Energy

Highlights The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), Iraq, the UAE and Kuwait – the OPEC 2.0 states capable of increasing production this year – will have to step up for coalition members unable to lift output, including Russia. US shale-oil output also will have to increase to cover demand. The COVID-19 omicron variant has proven to be less severe than anticipated, which likely will translate into a faster recovery in oil demand than was expected in December. One risk looms large: China's zero-COVID policy greatly reduced virus transmission in the country; however, this also reduced natural antibody protection in its population. This is exacerbated by a lack of mRNA vaccine availability. Faltering supply and strong demand will keep inventories tight, reducing buffers to supply shocks – e.g., the Kirkuk–Ceyhan Oil Pipeline explosion this week. We are returning our Brent forecast for 2022 to $80/bbl; for 2023, we continue to expect $81/bbl (Chart of the week). Our forecast assumes OPEC 2.0 will increase supply so as to keep Brent prices below $90/bbl. US shale-oil output also is expected to rise. We continue to see oil-price risk skewed to the upside. Still, demand-destruction from high prices or widespread omicron-induced lockdowns remain clear risks to our outlook. Feature Given the relatively mild symptoms associated with the COVID-19 omicron variant, global oil demand likely will continue to recover lost ground and return to trend sooner than expected. Faltering supply from OPEC 2.0 member states means prices will remain elevated, and perhaps push higher. On the back of these fundamentals, we are restoring our Brent price forecast to $80/bbl for this year, and $81/bbl for 2023. This is the consensus view, and we find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of sharing it. Presently, the oil market is bulled up, expecting high prices this year and next, with Brent forecasts clustering in the $80-$85/bbl range out to 2025.1 Some headline-grabbing forecasts call for $100-plus prices, as top OPEC 2.0 producers – e.g. Russia, Angola and Nigeria– continue to strain in their efforts to restore production, and demand remains buoyant (Chart 2). A consensus usually emerges after most market participants have adjusted their positioning to reflect a commonly held view. This usually is a temporary equilibrium. The market typically finds the highest-pain price trajectory required to shatter the consensus view – e.g., selling off because widely held demand expectations are too high or supply expectations are too low, and vice versa. Ultimately, a fundamental shock destabilizes the consensus, and prices move higher or lower to reflect the new reality. The biggest risks to our price forecast are demand destruction from high prices or widespread omicron-induced lockdowns.2 To keep prices from finding a new equilibrium above $90/bbl, a policy response from OPEC 2.0 to increase production will be required. In addition, US shale-oil output will have to increase. This is not to say we are dismissing above-consensus price realizations: Inventories will continue to draw hard as long as the level of supply remains below demand. This will leave little in the way of buffer stocks to even out price spikes, as the Ceyhan pipeline explosion demonstrated earlier this week.3 Geopolitical tensions are high in eastern Europe as Russia and the West square off, and in the Persian Gulf as Iran squares off against GCC states and the US.4 These structural and geopolitical risks leave markets exposed to volatile price spikes. OPEC 2.0 Falters Our forecast is contingent on the core OPEC 2.0 member states ex-Russia – KSA, Iraq, the UAE and Kuwait – increasing production by an average of ~ 3.34mmb/d in 2022 and 2.76 mmb/d in 2023 relative to 2021. Most of the increases comes from KSA, Iraq and UAE (Chart 3). In addition, we expect US shale-oil producers to increase their average output by 0.6mm b/d this year, and 1.07mm b/d in 2023 relative to 2021 (Chart 4). In 2022, US crude oil supply reaches 11.7mm b/d, and in 2023 it goes to 12.13mm b/d in our estimates. The slower increase in US output this year largely is a function of the delay we expect in assembling rigs and crews to significantly lift production from current levels. These production increases are needed to make up for ongoing downgrades of OPEC 2.0 member states' ability to increase output, including Russia, where we expect crude oil production to remain flat at a little over 10mm b/d this year on average (Table 1). