echoes the signals from the JP Morgan surveys that highlight the very low portfolio duration of the bank’s clients. However, the BCA Bond Valuation Index suggests that bonds remain expensive. Together, these divergent messages point toward a temporary bond rally, not a permanent one. The longer-term risk is regularly highlighted by Dhaval Joshi in BCA’s Counterpoint service. Dhaval often shows that the stock of global real estate assets has hit $300 trillion or 330% of global GDP. Real estate is a highly levered asset class and global cap rates have collapsed with global bond yields. With little valuation cushion, real estate prices could become very vulnerable to higher yields. Nevertheless, real estate is also a real asset that produces an inflation hedge. Moreover, rental income follows global household income, and stronger aggregate demand will likely lift median household income especially in an environment in which globalization has reached its apex and populism remains a constant threat. Bottom Line: Global investor positioning has become stretched; therefore, a near-term pullback in yield is very likely, especially as central bank expectations have become aggressive. Nonetheless, a bond rally is unlikely to be durable in an environment in which bonds are expensive and in which growth and inflation will remain more robust than they were last decade. A greater long-term risk stems from expensive global real estate markets. However, real estate is sensitive to global economic activity and inflation, which should allow this asset class ultimately to weather higher yields. Investment Conclusions An environment in which yields rise will inflict additional damage on global bond portfolios. This is especially true in inflation-adjusted terms, since real yields stand at a paltry -0.76% in the US and -2.5% in Germany. Hence, we continue to recommend investors maintain a structural below-benchmark duration bias in their portfolios. Nonetheless, investors with enough flexibility in their investment mandate should take advantage of the expected near-term pullback in yields. Those without this flexibility should use the pullback as an opportunity to shorten their portfolio duration. Higher yields will also prevent strong multiple expansion from taking place; hence, the broad stock market will also offer paltry long-term real returns. Another implication of rising yields, especially if they reflect stronger growth and rising neutral interest rates, is to underweight growth stocks relative to value stocks (Chart 12). Growth stocks are expensive and very vulnerable to the pull on discount rates that follows rising risk-free rates. Meanwhile, stronger economic activity driven by infrastructure spending and capex will help the bottom line of industrial and material firms. Financials will also benefit. Higher yields help this sector and robust capex also boosts loan growth, which will generate a significant tailwind for banking revenues. Hence, rising yields will boost the attractiveness of banks, especially after they have become significantly cheaper because of the Ukrainian war (Chart 13). Chart 12Favor Value Over Growth Favor Value Over Growth Favor Value Over Growth Chart 13Bank Remain Attractive Bank Remain Attractive Bank Remain Attractive Related Report  European Investment StrategyFallout From Ukraine Finally, four weeks ago, we highlighted that defense stocks were particularly appealing in today’s context. The re-armament of Europe in response to secular tensions with Russia is an obvious tailwind for this sector. However, it is not the only one. A long-term theme of BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy service is the expanding multipolarity of the world.  The end of an era dominated by a single hegemon (the US) causes a rise in geopolitical instability and tensions. The resulting increase in conflict will invite a pickup in global military spending. Chart 14Defense Will Outshine The Rest Defense Will Outshine The Rest Defense Will Outshine The Rest European defense and aerospace stocks are expensive, with a forward P/E ratio approaching the top-end of their range relative to the broad market and other industrials. However, their relative earnings are also depressed following the collapse in airplane sales caused by the pandemic. Our bet on the sector is that its earnings will outperform the broad market as well as other industrials because of the global trend toward military buildup. As relative earnings recover their pandemic-induced swoon, so will relative equity prices (Chart 14). Bottom Line: Higher yields warrant a structural below-benchmark duration in European fixed-income portfolios, even if a near-term yield pullback is likely. As a corollary, value stocks will outperform growth stocks while industrials, materials, and financials will also beat a broad market whose long-term real returns will be poor. Within the industrial complex, aerospace and defense equities are particularly appealing because a global military buildup will boost their earnings prospects durably.   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com   Tactical Recommendations Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Trades

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

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

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

Executive Summary Russia Not Prepared To Invade West Ukraine Yet Imbalance Of Terror (GeoRisk Update) Imbalance Of Terror (GeoRisk Update) Russia is escalating its aggressiveness in Ukraine, marked by the shelling of a nuclear power station, troop reinforcements, and rhetorical threats of nuclear attack. Global financial markets will continue to suffer from negative news arising from this event until Russia achieves its aims in eastern Ukraine. Private sector boycotts on Russian commodity exports are imposing severe strains on the Russian economy, provoking it to apply more pressure on Ukraine and the West. Western governments are losing the ability to control the pace of strategic escalation, a dangerous dynamic. Moscow’s demand for security guarantees from Finland and Sweden will lead to a further escalation of strategic tensions between Russia and the West. During the Cold War the US and USSR saw a “balance of terror” due to rapidly expanding nuclear arms, which prevented them from waging war against each other. Today the same balance will probably prevent nuclear war but a nuclear scare that rattles financial markets may be required first. Trade Recommendation Inception Date Return Long Gold (Strategic) 2019-12-06 32.1% Bottom Line: Russia’s aggressiveness toward the US and Europe, including nuclear threats and diplomatic demands, will continue to escalate until it achieves its core military objectives. Investors should stick to safe havens and defensive equity markets and sectors on a tactical basis. Book profits on tactical trade long Japan/Germany industrials at close of trading on March 4. Feature Russian military forces shelled the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Station on March 4, causing a fire. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) declared that “essential equipment” was not damaged and that the facility possessed adequate containment structures to prevent a nuclear meltdown. Local authorities said the facility was “secured.” This incident, which may or may not be settled, should be added to several others to highlight that Russia is escalating its aggression in Ukraine and global financial markets face more bad news that they will be forced to discount. Signposts For Further Escalation Map 1 shows the status of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, along with icons for the nuclear power plants. Map 1War In Ukraine, Status Of Russian Invasion As Of March 2, 2022 Imbalance Of Terror (GeoRisk Update) Imbalance Of Terror (GeoRisk Update) To understand the end-game in Ukraine – and why we think the war will escalate and are keeping open our bearish trade recommendations – we need to review our net assessment for this conflict: Our 65% “limited invasion” scenario included the seizure of strategic territory east of the Dnieper river and all of the southern coastline. Energy trade would be exempt from sanctions, saving Europe from a recession and limiting the magnitude of global energy shock. We gave 10% odds to a “full-scale invasion of all of Ukraine” (deliberate wording) because we viewed it as highly unlikely that Russia would invade the mountainous and guerilla-happy far west, the ethnic Ukrainian core. Energy trade would be sanctioned, delivering a global energy shock and European recession. A handful of clients have criticized us for not predicting that Russia would attack Kiev and for not defining a full-scale invasion as one that involved replacing the government. We never gave a view on whether Russia would invade Kiev. It is not clear that the focus on Kiev is warranted since the US and EU had committed to powerful sanctions in the event of any invasion at all. This fixed price of invasion may have given Moscow the perverse incentive to invade Kiev. Either way, Russia invaded Kiev and eastern Ukraine and the US and EU imposed crippling sanctions but exempted the energy trade. Thus anything that breaks off energy trade between the EU and Russia – and any Russian attempt to invade the west of the country to Poland – should be seen as a significant escalation. Unfortunately there are signs that the energy trade is being disrupted. Any westward campaign to Poland will be delayed until Putin sacks Kiev and controls the east and south of Ukraine, at which point he will be forced either to invade the west to cut off the supply lines of the insurgency or, more likely, to negotiate a ceasefire that partitions Ukraine. Global investors will not care about the war in Ukraine as long as strategic stability is achieved between Russia and the West. But that is far away. Today, as Russia’s economic situation deteriorates, Putin is escalating on the nuclear front. Bottom Line: Russia’s showdown with the West is escalating. Good news for the Ukrainians will lead to bad news for financial markets. Global investors should not view the situation as stabilized and should maintain safe haven trades and defensive equity positioning. Energy Boycotts Will Antagonize Russia Chart 1Russia Not Prepared To Invade West Ukraine Yet Imbalance Of Terror (GeoRisk Update) Imbalance Of Terror (GeoRisk Update) So far Russia has not conducted a full-scale invasion of all of Ukraine. The reason is that it does not have the necessary military forces, as we have highlighted. Russia is limiting its invasion force to around 200,000 troops while Ukraine consists of 30 million prime age citizens (Chart 1). Unless Russia massively reinforces its troops, it does not have the basic three-to-one troop ratio that is the minimum necessary to invade, conquer, and hold the entire country. However, Russia is likely to increase troop sizes. We are inclined to believe that Russia has started shifting troops from its southern and eastern military districts to reinforce the Ukraine effort, according to the Kyiv Independent, citing the Ukrainian armed forces’ general staff. Apparently it aims to conquer the east and then either invade further west or negotiate a new ceasefire with greater advantage. Investors should not accept the consensus narrative in the western world that Russia is losing the war in the east. Russia is encountering various difficulties but it is gradually surrounding and blockading Ukraine and cutting its power supply. It is capable of improving its supply lines and increasing the size and destructiveness of its forces. Remember that the US took 20 days to sack Baghdad in 2003. Russia has only been fighting for nine days. Having incurred crippling economic sanctions, Putin cannot afford to withdraw without changing the government in Kiev. The odds of Ukraine “winning” the war are low, while the odds of Russia dramatically intensifying its efforts are high. This is why new developments on the energy front and worrisome: Chart 2Energy Trade Remains The Fulcrum Imbalance Of Terror (GeoRisk Update) Imbalance Of Terror (GeoRisk Update) While western governments refrained from sanctioning Russian energy as predicted, private companies are boycotting Russian energy to avoid sanctions and unpopularity. Estimates vary but about 20% of Russian oil exports could be affected so far.1 Russian oil will make its way to global markets – Russian, Chinese, and other third parties will pick up the slack – but in the meantime the Russian economy is suffering more than expected due to the cutoff. Energy is the vital remaining source of Russian economic stability and Russo-European relations (Chart 2). If it fails then Russia could grow more desperate while Europe’s economy would fall into recession and Europe would become less stable and less coordinated in its responses to the conflict. These private boycotts make it beyond the control of western governments to control the pace and intensity of pressure tactics, since it is politically impractical to demand that companies trade with the enemy. Bottom Line: With the rapidly mounting economic pressure, it should be no surprise that Russia is escalating its threats – it is under increasing economic pressure and wants to drive the conflict to a quick decision in its favor. Russia’s Nuclear Threats And Putin’s Mental State Russia is terrorizing Ukraine and the western world with threats of either nuclear missile attacks or a nuclear meltdown. Putin put the country’s nuclear deterrent forces on “special combat status” on February 27. His forces began shelling the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant on March 4. Russia is also demanding security guarantees from Finland and Sweden, which are becoming more favorable toward joining the NATO alliance.2 Their lack of membership in NATO, while maintaining a strong military deterrent with defense support from the US, was a linchpin of stability in the Cold War but is now at risk. They will retain the right to choose their alliances at which point Russia will need to threaten them with attack. Since Russia cannot plausibly invade them with full armies while invading Ukraine, it may resort to nuclear brinksmanship. The western media is greatly amplifying a narrative in which Russia’s actions can only be understood in the context of Putin’s insanity or fanaticism. This may be true. But it is also suspicious because it saves the West from having to address the problem of NATO enlargement, which, along with Russia’s domestic weaknesses, contributed to Russia’s decision over the past 17 years to stage an aggressive campaign to control Ukraine and the former Soviet Union. There is a swirl of conspiracy theories in the news about Putin’s illnesses, age, vaccines, or psychology, none of which are falsifiable. Putin has an incentive to appear reckless and insane so that his enemies capitulate sooner. The decision to invade a non-NATO member, rather than a NATO member, suggests that he is still making rational calculations. Rational, that is, from the perspective of Russian history and an anarchic international system in which nation states that seek to survive, secure themselves, and expand their power. If Ukraine were to become a military ally of the US then Russian security would suffer a permanent degradation. Of course, Putin may be a fanatic and it is possible that he grows desperate or miscalculates. The western public (and global investors) will thus be reminded of the “balance of terror” that prevailed throughout the Cold War, in which the world lived and conducted business under the shadow of nuclear holocaust. Today Russia has 1,588 deployed strategic nuclear warheads, contra the US’s 1,644. Both countries can deliver nuclear weapons via ballistic missiles, submarines, and bombers and are capable of destroying hundreds of each other’s cities on short notice (Table 1). While the US has at times contemplated the potential for nuclear attacks to occur but remain limited, the Soviet Union’s nuclear doctrine ultimately rejected the likelihood of limitations and anticipated maximum escalation.3 Table 1The Return Of The Balance Of Terror Imbalance Of Terror (GeoRisk Update) Imbalance Of Terror (GeoRisk Update) Ultimately the US and Russia avoided nuclear war in the Cold War because it entailed “mutually assured destruction” which violated the law of self-preservation. Neither Stalin nor Mao used nukes on their opponents, including when they lost conflicts (e.g. to Afghanistan and Vietnam). The US tied with North Korea and lost to Vietnam without using nukes. However in the current context the US has been wary of antagonizing Putin for fear of his unpredictable and aggressive posture. In response to Putin’s activation of combat-ready nuclear forces, the US called attention to its own nuclear deterrent subtly by canceling the regular test of a ballistic missile and issuing a press statement highlighting the fact and saying that it was too responsible to bandy in nuclear threats. Yet the autocratic nature of Putin’s regime means that if Putin ultimately does prove to be a lunatic then large parts of the world face existential danger. Our Global Investment Strategist Peter Berezin ascribes Russian Roulette odds to nuclear Armageddon – while arguing that investors should stay invested over the long run anyway. Sanctions on the Russian central bank have frozen roughly half of the country’s $630 billion foreign exchange reserves (Table 2). If the energy trade also stops, then the economy will crash and Putin could become desperate. Table 2Western Sanctions On Russia As Of March 4, 2022 Imbalance Of Terror (GeoRisk Update) Imbalance Of Terror (GeoRisk Update) Bottom Line: Global financial markets have yet to experience the full scare that is likely as Russia escalates its aggression and nuclear brinksmanship to ensure it achieves it strategic aims in Ukraine and prevents Finland from joining NATO. GeoRisk Indicators In March In what follows we provide our monthly update of our quantitative, market-based GeoRisk Indicators. Russian geopolitical risk is surging as the ruble and equity markets collapse (Chart 3). The violent swings of the underlying macroeconomic variables as Russia saw a V-shaped recovery from the COVID-19 lockdowns, then sharply decelerated again, prevented our risk indicator from picking up the full scale of the geopolitical risk until recently. But alternative measures of Russian risk show the historic increase more clearly – and it can also be demonstrated by reducing the weighting of the underlying macroeconomic variables relative to the USD-RUB exchange rate in the indicator’s calculation (Chart 4). Chart 3Russian GeoRisk Indicator Russian GeoRisk Indicator Russian GeoRisk Indicator Chart 4Other Measures Of Russian Geopolitical Risk Other Measures Of Russian Geopolitical Risk Other Measures Of Russian Geopolitical Risk This problem of dramatically volatile pandemic-era macro data skewing our risk indicators has been evident over the past year and is more apparent with some indicators than with others. China’s geopolitical risk as measured by the markets is starting to peak and stall but we do not recommend investors try to take advantage of the situation. China’s domestic and international political risk will remain elevated through the twentieth national party congress this fall. The sharp increase in commodity prices will amplify the problem. The earliest China’s political environment can improve substantially is in 2023 after President Xi Jinping cements another ten years’ in power (Chart 5). And yet that very process is negative for long-term political stability. Chart 5China GeoRisk Indicator China GeoRisk Indicator China GeoRisk Indicator British geopolitical risk is contained. It enjoys some insulation from the war on the continent, underpinning our long GBP-CZK trade and long UK equities trade relative to developed markets other than the United States (Chart 6). Chart 6United Kingdom GeoRisk Indicator United Kingdom GeoRisk Indicator United Kingdom GeoRisk Indicator German and French geopolitical risk is being priced higher as expected (Charts 7 and 8). Of these two Germany is the more exposed due to the risk of energy shortages. France is nuclear-armed and nuclear-powered, and unlikely to see a change of president in the April presidential elections. Italian risk was already at a higher level than these countries but the Russian conflict and high energy supply risk will keep it elevated (Chart 9). Chart 7Germany GeoRisk Indicator Germany GeoRisk Indicator Germany GeoRisk Indicator Chart 8France GeoRisk Indicator France GeoRisk Indicator France GeoRisk Indicator Chart 9Italy GeoRisk Indicator Italy GeoRisk Indicator Italy GeoRisk Indicator Canada’s trucker strikes are over and the loonie will benefit from the country’s status as energy producer and insulation from geopolitical threats due to proximity with the United States (Chart 10). Chart 10Canada GeoRisk Indicator Canada GeoRisk Indicator Canada GeoRisk Indicator Spain still has substantial domestic political polarization but this will have little impact on markets amid the Ukraine war. Spain is distant from the fighting and will act as a conduit for liquefied natural gas imports into Europe (Chart 11). Chart 11Spain GeoRisk Indicator Spain GeoRisk Indicator Spain GeoRisk Indicator Australia’s political risk will remain elevated due to its clash with China amid the emerging global conflict between democracies and autocracies as well as the country’s looming general election, which threatens a change of ruling party (Chart 12). However, as a commodity and LNG producer and staunch US ally the country’s risks are overrated. Chart 12Australia GeoRisk Indicator Australia GeoRisk Indicator Australia GeoRisk Indicator Markets are gradually starting to price the risk of an eventual China-Taiwan military conflict as a result of the Ukrainian conflict. China is unlikely to invade Taiwan on Russia’s time frame given the greater difficulties and risks associated with an amphibious invasion of a much more strategically critical territory in the world. But Taiwan’s situation is comparable to that of Ukraine and it is ultimately geopolitically unsustainable, so we expect Taiwanese assets to suffer a higher risk premium over the long run (Chart 13). Chart 13Taiwan Territory GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan Territory GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan Territory GeoRisk Indicator South Korea faces a change of ruling parties in its March 9 general election as well as uncertainties emanating from China and a new cycle of provocations from North Korea (Chart 14). However these risks are probably not sufficient to prevent a rally in South Korean equities on a relative basis as China stabilizes its economy. Chart 14Korea GeoRisk Indicator Korea GeoRisk Indicator Korea GeoRisk Indicator Turkey’s international environment has gotten even worse as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and effective closure of the Black Sea to international trade. Turkey has invoked the 1936 Montreux Convention to close the Dardanelles and Bosporus straits to Russian warships, although it will let those ships return to home from outside the Black Sea. The Black Sea is highly vulnerable to “Black Swan” events, highlighted by the sinking of an Estonian ship off Ukraine’s coast in recent days. Turkey’s domestic political situation will also generate a political risk premium through the 2023 presidential election (Chart 15), as President Recep Erdogan’s reelection bid may benefit from international chaos and yet he is an unorthodox and market-negative leader, and if he loses the country will be plunged into factional conflict. Chart 15Turkey GeoRisk Indicator Brazil GeoRisk Indicator Brazil GeoRisk Indicator South Africa looks surprisingly attractive in the current environment given our assessment that the government is stable and relatively friendly to financial markets, the next general election is years away, and the search for commodity alternatives to Russia amid a high commodity price context will benefit South Africa (Chart 16). Chart 16South Africa GeoRisk Indicator South Africa GeoRisk Indicator South Africa GeoRisk Indicator India And Brazil: A Tale Of Two Emerging Markets Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will have a minimal impact on the growth engines of India and Brazil. This is because Russia directly accounts for a smidgeon of both these countries trade pie. However, the main route through which this war will be felt in both markets is through commodity prices. Brazil by virtue of being a commodity exporter is better positioned as compared to India which is a commodity importer and is richly valued to boot. The year 2022 promises to be important from the perspective of domestic politics in both countries and will add to the policy risks confronting both EMs. Our Brazilian GeoRisk indicator has collapsed but is highly likely to recover and rise from here (Chart 17). Chart 17Brazil GeoRisk Indicator Brazil GeoRisk Indicator Brazil GeoRisk Indicator Commodity Price Spike – Advantage Brazil Politically India and Brazil have a lot in common today. The popularity ratings of their respective right-leaning heads of states, Prime Minister Narendra Modi in India and President Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, have suffered over the last two years. The economic prospects of the median voter in both countries have weakened over the last year (Chart 18). Policymakers in both countries face a dilemma: they cannot stimulate their way out of their problems without an adverse market reaction since both countries are loaded with public debt. Chart 18Economic Miseries Rising For Both India's And Brazil's Median Voter Economic Miseries Rising For Both India's And Brazil's Median Voter Economic Miseries Rising For Both India's And Brazil's Median Voter Despite these commonalties, Brazil’s equity markets have outperformed relative to EMs whilst India has underperformed (Chart 19). On a tactical horizon, we expect this divergent performance to continue as the effects of the Russian invasion feed through commodity markets. Chart 19India Is Richly Valued, Brazil Has Outperformed EMs India Is Richly Valued, Brazil Has Outperformed EMs India Is Richly Valued, Brazil Has Outperformed EMs ​​​​​ Commodity markets were tight even before the Russian invasion. The ongoing war will force inventories to draw across a range of commodities including oil, iron ore and even corn. Given that India is a net importer of oil whilst Brazil is a net commodity exporter, the current spike in commodity prices will benefit Brazil over India in the short term. However, our Commodity & Energy Strategy team expects supply responses from oil producers to eventually come through, thereby sending the price of Brent crude to $85 per barrel by the end of 2022. Hence if Indian equities correct in response to the current oil spike or domestic politics (see