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) To Dec23 Back in July 2021, the coalition agreed to restore 400k b/d of production taken off the market in the wake of COVID-19 demand destruction. Thus far, the coalition has only managed to restore ~ 1.86mm b/d of the 2mm b/d pledged for August to December 2021, according to the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies (OIES). For this year, the OIES notes OPEC 2.0 "will struggle to return more than 2 mb/d of withheld supplies in 2022, compared to the headline target of 3.76 mb/d."5 Our view rests on a policy call at the end of the day: We believe OPEC 2.0 – KSA in particular – is well aware of the demand-destruction potential high nominal prices and a strong USD pose, particularly as the US Fed is embarking on a rate-hike program to accompany the quantitative-tightening measures recently adopted. Absent a concerted effort to raise production by the core OPEC 2.0 states ex-Russia and the US shale producers, prices could move above $86/bbl as supply tightens and demand continues to rise. This can be seen in The Chart of the Week (the dashed brown curve depicting our estimate for prices without higher production). Importantly, even if such a concerted effort emerges, a failure to resolve the Iran nuclear talks with the US and its allies this year would keep more than 1mm b/d of production from returning to the market. This would push average Brent prices this year and next to or above $90/bbl. Oil Demand Recovery To Continue Provided we do not see widespread lockdowns resulting from the rapid transmission of the omicron variant, we expect global demand to grow close to 4.8mm b/d this year and 1.6mm b/d in 2023 (Chart 5). This reflects our view that – baring too-high prices or another full-scale COVID-induced lockdown in a key market like China – demand resumes its return to trend. It is important to point out that the increase in oil demand we expect is being driven by economic growth, which means consumers likely can withstand high prices, just as long as they do not become excessive – i.e., entrenched above $90/bbl in our view. Chart 5Global Oil Demand Forecast Remains Steady Chart 6OPEC 2.0 Production Policy Kept Supply Below Demand In our base case model, we continue to see markets remaining balanced (Chart 6) – assuming we get the policy calls right – and OECD oil inventories falling (Chart 7). Even with an uptick in inventories, which presently are 31.5mm barrels above the 2010-14 average, days-forward-cover for the OECD will remain low (Chart 8). Chart 7Crude Inventories Continue To Draw Investment Implications The consensus view calls for oil prices to remain at current elevated levels, and to perhaps push higher. We share that view – and have maintained it for some time – which gives us pause. A consensus not only reflects a shared view. It likely reflects broad similarities in the way market participants are positioned in their capex, investment and trading outlooks. This is inherently unstable. We expect oil prices to remain elevated, and have returned our 2022 Brent forecast to $80/bbl on average. Our 2023 forecast for Brent remains $81/bbl. We continue to recommend positions that benefit from tightening markets in which forward curves are backwardated and likely to remain so. Even if we see production increasing – from the OPEC 2.0 core producers ex-Russia and the US shales – we still expect forward Brent and WTI curves to remain backwardated (prompt-delivery prices exceed deferred-delivery prices). We remain long the S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF to express this view. If we fail to see production increase to keep prices from breaching and sustaining levels above $90/bbl, long index exposure will post higher gains. The risk to our view is two-fold: 1) High prices leading to demand-destruction, which is made more acute when the USD is strong; and 2) widespread omicron-induced lockdowns, which could once again reduce consumption and lead to global supply-chain gridlock. High prices leading to demand destruction, or another round of lockdowns would force us to reconsider our positioning.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Paula Struk Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy paula.struk@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish It's very early days, but EU experts are reviewing a draft plan leaked to the media earlier this month, which could result in gas- and nuclear-powered generation being included among sustainable energy sources, and suitable to bridge the global energy transition to renewable power. The draft of the common classification system for EU funding of sustainable economic activities, or taxonomy, apparently states gas plants can earn a “transitional” label if they meet several criteria, including an emissions limit of 270g of CO2e/kWh, or if their annual emissions average 550kg CO2e/kW or less over 20 years. This criterion would be applied to judging environmental performance of a gas plant over 20 years, but offers no guarantee that its emissions would drop over time. The chair of the expert panel said draft rules for nukes raised questions over "whether a plant can guarantee its green credentials today, if its obligation to manage nuclear waste – one of the main environmental concerns about the fuel – does not kick in until as late as 2050," according to euractiv.com, which broke the story earlier this month. Base Metals: Bullish Indonesia has become more restrictive with exports of raw commodities in order to attract more downstream investments and to play a bigger role in producing finished goods. Of these commodities, Indonesia’s supply of nickel, relative to the world is the highest, constituting ~ 38% of total global nickel supply. In 2020, the nation banned nickel ore exports, and is now considering a progressive export tax on low nickel content products such as ferronickel and nickel pig iron. This tax could reduce foreign investment in Indonesia’s nickel mines and global supply, which would, all else equal, support prices. These developments arrive on the back of low nickel inventories, which helped prices of the key battery metal reach a 10-year high last week (Chart 9).   Precious Metals: Bullish In 2021, gold ETFs were hit by outflows of ~ $9 billion, the main reason the yellow metal was unable to reach its 2020 high above the $2,000/oz mark (Chart 10). For this year, we expect a supportive gold market, as real interest rates will remain weak despite the Fed’s hawkish tilt to lift nominal interest rates higher. In line with BCA’s Foreign Exchange Strategy service, we expect the USD to fall over the 12-18 month horizon, which will also bolster gold. Chart 9       Footnotes 1     Please see Column: Oil prices expected to rise with big variation in projections: Kemp, published by reuters.com on January 19, 2022. 2     High nominal oil prices and a strong USD compound the former demand-destruction risk.  The latter risk of wide-spread omicron-induced lockdowns is elevated in China at present.  Its success in shutting down the transmission of earlier COVID-19 mutations has reduced the amount of antibodies to the virus in the population.  This is compounded by a lack of mRNA vaccine production and distribution, which leaves the country at risk to wide-spread omicron transmission.  In states with large shares of the population carrying COVID-19 antibodies – e.g., the UK – omicron is less of a risk and is on course to becoming endemic.  Please see 2022 Key Views: Past As Prelude For Commodities and Endemic COVID-19 Will Spur Commodities' Next Leg Higher which we published on December 16, 2021 and January 13, 2022 for discussions. 3    Oil flows are expected to return to normal in short order.  Please see Halted Iraq-Turkey flows to resume within hour: Botas, published by argusmedia.com on January 19, 2022. 4    Please see Russia/Ukraine: Implications From Kazakhstan and Geopolitical Charts For The New Year published by BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy service on January 7 and 14, 2022, respectively, for discussions. 5    Please see Key Themes for the Global Energy Economy in 2022 published by the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies on January 18, 2022.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed in 2021

Highlights The neutral rate of interest in the US is 3%-to-4% in nominal terms or 1%-to-2% in real terms, which is substantially higher than the Fed believes and the market is discounting. The end of the household deleveraging cycle, rising wealth, stronger capital spending and homebuilding, and a structurally looser fiscal stance have all increased aggregate demand. In addition, deglobalization and population aging are depleting global savings, raising the neutral rate in the process. A higher neutral rate implies that monetary policy is currently more stimulative than widely perceived. This is good news for stocks, as it reduces the near-term odds of a recession. The longer-term risk is that monetary policy will stay too loose for too long, causing the US economy to overheat. This could prompt the Fed to raise rates well above neutral, an outcome that would certainly spell the end of the secular equity bull market. Investors should overweight stocks in 2022 but look to turn more defensive in late 2023. We are taking partial profits on our long December-2022 Brent futures trade, which is up 17.3% since inception. We are also closing our short meme stocks trade. AMC and GME are down 53% and 47%, respectively, since we initiated it.  