below), then investors can turn constructive on India on a tactical horizon. Elections Stoke Policy Risks – In India And Brazil Results of key state elections in India will be announced on March 10, 2022. Of all the state elections, the results that the market will most closely watch will be those of Uttar Pradesh, the most populous state of India. In a base case scenario, we expect the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) which rules this state, to cross the 50% seat share mark and retain power. But the BJP will not be able to beat the extraordinary 77% seat share it won at the 2017 elections in Uttar Pradesh. A sharp deviation from this benchmark may lead the BJP to focus on populism ahead of the next round of state elections due in 4Q 2022. At a time when the Indian government’s appetite to take on structural reforms is waning, we worry that such a populist tilt could perturb Indian equity markets. Also, general elections are due in India in 2024. If the latest state election results suggest that the BJP has ceded a high vote share to regional parties (such as the Samajwadi Party in Uttar Pradesh or Aam Aadmi Party in Punjab), then this would mean that regional parties can pose a credible threat to BJP’s ability to maintain a comfortable majority in 2024. In Brazil, some polls show that left-leaning former president Lula da Silva's lead on President Bolsonaro may have narrowed. While we expect Lula to win the presidential elections due in Brazil in October 2022, the road to victory will not be as smooth as markets expect. If the difference between the two competitors’ popularity stays narrow, then there is real a chance that President Bolsonaro will make a last-ditch effort to cling to power. He will resort to fiscal populism and attacks on Brazil’s institutions, potentially opening up institutional or civil-military rifts that generate substantially greater uncertainty among investors. Bolsonaro already appears to be planning a cut in fuel prices and a bill to further this could be tabled as soon as next week. He has coddled Russian President Putin to shore up his base of authoritarian sentiment at home. To conclude, investors must balance these two opposing forces affecting Brazilian markets today. On one hand are the latent policy risks engendered by a far-right populist who still has a few months left in office. On the other hand, in a year’s time Bolsonaro will likely be gone while Brazil stands to benefit as commodity prices rise and EM investors shift funds into commodity exporters like Brazil. Against this backdrop, we re-iterate our view that investors should take-on selective tactical exposure in Brazil. Risk-adjusted returns in Brazil at this juncture can be maximized by buying into sectors like financials as these sectors’ inherent political and policy sensitivity is low. Postscript: Is India’s Foreign Policy Reverting To Non-Alignment? India traditionally has followed a foreign policy of non-alignment, carefully maintaining ties with both America and Russia through the Cold War. Things changed in the 2000s as Russia under President Putin courted closer ties with China while the US tried to warm up to India. India’s decision to join the newly energized US-led “quadrilateral” alliance in 2017 is a clear sign that India is gradually shedding its historical stance of neutrality and veering towards America. However, this thesis is being questioned as India, like China, is continuing to trade and transact with Russia despite its invasion of Ukraine, providing Russia with a lifeline as it suffers punishing sanctions from the US and European Union. India repeatedly abstained from voting resolutions critical of Russia at the United Nations in recent weeks. In other words, India’s process of transitioning over to the US alignment will be “definitive yet slow,” owing to reasons of both history and practicality. The former Soviet Union’s support played a critical role in helping India win several regional battles like the Indo-Pakistan war of 1971. Russia’s military and security influence in Central Asia makes it useful to India, which seeks a counter to Pakistan on its flank in Afghanistan. India sees Russia as a fairly dependable partner that cannot be abandoned until America is willing to provide much greater and more reliable guarantees and subsidies to India – through military support and beneficial trade deals. The backbone of Indo-Russia relations has been their arms trade (Chart 20). India’s reliance on Russia for arms could decline in the long term. But in the short term, as India tilts towards the US at a calibrated pace, India could remain a source of meaningful defense revenue for Russia. It is possible but not likely that the US would impose sanctions on India for maintaining this trade. Chart 20India Today Is A Key Buyer Of Russian Weapons Imbalance Of Terror (GeoRisk Update) Imbalance Of Terror (GeoRisk Update) The fundamental long-term dynamic is that Russia has foreclosed its relations with the West and will therefore be lashed to China, at least until the Putin regime falls and a Russian diplomatic reset with the West can be arranged. In the face of this combined geopolitical bloc, India will gradually be driven to cooperate more closely with the United States. But India will not lead the transition away from Russia – rather it will react appropriately depending on the US’s focus and resolve in countering China and assisting India’s economy.   Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Ritika Mankar, CFA Editor/Strategist ritika.mankar@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Energy Aspects long-term estimate. 2     Tzvi Joffre, “Russian FM repeats nuclear war rhetoric as invasion of Ukraine continues,” Reuters, March 3, 2022. 3     Jack L. Snyder, “The Soviet Strategic Culture : Implications for Limited Nuclear Operations,” Rand Corporation, R-2154-AF (1977), argues that Soviet and American strategic cultures differ greatly and that the US should not be “sanguine about the likelihood that the Soviets would abide by American-formulated rules of intrawar restraint." Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix "Batting Average": Geopolitical Strategy Trades (2022) Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Executive Summary We look at the Ukraine crisis in the broader context of shocks, what we can learn from them, and how we can incorporate them into our strategy for investment, and life in general. Our high-conviction view is that the Ukraine crisis will be net deflationary, because the economic and financial sanctions imposed on Russia will lead to a generalized demand destruction. Bond yields will be lower in the second half of the year. Underweight cyclicals such as banks, ‘value’ sectors, and value-heavy stock markets such as the FTSE 100. Stay structurally overweight the 30-year T-bond. The ultimate low in the 30-year T-bond yield is yet to come, and will be a long way below the current 2.1 percent. Fractal trading watchlist: We focus on banks, add alternative electricity, and review bitcoin. Every Shock Is Always Supplanted By A New Shock Every Shock Is Always Supplanted By A New Shock Every Shock Is Always Supplanted By A New Shock Bottom Line: The recent rise in bond yields and the associated outperformance of cyclical sectors such as banks, ‘value’, and value-heavy stock markets such as the FTSE 100 was just a short-lived countertrend move within a much bigger structural downtrend. This structural downtrend is now set to resume. Feature Suddenly, nobody is worried about Covid and everybody is worried about nuclear war. Or as Vladimir Putin warns, “such consequences that you have never experienced in your history.” The life lesson being that every shock is always supplanted by a new shock. Hence, in this report we look at the Ukraine crisis through a wider lens. We look at the broader context of shocks, what we can learn from them, and how we can incorporate them into our strategy for investment, and life in general. The Predictability Of Shocks Shocks are very predictable. This sounds like a contradiction, but we don’t mean the timing or nature of individual shocks. As specific events, Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the global pandemic were ‘tail-events’ that did come as shocks. Yet the statistical distribution of such tail-events is very predictable. This predictability of shocks forms the bedrock of the world’s $5 trillion insurance industry, and should also form the bedrock of any long-term strategy for investment, or life in general. The predictability of shocks forms the bedrock of the world’s $5 trillion insurance industry, and should also form the bedrock of any long-term investment strategy. We define a shock as any event that causes the long-duration bond price in a major economy to rally or slump by at least 20 percent, albeit this is just one definition.1On this definition, the Ukraine crisis is not yet a far-reaching economic or financial shock, but it is certainly well-placed to become one. Applying this definition of a shock through the last 60 years, the statistical distribution of shocks over any long period is well-defined and very predictable. For example, over a ten-year period the number of shocks exhibits a Poisson distribution with parameter 3.33 (Chart I-1), while the time between shocks exhibits an Exponential distribution with parameter 3.33. Chart 1The Statistical Distribution Of Shocks Is Very Predictable The Predictable Anatomy Of Shocks The Predictable Anatomy Of Shocks Many economists and investment strategists present their long-term forecasts for the economy and financial markets, yet completely ignore this very predictable distribution of shocks – making their long-term forecasts worthless! The question to such economists and strategists is why are there no shocks over your forecasting horizon? Their typical answer is that it is not an economist’s job to predict ‘acts of god’ or ‘black swans.’ But if insurance companies can incorporate the very predictable distribution of acts of god and black swans, then why can’t economists and strategists? Over any ten-year period, the likelihood of suffering a shock is a near-certainty, at 95 percent; in any five-year period, it is an extremely high 80 percent; in a two-year period, it is a coin toss at 50 percent; and even in one year it is a significant 30 percent (Chart I-2). Chart I-2On A Multi-Year Horizon, Another Shock Is A Near-Certainty The Predictable Anatomy Of Shocks The Predictable Anatomy Of Shocks Witness that since just 2016 we have experienced Brexit, and the election of Donald Trump as US president. These were binary-outcome events where we could ‘visualise’ the tail-event in advance, but many dismissed it as implausible. Then we had a global pandemic, and now Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Therefore, the crucial question is not whether we will experience shocks. We always will. The crucial question is, will the shock be net deflationary or net inflationary? Our high-conviction view is that the Ukraine crisis will be net deflationary. Meaning that even if it starts as inflationary, it will quickly morph into deflationary. The Danger From Higher Energy Prices: The Obvious And The Not So Obvious Many people have noticed the suspicious proximity of oil price surges to subsequent economic downturns – most recently, the 1999-2000 trebling of crude and the subsequent 2000-01 downturn, and the 2007-2008 trebling of crude and the subsequent 2008-09 global recession. Begging the question, should we be concerned that the Ukraine crisis has lifted the crude oil price to a near-trebling since October 2020, not to mention the massive spike in natural gas prices? Many people have noticed the suspicious proximity of oil price surges to subsequent economic downturns. Of course, we know that the root cause of both the 2000-01 downturn and the 2008-09 recession was not the oil price surge that preceded them. As their names make crystal clear, the 2001-01 downturn was the dot com bust and the 2008-09 recession was the global financial crisis. And yet, and yet… while the oil price surge was not the culprit, it was certainly the accessory to both murders. The obvious way that high energy prices hurt is that they are demand destructive to both energy and non-energy consumption. In this regard, the good news is that the economy is becoming much less energy-intensive – every unit of real output requires about 40 percent less energy than at the start of the millennium (Chart I-3). Nevertheless, even if the scope to hurt is lessening, higher energy prices are still demand destructive. Chart I-3The Economy Is Becoming Less Energy-Intensive The Economy Is Becoming Less Energy-Intensive The Economy Is Becoming Less Energy-Intensive The not so obvious way that high energy prices hurt is that they risk driving up the long-duration bond yield and thereby tipping more systemically important economic and financial fragilities over the brink. This was the where the greater pain came from in both 2000 and 2008 (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). Chart I-4Fears Of Energy-Driven Inflation Drove Up The Bond Yield In 1999 Fears Of Energy-Driven Inflation Drove Up The Bond Yield In 1999 Fears Of Energy-Driven Inflation Drove Up The Bond Yield In 1999 Chart I-5Fears Of Energy-Driven Inflation Drove Up The Bond Yield In 2008 Fears Of Energy-Driven Inflation Drove Up The Bond Yield In 2008 Fears Of Energy-Driven Inflation Drove Up The Bond Yield In 2008 Fortunately, the recent decline in the 30-year T-bond yield suggests that the bond market is looking through the short-term inflationary impulse of higher energy prices (Chart I-6). Instead, it is focussing on the deflationary impulse that will come from the demand destruction that the higher prices will trigger. Chart I-6Today, The Bond Market Is Looking Through The Inflationary Impulse From Higher Energy Prices Today, The Bond Market Is Looking Through The Inflationary Impulse From Higher Energy Prices Today, The Bond Market Is Looking Through The Inflationary Impulse From Higher Energy Prices The economic and financial sanctions imposed on Russia will only lead to additional demand destruction. Sanctions restrict trade and economic and financial activity – therefore they hurt both the side that is sanctioned and the side that is sanctioning. This mutuality of pain caused the West to balk at both the timing and severity of its sanctions. But absent an unlikely backdown from Russia, the sanctions noose will tighten, choking growth everywhere.   