The Neutral Rate Matters At first glance, the neutral rate of interest – the interest rate consistent with full employment and stable inflation – seems like a concept only an egghead economist would care about. After all, unlike actual interest rates, the neutral rate cannot be observed in real time. The best one can do is deduce it after the fact, something that does not seem very relevant for investment decisions. While this perspective is understandable, it is misguided. The yield on a long-term bond is largely a function of what investors expect short-term rates to be over the life of the bond. Today, investors expect the Fed to raise rates to only 1.75% during this tightening cycle, a far cry from previous peaks in interest rates (Chart 1). Chart 2Investor Worries That The Fed Will Tighten Too Much Has Led To A Flattening Of The Yield Curve Chart 1Expected Rate Hikes Are A Far Cry From Previous Peaks In Interest Rates     Far from worrying that the Fed will keep rates too low for too long in the face of high inflation, investors are worried that the Fed will tighten too much. This is the main reason why the yield curve has flattened over the past three months and the 20-year/30-year portion of the yield curve has inverted (Chart 2). Secular Stagnation Remains The Consensus View Why are so many investors convinced that the Fed will be unable to raise rates all that much over the next few years? The answer is that most investors have bought into the secular stagnation thesis, which posits that the neutral rate of interest has fallen dramatically over time. The secular stagnation thesis comes in two versions: The first or “strong form” describes an economy that needs a deeply negative – and hence unattainable – nominal interest rate to reach full employment. Japan comes to mind as an example. The country has had near-zero interest rates since the mid-1990s; and yet it continues to suffer from deflation. The second or "weak form" describes the case where a country needs a low, but still positive, interest rate to reach full employment. Such an interest rate is attainable by the central bank, and hence creates a goldilocks outlook for investors where profits return to normal, but asset prices continue to get propped up by an ultra-low discount rate. The “weak form” version of the secular stagnation thesis arguably describes the United States. Post-GFC Deleveraging Pushed Down The Neutral Rate One can think of the neutral rate as the interest rate that equates aggregate demand with aggregate supply at full employment. If something causes the aggregate demand curve to shift inwards, a lower real interest rate would be required to bring demand back up (Chart 3). Like many other countries, the US experienced a prolonged deleveraging cycle following the Global Financial Crisis. The ratio of household debt-to-GDP has declined by 23 percentage points since 2008. The need for households to repair their balance sheets weighed on spending, thus necessitating a lower interest rate. Admittedly, corporate debt has risen over the past decade, with the result that overall private debt has remained broadly stable as a share of GDP (Chart 4). However, the drag on aggregate demand from declining household debt was not offset by the boost to demand from rising corporate debt. Whereas falling household debt curbed consumer spending, rising corporate debt did little to boost investment spending. This is because most of the additional corporate debt went into financial engineering – including share buybacks and M&A activity – rather than capex. In fact, the average age of the private-sector capital stock has increased from 21 years in 2010 to 23.4 years at present (Chart 5). Chart 4Household Debt Has Fallen From Its Highs, While Corporate Debt Has Risen Since The GFC Chart 5The Average Age Of Capital Stock Has Been Increasing Buoyant Consumer And Business Spending Will Prop Up The Neutral Rate Today, the US economy finds itself in a far different spot than 12 years ago. Households are borrowing again. Consumer credit rose by $40 billion in November, the largest monthly increase on record, and double the consensus estimate (Chart 6). Banks are easing lending standards across all consumer loan categories (Chart 7). Chart 6Big Jump In Consumer Credit Chart 7Banks Are Easing Lending Standards For All Consumer Loans Chart 8Net Worth Has Soared Over The Past Two Years Meanwhile, years of easy money have pushed up asset prices, a dynamic that was only supercharged by the pandemic. We estimate that household wealth rose by 145% of GDP between the end of 2019 and the end of 2021 – the largest two-year increase on record (Chart 8). A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that this increase in wealth could boost aggregate demand by 5%.1 Reacting to the prospect of stronger final demand, businesses are ramping up capex (Chart 9). After moving sideways for two decades, capital goods orders have soared. Surveys of capex intentions remain at elevated levels. Against the backdrop of empty shelves and warehouses, inventory investment should also remain robust. Residential investment will increase (Chart 10). The homeowner vacancy rate has dropped to a record low, as have inventories of new and existing homes for sale. Homebuilder sentiment rose to a 10-month high in December. Building permits are 11% above pre-pandemic levels. Amazingly, homebuilders are trading at only 7-times forward earnings. We recommend owning the sector. Chart 9Investment Spending Will Stay Strong Chart 10US Housing Will Remain Well Supported Fiscal Policy: Tighter But Not Tight Chart 11Chinese Credit Impulse Seems To Be Bottoming As in most other countries, the US budget deficit will decline over the next few years, as pandemic-related measures roll off and tax receipts increase on the back of a strengthening economy. Nevertheless, we expect the structural budget deficit to remain 1%-to-2% of GDP larger in the post-pandemic period, following the passage of the infrastructure bill last November and what is likely to be a slimmed down social spending package focusing on green energy, universal pre-kindergarten, and health insurance subsidies. The shift towards structurally more accommodative fiscal policies will play out in most other major economies. In the euro area, spending under the Next Generation EU recovery fund will accelerate later this year, with southern Europe being the primary beneficiary. In Japan, the government has approved a US$315 billion supplementary budget. Matt Gertken, BCA’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist, expects Prime Minister Kishida to pursue a quasi-populist agenda ahead of the upper house election on July 25th.  China is also set to loosen policy. The Ministry of Finance has indicated that it intends to “proactively” support growth in 2022. For its part, the PBoC cut the reserve requirement ratio by 50 basis points on December 6th. The 6-month credit impulse has already turned up (Chart 11). More Than The Sum Of Their Parts Chart 12The Labor Share Typically Rises When Unemployment Falls As discussed above, the end of the deleveraging cycle, rising household wealth, stronger capital spending and homebuilding, and a structurally looser fiscal stance have all increased aggregate demand in the US. While each of these factors have independently raised the neutral rate of interest, taken together, the impact has been even greater. For example, stronger consumption has undoubtedly incentivized greater investment by firms eager to expand capacity. Strong GDP growth, in turn, has pushed up asset prices, leading to even more spending. Furthermore, a tighter labor market has propped up wage growth, especially among low-wage workers. Historically, labor’s share of overall national income has increased when unemployment has fallen (Chart 12). To the extent that workers spend more of their income than capital owners, a higher labor share raises aggregate demand, thus putting upward pressure on the neutral rate. The Retreat From Globalization Will Push Up The Neutral Rate… Chart 13The Ratio Of Global Trade-To-Output Has Been Flat For Over A Decade Globalization lowered the neutral rate of interest both because it shifted the balance of power from workers to businesses; and also because it allowed countries such as the US, which run chronic current account deficits, to import foreign capital rather than relying exclusively on domestic savings.  The era of hyperglobalization has ended, however. The ratio of global trade-to-manufacturing output has been flat for over a decade (Chart 13). Looking out, the ratio could decline as geopolitical tensions between China and the rest of the world continue to simmer, and more companies shift production back home in order to gain greater control over the supply chains of essential goods. … As Will Population Aging Chart 14Most Of The Deceleration In US Potential Real GDP Growth Has Already Taken Place Aging populations can affect the neutral rate either by dragging down investment demand or by reducing savings. The former would lead to a lower neutral rate, while the latter would lead to a higher rate. As Chart 14 shows, most of the decline in US potential GDP growth has already occurred. According to the Congressional Budget Office, real potential GDP growth fell from over 3% in the early 1980s to about 1.9% today, mainly due to slower labor force growth. The CBO expects potential growth to edge down to 1.7% over the next few decades. In contrast, the depletion of national savings from an aging population is just beginning. Baby boomers are leaving the labor force en masse. They hold over half of US household wealth, considerably more than younger generations (Chart 15). As baby boomers transition from net savers to net dissavers, national savings will fall, leading to a higher neutral rate. The pandemic has accelerated this trend insomuch as it has caused about 1.2 million workers to retire earlier than they would have otherwise (Chart 16). Chart 16Number Of Retired People Jumped During The Pandemic To What Extent Are Higher Rates Self-Limiting? Some commentators contend that any effort by central banks to bring policy rates towards neutral would reduce aggregate demand by so much that it would undermine the rationale for why the neutral rate had increased in the first place. In particular, they argue that higher rates would drag down asset prices, thus curbing the magnitude of the wealth effect. While