If bond yields were to re-focus on inflation and move higher, it would add a further headwind to the economy and markets, forcing the 30-year T-bond yield back down again from a ‘line in the sand’ at around 2.4-2.5 percent. So, the long-duration bond yield will go down directly or via a short detour higher. Either way, bond yields will be lower in the second half of the year. Given the very tight connection between bond yields and stock market sector, style, and country allocation, it will become clear that the recent outperformance of cyclicals such as banks, ‘value’ sectors, and value-heavy stock markets such as the FTSE 100 was just a short-lived countertrend move in a much bigger structural downtrend (Chart I-7). This structural downtrend is set to resume. Chart I-7When Bond Yields Decline, Banks Underperform When Bond Yields Decline, Banks Underperform When Bond Yields Decline, Banks Underperform Underweight cyclicals such as banks, ‘value’ sectors, and value-heavy stock markets such as the FTSE 100. Yet, the over-arching message from the anatomy of shocks is that the ultimate structural low in the 30-year T-bond yield is yet to come, and will be a long way below the current 2.1 percent. Stay structurally overweight the 30-year T-bond.   Fractal Trading Watchlist This week’s analysis focusses on banks, adds alternative electricity, and reviews bitcoin. Supporting the fundamental arguments in the main body of this report, the recent outperformance of banks has reached the point of fractal fragility that has signalled several important turning-points through the past decade (Chart 1-8). Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to go short world banks versus world consumer services, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 12 percent.  Chart I-8The Recent Outperformance Of Banks May Soon End The Recent Outperformance Of Banks May Soon End The Recent Outperformance Of Banks May Soon End Alternative Electricity Is Rebounding From An Oversold Position Alternative Electricity Is Rebounding From An Oversold Position Alternative Electricity Is Rebounding From An Oversold Position Bitcoin's Support Is Holding Bitcoin's Support Is Holding Bitcoin's Support Is Holding Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 As bond yields approach their lower limit, this definition of a shock will need to change as it will become impossible for long-duration bond prices to rally by 20 percent. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades The Predictable Anatomy Of Shocks The Predictable Anatomy Of Shocks The Predictable Anatomy Of Shocks The Predictable Anatomy Of Shocks 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5 Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6 Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a geopolitical incident that is likely to be limited in scope. A wholesale energy cutoff to Europe is the chief risk to global economic activity, but the sanction response from the US and EU does not point to this outcome. This implies that a large geopolitical risk premium may linger over the very near term, but that equities and other risk assets will ultimately recover. We continue to expect above-trend growth and above-target inflation in the US and other developed economies this year. Q1 growth in the US is likely to be closer to 4% after removing the effect of changing inventories, and incoming information still points to the view that the pandemic will continue to recede in importance over the coming several months. Given the magnitude of the rise in consumer prices in the US and other developed economies, above-trend growth also underpins the significantly hawkish monetary policy shift that has recently occurred. There are legitimate arguments in favor of a very aggressive pace of Fed tightening. Still, our view is that seven rate hikes from the Fed over the coming 12 months is likely too aggressive: A peak in headline inflation over the coming months will help restrain longer-term household inflation expectations, the surge in wage growth continues to reflect pandemic-driven labor market distortions that could unwind, and a significant further flattening of the yield curve – despite likely being a false signal of a recession – would probably cause a temporary period of tighter financial conditions that the Fed would respond to. We believe it is likely that the Fed will initially seek to raise interest rates at a pace that is in line with current market pricing, but that it will likely slow the pace at some point beyond the next 3-4 months. As such, we expect that the Fed will ultimately end up raising interest rates 5 or 6 times over the coming year, less than investors currently expect. The case for aggressive ECB hikes was weak even before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. European core inflation is nowhere near as strong as it is in the US, and nominal output in the euro area has not yet recovered to its pre-pandemic trend (in heavy contrast to the US). Russia’s invasion has caused a disruption of natural gas flows that will keep European gas prices at elevated levels, and aggressive tightening in response risks repeating the mistakes the ECB made in 2008 and 2011 when it raised rates in the face of an ultimately deflationary supply shock. On a 6-12 month time horizon, we are only likely to recommend downgrading global stocks once 5-year/5-year forward US Treasury yields break above 2.5%, barring a more severe shock to global economic activity from the Ukrainian crisis than currently appears likely. On Russia’s Invasion Of Ukraine Yesterday, BCA Research published a Special Alert in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.1 In the report, we outlined Russia’s motivation for invading, and noted that it will not withdraw troops until it has changed the government and seized key territories – such as coastal regions to ensure the long-term ability to blockade the country. Crucially, we noted that while the US and EU will levy sweeping sanctions against Russia, that the EU would not halt Russian energy exports. We regard the decision to maintain Russia’s access to the SWIFT system as consistent with that view. Given this, we believe that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a geopolitical incident that is likely to be limited in scope. A wholesale energy cutoff to Europe is the chief risk to global economic activity, but the sanction response from the US and EU does not point to this outcome. This implies that a large geopolitical risk premium may linger over the very near term, but that growth, inflation, and monetary policy will ultimately return as the drivers of equities and other risk assets over the coming weeks and months. Beyond Ukraine: Growth, Inflation, And Monetary Policy In The DM World Chart I-1Recent US Data Has Looked Smoewhat Stagflationary Recent US Data Has Looked Smoewhat Stagflationary Recent US Data Has Looked Smoewhat Stagflationary BCA Research presented three possible growth and inflation scenarios for this year in our 2022 Annual Outlook report. Our base case scenario, to which we assigned 60% odds, was one of above-trend growth and above-target inflation. We assigned 30% odds to a “stagflation-lite” scenario of above-target inflation with below-trend growth, and a 10% chance of a recession. Since we published our Annual Outlook, we raised the odds of the second, stagflation-lite scenario – mostly due to the impact that the Omicron variant of COVID-19 could have on the Chinese supply chain. But until recently, US economic data was also looking somewhat stagflationary: US real GDP only grew at a 2.3% annualized basis in Q3, and the strong Q4 number was mostly boosted by inventories. Real goods spending has slowed over the past few months without a major increase in services spending, and US auto production continues to be restrained by semiconductor shortages (Chart I-1). Supply-side constraints on production and spending have occurred against the backdrop of a significant acceleration in US consumer prices, the combination of which seemingly points more to the second growth and inflation scenario that we outlined, rather than our base case. However, our view is that above-trend growth in the US and other developed economies remains the most likely outcome this year, even given ongoing supply-side constraints and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In addition to the sizeable amount of excess savings that have been accumulated during the pandemic and the enormous increase in household net worth that has occurred over the past two years, two other factors point to above-trend DM growth. In the US, following the release of the January retail sales report, the Atlanta Fed GDPNow model is forecasting below-trend growth for Q1, but with a -2.3% contribution from the change in private inventories. Chart I-2 highlights that the Atlanta Fed’s model is projecting 3.6% annualized growth in Q1 of final sales of domestic product, a measure of GDP that excludes the effect of changing inventories (whose contribution to growth averages to zero over time). This would be above the trend rate of real GDP growth, and would represent an acceleration relative to the past few quarters. Beyond the next few months, the other factor pointing to above-trend growth is the indication that the pandemic will indeed continue to recede in importance over the course of the year, in line with what we laid out in our Annual Outlook. Chart I-3 highlights that the Omicron-driven surge in hospitalizations in G7 countries has been short-lived, and Chart I-4 highlights that deliveries of Pfizer’s anti-viral treatment Paxlovid, while still in their early stages, have begun. Chart I-2Q1 US Economic Growth Likely To Be Above-Trend Q1 US Economic Growth Likely To Be Above-Trend Q1 US Economic Growth Likely To Be Above-Trend Chart I-3Hospitalizations Are Falling Sharply Hospitalizations Are Falling Sharply Hospitalizations Are Falling Sharply In a recent study, Paxlovid was found to have an 89% efficacy in preventing COVID hospitalizations and deaths, with less serious adverse events or discontinuations than the placebo group.2 Its high effectiveness against all SARS-CoV-2 variants suggests that its increased deployment over the course of the year should significantly reduce the impact of COVID-19 on the medical system as well as lower the fear of the disease amongst consumers, even as new variants of the virus emerge and spread around the world. Consequently, it is likely that the output gap in advanced economies will turn positive this year despite ongoing supply-side constraints unless Russian energy exports to the EU are ceased, triggered either by a European boycott or a Russian embargo. Prior to Russia’s invasion, consensus growth expectations implied above-trend growth for this year (Chart I-5), which we see as consistent with the base case growth and inflation view that we presented in our Annual Outlook if Russian energy exports continue. However, given the magnitude of the rise in consumer prices in the US and other developed economies, above-trend growth also underpins the significantly hawkish monetary policy shift that has occurred over the past 2 months. Chart I-5We Agree With Consensus Expectations For Growth This Year We Agree With Consensus Expectations For Growth This Year We Agree With Consensus Expectations For Growth This Year Chart I-4US Paxlovid Deliveries Are Creeping Higher US Paxlovid Deliveries Are Creeping Higher US Paxlovid Deliveries Are Creeping Higher   The Case For, And Against, Aggressive Fed Tightening Just since the beginning of the year, investors have moved to price in an additional 100 basis points of rate hikes from the Fed (Chart I-6). Earlier this month, comments by St. Louis Fed President James Bullard signaling his desire for a full percentage point of interest rate hikes by July had a sizeable effect on US Treasury yields, with market participants still pricing in meaningful odds of a 50 basis point rate hike in March despite recent pushback from key Fed officials and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Chart I-6The Monetary Policy Outlook Has Shifted Rapidly In A Hawkish Direction The Monetary Policy Outlook Has Shifted Rapidly In A Hawkish Direction The Monetary Policy Outlook Has Shifted Rapidly In A Hawkish Direction Last year, The Bank Credit Analyst service warned on several occasions that a return to maximum employment was likely to occur faster than investors expected, and that a hawkish shift from the Fed was probable. We noted in our July report that the cumulative odds of a rate hike by some point in Q2 2022 were close to 40%,3 and in our September Special Report we reinforced the view that a mid-2022 rate hike was likely.4 Still, even relative to our (then) comparatively hawkish expectations, the monetary policy outlook has shifted very aggressively towards more and earlier rate hikes. This shift has partially occurred due to the labor market dynamics that we projected last year, but also due to a significant broadening of inflation over the past four months. Chart I-7 highlights that the 6-month rate of change in US core CPI excluding cars and COVID-impacted services was not meaningfully different in October than it was in the latter half of late-2019, in heavy contrast to overall headline and core inflation. However, over the past four months this measure has accelerated by 175 basis points, highlighting that inflationary pressures are becoming broader – and that an earlier and more forceful response from the Fed may be warranted. Chart I-7US Inflation Has Broadened, And Quickly So US Inflation Has Broadened, And Quickly So US Inflation Has Broadened, And Quickly So Does the broadening in US inflationary pressure that has occurred over the past few months justify the seven rate hikes currently expected by investors over the coming year? We present the detailed case for and against that view below, and conclude that seven rate hikes over the coming 12 months is likely too aggressive. The Case For Aggressive Tightening The most prominent argument in favor of aggressive Fed rate hikes is not just to slow the pace of inflation, but to address the fact that broadening inflationary pressures risk unanchoring inflation expectations. As we discussed in our January 2021 Special Report,5 inflation is determined not just by the output gap, but as well by inflation expectations. Economic slack, changes in imported goods prices, and idiosyncratic shocks all cause core inflation to cyclically fluctuate, but those fluctuations are relative to a level that is determined by inflation expectations – not the Fed’s inflation target. It is only if inflation expectations are consistent with the Fed’s target that actual inflation will equal that target, abstracting from the business cycle and other distorting events. A deeply negative output gap for several years following the global financial crisis caused inflation expectations to be vulnerable to shocks, and the collapse in oil prices in 2014 served as a large enough surprise that expectations unanchored to the downside. This event ultimately motivated the Fed’s introduction of its average inflation targeting policy, but Chart I-8 highlights that inflation expectations are no longer chronically low and that they may unanchor to the upside without meaningfully tighter monetary policy. A temporary period of higher food prices stemming from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine also raises the risk of unanchored inflation expectations among households. The second argument in favor of aggressive Fed rate hikes is that the unemployment rate has essentially fallen back to its pre-pandemic level, and median wage growth has already risen to its strongest level in 20 years (Chart I-9). Given that a large amount of excess savings and a very significant wealth effect are likely to continue to support aggregate demand, the inference is that overall wage growth may accelerate significantly further as the unemployment rate continues to fall. Chart I-8Inflation Expectations Are No Longer Depressed Inflation Expectations Are No Longer Depressed Inflation Expectations Are No Longer Depressed Chart I-9Wage Growth Has Risen Very Significantly Wage Growth Has Risen Very Significantly Wage Growth Has Risen Very Significantly The third argument in favor of rapid tightening is that the natural/neutral rate of interest is likely higher than both investors and the Federal reserve believe, meaning that monetary policy is even easier today than is generally recognized. We have written about this issue at length: in March 2020 we explained why the most cited measure of “R-star” was wrong,6 and noted in our April 2021 Special Report why we no longer believe that a gap between interest rates and trend rates of economic growth are justified. This perspective also suggests that investors should look past the quasi-recessionary signal currently being flagged by the 2/10 yield curve, as curve inversion is likely to be a false signal of a recession – as it was in 2019 (see Box I-1). BOX I-1 The Sino-US Trade War, The Yield Curve, And The COVID-19 Pandemic The US yield curve has historically provided a highly reliable signal of the likelihood of a recession. Investors have taken an inverted yield curve as a sign that short-term interest rates have risen to a level that is not likely to be sustained over the longer term, meaning that monetary policy has become tight. An inverted yield curve has indeed preceded several US recessions, although its track record at predicting contractions globally has been less reliable. While it is a counterfactual assertion, we believe that the yield curve provided a false signal when it inverted in 2019. Clearly the inversion did not predict the COVID-19 pandemic; the question is whether the US would have experienced a recession had the pandemic not occurred. In our view, the evidence does not point to that conclusion. Charts I-B1 and I-B2 highlight that the yield curve responded to an economic slowdown that was mostly caused by the Sino-US trade war, as well as an ongoing slowdown in Chinese credit growth and economic activity. It does not appear to have occurred due to interest rates having risen to a level that would be unsustainable absent these non-monetary shocks. Chart I-B1The Yield Curve Inverted Well After The Trade War Hit… March 2022 March 2022 Chart I-B2…And The Economy Started Improving After The Inversion March 2022 March 2022 In addition, the signal from the yield curve lagged that of the equity market: Chart I-B1 highlights that the US equity market fell just shy of 20% eleven months before the yield curve inverted. In fact, stock prices were rising sharply just prior to the emergence of the pandemic in response to expectations of monetary easing and the Phase I US trade deal, and the US Markit manufacturing and services PMIs were also turning up. None of these signs point to the likelihood of a contraction in US output had the COVID-19 pandemic not emerged. The key point for investors is that an inversion of the yield curve, were it to occur over the coming 12-18 months, would not necessarily signal a recession unless it were coupled with a major non-monetary shock. It would, however, be significant from a strategy standpoint, as the Fed would likely take it as a sign of tightening financial conditions. The Case Against Aggressive Fed Action Chart I-10Inflation Expectations Have Risen, But Are Not Out Of Control Inflation Expectations Have Risen, But Are Not Out Of Control Inflation Expectations Have Risen, But Are Not Out Of Control There are several counterpoints to the arguments noted above, as well as a few additional reasons to suggest that 7 rate hikes over the coming year is too aggressive. First, on the issue of inflation expectations, while it is true that expectations are no longer chronically low, longer-term expectations have not yet exceeded their pre-global financial crisis (GFC) range (Chart I-10). In addition, despite the temporary spike in energy and food prices stemming from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, headline inflation is likely to peak at some point over the coming months, which will act to restrain longer-term household inflation expectations. Importantly, inflation is likely to peak even without any Fed tightening. A comparison of the recent pace of advance in both headline and core CPI suggests that the former has up to 200 basis points of downside if crude oil prices remain at $100/bbl. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy team expects that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will prompt increased production from core OPEC producers to reduce the elevated risk premium and allow refiners to boost inventories. We now expect Brent oil to average $85/bbl in the second half of 2022, implying eventual deflation from energy prices and a slowdown in the pace of advance in headline CPI over the coming months – potentially below that of core. That would represent a very significant easing in headline inflation relative to current levels, and we do not expect that long-term household expectations for inflation would rise much further in such a scenario. The easing in the prices paid component of the ISM manufacturing index also points to an imminent peak in headline inflation and, by extension, household inflation expectations (Chart I-11). Second, while it is true that overall wage growth has recently accelerated quite significantly, it is still the case that this is being driven by the lowest-paid workers. Chart I-12 highlights that 1st and 2nd quartile wage growth are between 0.4-1.2% higher than they were prior to the pandemic, but that 3rd and 4th quartile wage growth is either the same or lower. Chart I-12Lower-Pay Wage Inflation Is Due To The Pandemic... Lower-Pay Wage Inflation Is Due To The Pandemic... Lower-Pay Wage Inflation Is Due To The Pandemic... Chart I-11The Prices Paid Components Of Manufacturing PMIs Also Points To Lower Headline Inflation The Prices Paid Components Of Manufacturing PMIs Also Points To Lower Headline Inflation The Prices Paid Components Of Manufacturing PMIs Also Points To Lower Headline Inflation   This surge in wages for low-paid workers largely reflects pandemic-driven labor market distortions, rather than excess demand. Chart I-13 highlights that real US services spending remains close to 5% below its pre-pandemic trend, and Table I-1 highlights that the leisure & hospitality industry now accounts for the vast majority of the jobs gap relative to pre-pandemic levels. Chart I-14 also highlights that while the leisure & hospitality jobs gap is smaller in red states than in blue states (which may be disproportionately affected by lost services jobs in central business districts due to work-from-home policies), it is still larger today that it was during the depths of the 2008/2009 recession. Chart I-13...Not Excessive Services Demand ...Not Excessive Services Demand ...Not Excessive Services Demand The key takeaway from Table I-1 and Charts I-13 and I-14 is that rising 1st and 2nd quartile wage growth is being caused by labor scarcity in low paying industries, which we attribute to the fact that working conditions in these jobs became more difficult during the pandemic and the fact that many of these positions involve close contact with customers. And clearly, raising interest rates will not hasten the return of leisure & hospitality workers to the labor market.   Table I-1Leisure & Hospitality And Education Now Make Up Almost All Of The US Jobs Gap March 2022 March 2022 Chart I-14The Leisure & Hospitality Employment Gap Does Not Seem Related To Work-From-Home Trends The Leisure & Hospitality Employment Gap Does Not Seem Related To Work-From-Home Trends The Leisure & Hospitality Employment Gap Does Not Seem Related To Work-From-Home Trends Third, even though we think the natural/neutral rate of interest is higher than both investors and the Federal reserve believe and that the yield curve provided a false signal of a recession in 2019, a significant further flattening of the yield curve would probably cause a tightening in financial conditions, at least for a time. The Fed is unlikely to be dissuaded from raising rates due to a valuation-driven decline in equity prices, but it is likely to respond to market-based signals of a material slowdown in economic activity – even if those signals ultimately prove to be false. The yield curve is an important reflection of how far bond investors believe the economic cycle has progressed (Chart I-15), and an increase in short-term interest rates at the pace that investors are currently expecting would flatten the 2/10 yield curve very close to (or into) negative territory. It seems likely that a rapid flattening in the curve would precipitate a growth scare in financial markets for a time, leading to falling equity prices (due to concerns about earnings, not just valuation), a rising US dollar, and a widening in corporate credit spreads. Chart I-15For The Fed, The Yield Curve Is An Important Market Indicator Of A Recession For The Fed, The Yield Curve Is An Important Market Indicator Of A Recession For The Fed, The Yield Curve Is An Important Market Indicator Of A Recession To conclude on this point, the Fed will feel that it is justified in hiking rates aggressively while inflation is well above its target levels and the unemployment rate is low and falling, but it is likely to change this assessment if financial markets begin to behave in a way that signals a rising risk of a significant slowdown in jobs growth. That would lead to a tactical period of weakness for risky asset prices, but it would ultimately be cyclically positive if the Fed revises its pace of tightening to a rate that is slower than investors currently expect. Our View Netting out the arguments presented above, the Fed may initially seek to raise interest rates at a pace that is in line with current market pricing, but it will likely slow that pace at some point beyond the next 3-4 months. As such, we expect that the Fed will ultimately end up raising interest rates 5 or 6 times over the coming year, less than investors currently expect. Our view also has important implications for the euro area interest rate outlook, given the significantly weaker case for aggressive ECB action that existed even before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. A Flimsy Case For Aggressive ECB Rate Hikes, Even Before Russia’s Invasion Chart I-16The European Inflation Situation Is Not As Bad As In The US The European Inflation Situation Is Not As Bad As In The US The European Inflation Situation Is Not As Bad As In The US At the early-February ECB meeting, President Christine Lagarde signaled a more hawkish outlook for euro area monetary policy than investors had been expecting. Since the beginning of the year, the OIS market has moved to price-in roughly 70 bps of hikes over the coming 12 months, German 2-year bund yields have risen 20 basis points, and 10-year yields have risen back into positive territory. Italian and Greek 10-year yield spreads (relative to Bunds) have risen by 35 and 90 basis points, respectively. From our perspective, investors are pricing a too-aggressive path for the ECB policy rate, and we would probably characterize an ECB decision to raise rates in line with current market expectations as a policy mistake. As highlighted in a recent report by my colleague Mathieu Savary, BCA’s Chief European Strategist, several arguments support this view. First, Chart I-16 highlights that euro area core inflation is running at a considerably slower rate than headline inflation or core inflation in the US, and that our core inflation diffusion index for the euro area has peaked. It is true that core inflation is much higher in Germany than in other key euro area economies, and it is also true that aggregate euro area core inflation is above the ECB’s 2% target. But high German core inflation is seemingly driven by particularly acute passthrough effects from high natural gas prices, and recent IMF research underscores that over half of the increase in German manufacturing price inflation has occurred due to supply shocks rather than demand (Chart I-17). Chart I-18 shows that expectations for euro area inflation and actual wage growth do not, in any way, suggest that the ECB’s 2% target is under threat, underscoring that aggressive tightening over the coming several months risks repeating the mistakes the ECB made in 2008 and 2011 when it tightened policy in the face of an ultimately deflationary supply shock. Chart I-17German Core Inflation Is Being Disproportionately Driven By Supply Shocks March 2022 March 2022 The second argument is that nominal output in the euro area has not yet recovered to its pre-pandemic trend, in heavy contrast to the US (Chart I-19). This is particularly true for Italy and Spain, and reflects the nature of the euro area fiscal response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Chart I-20 highlights that the cumulative growth in euro area disposable income has been lower than what would have been expected absent the pandemic, unlike what occurred in the US and Canada – two countries that provided sizeable direct transfers to households as part of their fiscal response. Chart I-19Key Euro Area Economies Have Recovered Far Less Than The US Has Key Euro Area Economies Have Recovered Far Less Than The US Has Key Euro Area Economies Have Recovered Far Less Than The US Has Chart I-18Euro Area Inflation Expectations And Wage Growth Do Not Signal The ECB's Inflation Target Is Under Threat Euro Area Inflation Expectations And Wage Growth Do Not Signal The ECB's Inflation Target Is Under Threat Euro Area Inflation Expectations And Wage Growth Do Not Signal The ECB's Inflation Target Is Under Threat     Third, Russia’s invasion has caused a disruption of natural gas flows via Ukraine that will keep European gas prices at elevated levels even beyond the winter period, which will have a negative impact on the euro area economy. Chart I-21 highlights that European natural gas prices are now seven times as high as they were at the beginning of 2021. Unlike the prior rise in European natural gas prices, which was somewhat related to global demand for goods, the post-invasion surge is a pure supply shock – echoing our point about the ECB’s previous policy mistakes. Chart I-20Euro Area Disposable Income Is Lower Than Its Pre-Pandemic Trend, In Contrast To The US March 2022 March 2022 Chart I-21Russia's Invasion of Ukraine Has Created A Pure Natural Gas Supply Shock Russia's Invasion of Ukraine Has Created A Pure Natural Gas Supply Shock Russia's Invasion of Ukraine Has Created A Pure Natural Gas Supply Shock The fact that Italy’s nominal economic recovery has been comparatively weak has helped explain the rise in its 10-year government bond yield relative to 10-year German Bunds. Allowing for a further economic recovery in those countries before raising rates would let the ECB ultimately increase rates further down the road – and thus exit more cleanly from negative policy rates in Europe. Our European Strategy Team continues to expect that the ECB is on track to raise interest rates only once in Q4 2022, to be then followed by more aggressive hikes in 2023. Investment Conclusions For fixed-income investors, the investment implications of policy rates moving higher over the coming year at a pace that is less rapid than currently expected would normally imply that an at or above-benchmark duration stance is warranted. However, Chart I-22 highlights that there is still upside for 10-year US Treasury yields even in a scenario where the Fed raises rates at a pace of 100 basis points per year. As such, we continue to recommend that investors remain short duration on a 6-12 month time horizon, although we agree with BCA’s fixed-income team’s recommendation to tactically raise duration to neutral given the potential for the European energy crisis to worsen further and the fact that 10-year US Treasury yields do not have as much upside on a cyclical basis as they did when we published our Annual Outlook.7 For equities, we do not find the case for a tactical downgrade to be compelling at current levels, given that global stocks have already fallen 10% from their mid-November highs. Over the near term, we expect the continued underperformance of euro area equities, be we doubt that the negative economic impact of higher natural gas and oil prices would persist beyond a 0-3 month time horizon. On a 6-12 month time horizon, our expectation that monetary policy will tighten at a less aggressive pace than investors expect suggests that the earnings risk to global stocks is not substantial, underscoring that a meaningful contraction in equity multiples would likely be required for stocks to register negative 12-month returns from current levels. In the US, business surveys suggest that sales growth is set to slow to a still-healthy level, and that profit margins are likely to be flat over the coming year (Chart I-23). This is in line with the view that we presented in our Annual Outlook, namely that US earnings growth in 2022 would be driven mainly by top-line growth. Chart I-22Investors Should Still Be Cyclically Short Duration Investors Should Still Be Cyclically Short Duration Investors Should Still Be Cyclically Short Duration Chart I-23Surveys Imply Strong Revenue Growth And Flat Margins, And Thus Positive Earnings Growth Surveys Imply Strong Revenue Growth And Flat Margins, And Thus Positive Earnings Growth Surveys Imply Strong Revenue Growth And Flat Margins, And Thus Positive Earnings Growth Chart I-24Still No Sign That The Secular Stagnation Narrative Is Under Attach. That Is Good For Stocks. Still No Sign That The Secular Stagnation Narrative Is Under Attach. That Is Good For Stocks. Still No Sign That The Secular Stagnation Narrative Is Under Attach. That Is Good For Stocks. Similarly, the risk of a serious interest rate-driven contraction in equity multiples over the coming year does not appear to be elevated. Investors are far more inclined to use long-maturity bond yields to discount future cash flows than short-term interest rates, and we have noted that the rise in long-maturity bond yields is necessarily self-limiting unless investor expectations about the natural/neutral rate of interest change. Chart I-24 highlights that despite an extremely rapid shift in monetary policy outlook amid the highest US headline inflation in 40 years, 5-year/5-year forward US Treasury yields remain only fractionally above 2%. This underscores that fixed-income investors will need to see evidence that a progressively higher Fed funds rate is not disrupting economic activity before they are likely to abandon the secular stagnation narrative. While the equity risk premium will remain elevated over the near term due to the situation in Ukraine, the bond market’s continued belief in secular stagnation will likely support equity multiples – at least for the remainder of the year. As such, we recommend that investors position in favor of the following over the coming 6-12 months: Overweight equities versus long-maturity government bonds Overweight value versus growth stocks Short duration within a fixed-income portfolio, with a neutral tactical overlay Overweight speculative-grade corporate bonds with a credit portfolio Overweight non-resource cyclicals versus defensives and small caps versus large Short the US dollar versus major currencies Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst February 25, 2022 Next Report: March 31, 2022 II. Canada: How High Can Rates Rise? The buildup of excessive household debt in Canada over the past two decades has occurred because of outsized demand for housing, not because of the impact of constrained housing supply on house prices. Outsized demand for housing has occurred because interest rates have been persistently too low, pointing to the need for the Bank of Canada to tighten monetary policy in order to prevent even further leveraging. The burden of Canada’s household sector debt may exceed its pre-pandemic level next year given current market expectations for the path of rate hikes. This implies that the prior peak in the Canadian policy rate (1.75%) likely reflects a high-end estimate of the neutral rate of interest in Canada. Regulatory changes have occurred in recognition of Canada’s extreme levels of household debt. Although a massive decline in Canadian house prices would cause a very severe recession, it would not likely precipitate a Lehman-style collapse of the Canadian financial system. Over the next twelve months, investors should position favorably toward CAD-USD. As the Canadian policy rate approaches our estimate of the neutral rate, a short CAD position and an overweight stance towards long-maturity Canadian bonds versus US Treasurys will likely be warranted. Within a global equity portfolio, exposure to relatively high-yielding Canadian banks should not be reduced until hard evidence of a significant slowdown in the housing market emerges. The outlook for monetary policy in advanced economies has shifted rapidly in a hawkish direction over the past few months. While we believe that the Fed and other central banks will end up raising interest rates this year fewer times than investors currently expect, it is clear that monetary policy will tighten in the DM world over the coming 12-18 months. This has raised the question of how high policy rates may rise before monetary policy begins to restrict economic activity. Some investors have specifically focused this question on countries like Canada, which has a highly indebted household sector and has seen house prices rise at a 7% average annual pace for the past 20 years. In this report, we explore the root cause of Canada’s extreme household debt and argue against the constrained housing supply view. Instead, we conclude that persistently low interest rates have fueled excessive housing demand and that the prior peak in the Canadian policy rate (1.75%) probably reflects a high-end estimate of the neutral rate of interest in Canada – in contrast with that of the US. Finally, we note that the regulatory changes that have occurred in recognition of the risk from excessive household debt suggest that a massive decline in Canadian house prices would not likely precipitate a Lehman-style collapse of the Canadian financial system – it would, however, clearly cause a severe recession. Over the next twelve months, investors should position favorably toward CAD-USD. As the Canadian policy rate approaches our estimate of the neutral rate, a short CAD position and an overweight stance towards long-maturity Canadian bonds versus US Treasurys will likely be warranted. Within a global equity portfolio, exposure to relatively high-yielding Canadian banks should not be reduced until hard evidence of a significant slowdown in the housing market emerges. The Root Cause Of Canada’s Extreme Household Debt Chart II-1Canadian Households Are Massively Indebted Canadian Households Are Massively Indebted Canadian Households Are Massively Indebted Relative to disposable income, Canadian household debt has risen substantially over the past two decades. Chart II-1 highlights that Canada’s household debt to disposable income ratio has risen by 180% since 2000, and is currently over 50 percentage points higher than that in the US, even when nonfinancial noncorporate debt is included in the latter.8 Rising Canadian household indebtedness is a problem that is well known to investors, policymakers, regulators, banks, and consumers themselves. Organizations such as the IMF have repeatedly warned that excess household debt poses a potential economic stability risk. In the years prior to the pandemic, policymakers have responded with a series of macroprudential measures designed to limit speculation and foreign ownership in the housing market and to reduce the incremental risk to the economy posed by new borrowers. When asked why Canadian households have leveraged themselves so significantly over the past 20 years, most market commentators in Canada point to insufficient housing supply as the main driver of excessive house prices. Given normal ongoing demand for housing, they argue, persistent supply-side pressure on housing prices will naturally lead to a rising stock of debt relative to income. According to this narrative, the solution to Canada’s housing crisis is centered squarely on incentives to build more homes. Raising interest rates to cool mortgage demand will simply exacerbate the housing affordability problem, while simultaneously discouraging additional residential investment needed to decrease home prices structurally. Chart II-2The Supply Of Non-Apartment Dwellings Has Indeed Declined Over Time... The Supply Of Non-Apartment Dwellings Has Indeed Declined Over Time... The Supply Of Non-Apartment Dwellings Has Indeed Declined Over Time... We hold a different perspective. We do agree that there are some limitations on the supply side that likely are unduly boosting prices of certain dwelling types. For example, the Greenbelt that surrounds Ontario’s Golden Horseshoe region - a permanently protected area of land - has likely constrained some housing activity, and Chart II-2 highlights that single detached, semi-detached, and row/townhouses have fallen significantly as a share of overall housing completions. Apartments and other dwellings now account for a clear majority of new housing construction in Canada. However, there is a great deal of evidence positioned against the view that supply-side factors are the primary cause of outsized housing inflation and, by extension, a massive increase in Canadian household debt to GDP: Based on real residential investment, the pace of housing construction in Canada has not fallen relative to GDP or the population. Chart II-3 highlights that, compared with the US, residential investment has trended higher over the past 20 years. Based on Canadian housing completion data, Chart II-4 highlights that the number of completions has generally kept pace with half of the change in Canada’s population, a ratio that is easily consistent with two or more people per household. In addition, the chart highlights that the periods when houses were completed at a below-average rate relative to population growth have not been the same as when Canadian household debt has increased relative to disposable income. Chart II-3...But Overall Real Residential Investment Has Kept Pace With Canada's GDP And Population ...But Overall Real Residential Investment Has Kept Pace With Canada's GDP And Population ...But Overall Real Residential Investment Has Kept Pace With Canada's GDP And Population Chart II-4Housing Supply Has Not Been The Main Driver Of Rising Canadian Indebtedness Housing Supply Has Not Been The Main Driver Of Rising Canadian Indebtedness Housing Supply Has Not Been The Main Driver Of Rising Canadian Indebtedness Chart II-5Prices For All Canadian Property Types Have Surged Over The Past Two Decades Prices For All Canadian Property Types Have Surged Over The Past Two Decades Prices For All Canadian Property Types Have Surged Over The Past Two Decades If the rise in Canadian household indebtedness has been caused by the increasing scarcity of single-detached, semi-detached, and row/townhouses, then we would expect to see a persistent and growing divergence between overall Canadian house prices and those of apartment/condominiums. Chart II-5 highlights that this is not the case: while apartment/condo prices have at times grown at a slower rate than overall home prices over the past 15 years (as in the period from 2011 to 2016), they have also at times grown at a faster rate. The chart clearly highlights that the Canadian housing market is driven by a common factor, and that average house price gains have not been significantly different across property types over time. Similarly, if a scarcity of housing supply was the main driver of rising house prices and household debt, we would not expect to see a significant increase in the homeownership rate. Chart II-6 highlights that the Canadian homeownership rate did rise substantially from the mid-1990s to 2016 (the last available datapoint). While it is not clear what the sustainable or “equilibrium” homeownership rate is, it is notable that the most recent datapoint was not significantly lower than the peak rate reached in the US following that country’s massive housing bubble. Finally, Chart II-7 reiterates a point we made in our June 2021 Special Report: in several economies (including Canada), interest rates have remained well below levels that macroeconomic theory would traditionally consider to be in equilibrium over the past two decades. This has occurred alongside significant household sector leveraging. Chart II-7Too-Low Interest Rates Have Fueled Rising Household Indebtedness In Canada (And Other DM Economies) Too-Low Interest Rates Have Fueled Rising Household Indebtedness In Canada (And Other DM Economies) Too-Low Interest Rates Have Fueled Rising Household Indebtedness In Canada (And Other DM Economies) Chart II-6The Canadian Homeownership Rate Has Risen Significantly, Pointing To Excess Housing Demand March 2022 March 2022     These factors strongly point to rising household debt levels as being driven by demand-side rather than supply-side factors – demand that has been fueled by persistently low interest rates. How High Can The Bank Of Canada Raise Interest Rates? Over the next 12 months, investors expect the Bank of Canada (BoC) to raise interest rates by 180 basis points, in line with the Fed (Chart II-8). Over the longer term, the BoC believes that interest rates will average between 1.75% and 2.75%. In the US, the 2/10 yield curve has flattened significantly in response to the Fed’s hawkish shift, and neither the explosion in headline consumer price inflation nor the Fed’s about face have significantly raised the market’s longer-term expectations for interest rates (which are even below the Fed’s estimates). In Canada, investors expect essentially the same long-term interest rate outlook, as evidenced by 5-year / 5-year forward government bond yields (Chart II-9). Chart II-8Investors Expect A Similar Magnitude Of Tightening In Canada And The US Over The Next Year... Investors Expect A Similar Magnitude Of Tightening In Canada And The US Over The Next Year... Investors Expect A Similar Magnitude Of Tightening In Canada And The US Over The Next Year... Chart II-9...And A Similar Average Interest Rate Over The Longer Term ...And A Similar Average Interest Rate Over The Longer Term ...And A Similar Average Interest Rate Over The Longer Term As in the case in the US, the hawkish shift among major central banks has left investors asking how high the BoC can raise interest rates, and what implications that might have for Canadian assets – especially the CAD and long-maturity Canadian government bonds. In our view, the best way for investors to assess the impact of rising interest rates on the private sector – especially a highly indebted one – is to project the impact that an increase in interest rates will have on the debt service ratio (DSR). The burden of servicing debt, rather than the stock of debt relative to income, is the right way to measure the impact of shifting monetary policy because it considers the combined effect of changes in leverage, income, and interest rates. The primary drawback of debt service ratio analysis is that the question of sustainability must be answered empirically. In countries experiencing an ever-rising debt service ratio, it can be difficult for investors to judge where the breaking point will be. Cross-country comparisons may sometimes be helpful in this respect, but Chart II-10 highlights that BIS estimates for household debt service ratios vary widely even among advanced economies. However, in Canada, the 2017-2019 tightening cycle provides a useful framework. As we anticipated in a 2017 Special Report,9 the rise in Canadian interest rates during that period caused the household debt service ratio to exceed the level reached in 2007, which contributed to a collapse in Canadian house price appreciation to its lowest level since the global financial crisis (Chart II-11). The decline in house prices during this period was also caused by the introduction of new macroprudential measures (particularly the introduction of a minimum qualifying rate for mortgages, more commonly referred to as a mortgage “stress test” rule), but the impact of higher interest rates was likely significant. Chart II-11The Last Tightening Cycle In Canada Contributed Significantly To A Major Slowdown In Canadian House Prices The Last Tightening Cycle In Canada Contributed Significantly To A Major Slowdown In Canadian House Prices The Last Tightening Cycle In Canada Contributed Significantly To A Major Slowdown In Canadian House Prices Chart II-10Private Sector Debt Service Ratios Vary Significantly Across DM Countries Private Sector Debt Service Ratios Vary Significantly Across DM Countries Private Sector Debt Service Ratios Vary Significantly Across DM Countries   Chart II-11 highlights that the Canadian household debt service ratio collapsed during the pandemic, which seems to suggest that the Bank of Canada has ample room to raise interest rates. However, the decline in the DSR occurred not only because of falling interest rates, but also because of the significant excess savings amassed as a result of the pandemic. As in the US, excess savings in Canada were the result of reduced spending on services and the generation of significant excess income from government transfers (see Chart I-20 from Section 1 of this month’s report). These fiscal transfers will eventually disappear, implying that the Canadian household DSR is artificially low. Chart II-12 shows our estimate of the evolution of the overall Canadian household sector DSR based on the following assumptions: Mortgage rates rise in line with market expectations for the change in the policy rate Government transfers fall back to their pre-pandemic trend Disposable income growth ex-transfers grows in line with consensus expectations for nominal GDP growth The overall debt-to-disposable income ratio, using our estimate for total disposable income, remains flat. The chart highlights that the Canadian household sector DSR may exceed its pre-pandemic level next year, and that a 1.75% policy rate is the threshold at which the DSR will hit a new high. The implication of our projection is that the re-acceleration in household sector debt that has occurred during the pandemic, shown in Chart II-13, will again contribute to a significant slowdown in the Canadian housing market as the BoC begins to raise interest rates as in 2018/2019. It also implies that the prior peak in the Canadian policy rate probably reflects a high-end estimate of the neutral rate of interest in Canada. Chart II-12Market Expectations For The Canadian Policy Rate Imply A Record High Debt Burden Market Expectations For The Canadian Policy Rate Imply A Record High Debt Burden Market Expectations For The Canadian Policy Rate Imply A Record High Debt Burden Chart II-13Canadian Household Loan Growth Has Reaccelerated During The Pandemic Canadian Household Loan Growth Has Reaccelerated During The Pandemic Canadian Household Loan Growth Has Reaccelerated During The Pandemic   As we discuss below, this is likely to lead to significant implications for CAD-USD and an allocation to long-maturity Canadian government bonds, once investors begin to upwardly revise their expectations for the US neutral rate. Extreme Household Debt And Canadian Financial Stability The question of financial stability is often posed by investors when discussing Canada’s extreme household debt burden. Some investors view the US subprime financial crisis as the likely template for the Canadian economy, given the fact that the US credit bubble also focused on the housing market. Despite our pessimistic assessment of the capacity of the Canadian economy to tolerate higher interest rates (unlike the US today), we do not share the view that the Canadian financial system faces a potential insolvency risk, like the US banking system did in 2008. We see two potential arguments in favor of the instability view. The first is related to the sheer concentration of debt in Canada relative to other countries. Chart II-14 highlights that the median debt-to-income ratio of indebted Canadian households is currently the second highest in the world (after Norway) among the 29 countries that the OECD tracks. This concentration measure has worsened considerably since we published our 2017 Special Report. The combination of a very high average level of debt and extremely high leverage among those who are indebted suggests that Canadian banks may be exposed to significant credit losses in the event of a serious housing market crash. Chart II-14The Degree Of Concentration In Canadian Household Debt Is A Potential Financial Stability Risk March 2022 March 2022 Chart II-15A Decline In The CMHC's Footprint In The Mortgage Insurance Market Is Also Concerning A Decline In The CMHC's Footprint In The Mortgage Insurance Market Is Also Concerning A Decline In The CMHC's Footprint In The Mortgage Insurance Market Is Also Concerning The second argument relates to the declining share of mortgages insured by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). The CMHC is a Crown corporation that provides mortgage-default insurance to Canadian banks. Banks must purchase such insurance when a borrower’s loan-to-value ratio exceeds 80%. The CMHC has seen increased competition from two private mortgage insurers, and Chart II-15 highlights that the number of mortgages with CHMC insurance has been steadily falling over time. In order for the CMHC to be able to reduce systemic risk during a crisis, it must be present enough in the mortgage market to be able to replace private insurers in the event of a shock that causes them to leave the market. In effect, the CMHC should be able to act as a ballast to prevent a sharp tightening in Canadian mortgage lending standards and credit provision, which could occur if banks find themselves unable to purchase mortgage insurance to cover borrowers with relatively small down payments. In this respect, the reduced footprint of the CMHC is concerning. However, these risks have to be weighed against two key structural changes that legitimately lower the systemic risk facing the Canadian banking system (or lower the impact of a major adverse housing event). The first of these changes is the introduction of the minimum qualifying rate for mortgages in Canada (the mortgage stress test), which we regard as one of the most important macroprudential policies that Canada has enacted to reduce the systemic risk of rising household debt. The stress test rules – which apply to all borrowers – force mortgage borrowers to pass the CMHC’s gross debt and total debt service ratio thresholds under the assumption of higher interest rates than borrowers will actually pay: either the contracted mortgage rate plus 2 percentage points, or 5.65% – whichever is higher. Given prevailing mortgage rates in Canada, this effectively means that new borrowers will not exceed the CMHC’s debt service thresholds until the Bank of Canada’s policy rate exceeds 2.5%. That is positive from a financial stability perspective, although it does not rule out the slowdown in household spending that we would expect if the aggregate household debt service ratio hits a new high next year in response to BoC tightening. The second important risk-reducing structural change is a significant improvement in Canadian bank capital levels. Chart II-16 highlights that Tier 1 capital has risen significantly relative to risk-weighted assets for Canadian depository institutions, and is now on par with US levels (in contrast to a typically lower level over the past decade). The IMF stress tested Canadian banks in 2019, when capital levels were lower than they are today. They found that most Canadian banks would run down conservation capital buffers in the adverse economic scenario that they modeled, subjecting them to dividend restrictions for a period of time following the adverse event. However, Canadian banks would not breach their minimum capital requirements in the scenario modeled by the IMF, which involved a 40% decline in house prices and a 2% cumulative decline in Canadian real GDP over a two year period – which is essentially what occurred in the US and Canada in 2008 and 2009 (Chart II-17). Chart II-16Canadian Bank Capital Appears Sufficient To Weather A Storm Canadian Bank Capital Appears Sufficient To Weather A Storm Canadian Bank Capital Appears Sufficient To Weather A Storm Chart II-17The IMF's Stress Tests Modeled A Repeat Of The 2008/2009 Crisis The IMF's Stress Tests Modeled A Repeat Of The 2008/2009 Crisis The IMF's Stress Tests Modeled A Repeat Of The 2008/2009 Crisis To conclude on the question of financial stability, it is clear that the magnitude and concentration of household debt implies that the impact of a serious housing market crash on the Canadian economy would be severe. But the fact that regulatory changes have occurred in recognition of this risk suggests that although a massive decline in Canadian house prices would cause a very severe recession, it would not likely precipitate a Lehman-style collapse of the Canadian financial system. Investment Conclusions Three conclusions emerge from our report. First, when considering the total experience of the past two decades, it is clear that the buildup of excessive household debt in Canada has occurred because of outsized demand for housing, not because of the impact of constrained housing supply on house prices. Outsized demand for housing has occurred because interest rates have been persistently below what traditional monetary policy rules such as the Taylor Rule would prescribe, pointing to the need for the Bank of Canada to tighten monetary policy in order to prevent even further leveraging. While US interest rates were also below what the Taylor Rule would have suggested for several years following the global financial crisis, the US household sector did not leverage itself significantly during that period because of the multi-year impact of the 2008/2009 financial crisis on US household balance sheets (Chart II-18). Canadian households did not suffer the same type of balance sheet impairment, and yet the Bank of Canada wrongly imported hyper-accommodative US monetary policy in an attempt to prevent a significant further increase in the exchange rate (which was still persistently strong for several years following the crisis). Through its actions, the Bank of Canada succeeded in staving off “Dutch Disease”, but at the cost of fueling a substantial housing and credit market bubble. Second, the fact that the Bank of Canada is likely to struggle to raise interest rates above 1.75% implies that a sizeable divergence may emerge between Canadian and US monetary policy over the coming few years if we are correct in our view that the US neutral rate is higher than the Fed currently expects. While such a divergence is not likely to occur over the coming year, Chart II-19 highlights that a 125 basis point policy rate spread – consistent with a nominal neutral rate of 1.75% in Canada and 3% in the US – last occurred in the mid-to-late 1990s, when CAD-USD ultimately declined to 0.65. Chart II-18The Bank Of Canada Staved Off "Dutch Disease", At The Cost Of Fueling A Major Housing And Credit Bubble The Bank Of Canada Staved Off "Dutch Disease", At The Cost Of Fueling A Major Housing And Credit Bubble The Bank Of Canada Staved Off "Dutch Disease", At The Cost Of Fueling A Major Housing And Credit Bubble Chart II-19Some Potentially Large Downside For CAD If US Neutral Rate Expectations Move Higher Some Potentially Large Downside For CAD If US Neutral Rate Expectations Move Higher Some Potentially Large Downside For CAD If US Neutral Rate Expectations Move Higher Over the coming year, we expect Canadian dollar strength rather than weakness: we are generally bearish toward the US dollar on the expectation of above-trend global growth, and our fundamental intermediate-term model suggests that CAD should strengthen. Thus, while it is too early to short the Canadian dollar, we would be inclined to turn bearish in response to rising long-term US interest rate expectations. We would draw similar conclusions for Canadian government bonds: investors should raise exposure to long-dated Canadian government bonds versus similar maturity US Treasurys as the Bank of Canada raises its policy rate toward our estimate of the neutral rate. Chart II-20Relative ROE Justifies A Valuation Premium For Canadian Banks Relative ROE Justifies A Valuation Premium For Canadian Banks Relative ROE Justifies A Valuation Premium For Canadian Banks Finally, the improvements that have been made over the past several years to dampen the impact of a housing market crash on the Canadian financial system suggests that exposure to Canadian banks should not be reduced until hard evidence of a significant slowdown in the housing market emerges. Chart II-20 highlights that the valuation premium of Canadian banks appears to be supported by a sizeable ROE advantage relative to global banks. Panel 2 highlights how composite relative valuation indicator for Canadian banks suggests that they have been persistently expensive for some time, but not extremely so. Canadian banks would certainly underperform their global peers should the adverse scenario modeled by the IMF’s 2019 stress test of the banking system to occur, especially if it implied that Canadian banks would be forced to restrict dividends for a time to bolster capital adequacy. However, we would advise investors against shorting relatively high-yielding Canadian banks as Canadian interest rates rise, until they see clear signs of Canada-specific slowdown in housing demand in response to higher rates. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Gabriel Di Lullo Research Associate III. Indicators And Reference Charts BCA’s equity indicators highlight that the “easy” money from expectations of an eventual end to the pandemic have already been made. Our valuation, and sentiment indicators remain very extended, highlighting that investors should expect positive but relatively modest returns from stocks over the coming 6-12 months. Our technical indicator has declined from extremely overbought levels in response to January’s US equity sell-off and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but it has not yet reached oversold territory. Still, we believe that the equity market’s reaction to rising bond yields is overdone, especially for value stocks. Forward equity earnings are pricing in a substantial further rise in earnings per share. Net earnings revisions and net positive earnings surprises have rolled over, but from extremely elevated levels and there is no meaningful sign yet of a decline in the level of forward earnings. Bottom-up analyst earning expectations remain too high, but stocks are still likely to be supported by robust revenue growth over the coming year. Within a global equity portfolio, we continue to recommend that investors position for the underperformance of financial assets that are negatively correlated with long-maturity government bond yields (such as growth stocks). The 10-Year Treasury Yield has broken convincingly above its 200-day moving average following the Fed’s hawkish shift, but remains below the fair value implied by our bond valuation index and the FOMC-implied fair value in a March 2022 rate hike scenario. We continue to expect that long-maturity bond yields will move higher over the coming year. Commodity prices remain elevated, and our composite technical indicator highlights that they remain overbought. An eventual slowdown in US goods spending, coupled with eventual supply-chain normalization, could weigh on commodity prices at some point over the coming 6-12 months. We are more comfortable with a bullish view towards industrial metals in the latter half of 2022. US and global LEIs have rolled over from very elevated levels. Our global LEI diffusion index has declined very significantly, but this likely reflects the outsized impact of a few emerging market countries. Still-strong leading and coincident indicators underscore that the global demand for goods is robust, and that output gaps are negative in many advanced economies because of very weak services spending. The latter will recover significantly at some point over the coming year, as the severity of the pandemic wanes. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4US Stock Market Breadth US Stock Market Breadth US Stock Market Breadth Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings US Earnings US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market US Labor Market US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption US Consumption US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing US Housing US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1     Please see BCA Special Alert "Russia Takes Ukraine: What Next?," dated February 24, 2022, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2    Jennifer Hammond et al. “Oral Nirmatrelvir for High-Risk, Nonhospitalized Adults with Covid-19.” The New England Journal of Medicine, February 16, 2022. 3    Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "July 2021," dated June 24, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4   Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "The Return To Maximum Employment: It May Be Faster Than You Think," dated August 26, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 5    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 6    Please see Global Investment Strategy "Revisiting The Neutral Rate Of Interest: A Contrarian View In A Time Of Crisis," dated March 20, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 7    BCA Webcast Positioning For A Rate Hike Cycle, February 15, 2022. 8   For an explanation of why we add US nonfinancial noncorporate debt to the numerator of the US household sector debt to disposable income ratio when comparing Canada to the US, please see: “Reconciling Canadian-U.S. measures of household disposable income and household debt: Update”. 9    Please see Global Investment Strategy "Canada: A (Probably) Happy Moment In An Otherwise Sad Story," dated July 14, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com