there is some truth to this argument, its proponents overstate their case. History suggests that stocks tend to brush off rising bond yields, provided that yields do not rise to prohibitively high levels (Table 1). Table 1As Long As Bond Yields Don’t Rise Into Restrictive Territory, Stocks Will Recover Chart 17The Equity Risk Premium Remains High The last five weeks are a case in point. Both 10-year and 30-year Treasury yields have risen nearly 40 bps since December 3rd. Yet, the S&P 500 has gained 2.7% since then. Keep in mind that the forward earnings yield for US stocks still exceeds the real bond yield by 552 bps, which is quite high by historic standards. The gap between earnings yields and real bond yields is even greater abroad (Chart 17). Thus, stocks have scope to absorb an increase in bond yields without a significant PE multiple contraction. Investment Implications Our analysis suggests that the neutral rate of interest in the US is substantially higher than widely believed. How much higher is difficult to gauge, but our guess is that in real terms, it is between 1% and 2%. This is substantially higher than survey measures of the neutral rate, which peg it at close to 0% in real terms (Chart 18). It is also significantly higher than 10-year and 30-year TIPS yields, which stand at -0.73% and -0.17%, respectively (Chart 19). The neutral rate has also increased in other economies, although not as much as in the US. Chart 18Both The Fed And Investors Have Lowered Their Estimate Of The Neutral Rate Chart 19Long-Term Real Rates Remain Depressed If the neutral rate turns out to be higher than the consensus view, then monetary policy is currently more stimulative than widely perceived. That is good news for stocks, as it would reduce the near-term odds of a recession. Hence, we remain positive on stocks over a 12-month horizon, with a preference for non-US equities. In terms of sector preferences, we maintain our bias for banks over tech. The longer-term risk is that monetary policy will stay too easy, causing the economy to overheat. This could prompt the Fed to raise rates well above neutral, an outcome that would certainly spell the end of the secular equity bull market. Such a day of reckoning could be reached by late 2023. Two Trade Updates We are taking partial profits on our long December-2022 Brent futures trade by cutting our position by 50%. The trade is up 17.3% since inception. Bob Ryan, BCA’s Chief Commodity Strategist, still sees upside for oil prices, so we are keeping the other half of our position for the time being. We are also closing our short meme stocks trade. AMC and GME are down 53% and 47%, respectively, since we initiated it. While the outlook for both companies remains challenging, there is an outside chance that they will find a way to leverage their meme status to create profitable businesses. This makes us inclined to move to the sidelines.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 In line with published estimates, we assume that households spend 5 cents of every one dollar increase in housing wealth, 2 cents of every dollar increase in equity wealth, 10 cents out of bank deposits, and 2 cents out of other assets. Of the 145% of GDP in increased household net worth between the end of 2019 and the end of 2021, 19% stemmed from higher housing wealth, 52% from higher equity wealth, 12% from higher bank deposits, and 17% from other categories.    View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Highlights Data from the UK revealed it is tantalizingly close to declaring COVID-19 an endemic virus, indicating Britain likely will exit the pandemic ahead of other states soon. The UK is a bellwether market regarding its public-health response to the coronavirus. Some 95% of its population is estimated to carry COVID-19 antibodies (Chart of the Week). Other states – e.g., the US, the EU – have followed the UK with a lag, which we expect will continue. While the Fed's reassurance it will be able to hike rates without disrupting labor markets no doubt encourages markets – and boosted commodity prices – we believe the return to economic normalcy that would be ushed in by endemicity will release pent-up consumer demand for goods and services. This will spur commodity demand. If COVID-19 becomes endemic in enough economies globally, it also would fuel inflation, and inflation expectations.1 Given the tight supplies of industrial commodities – chiefly oil, natural gas and base metals – our assessment of upside price risk is higher now than it was at year-end 2021. We remain long broad-based commodity exposure via the COMT ETF, the PICK ETF, and the S&P GSCI index. Feature Fed Chair Powell's confidence that the US central bank will raise rates and keep inflation under control without destabilizing labor markets stole the show earlier this week. The media credited Powell's remarks for the burst of enthusiasm that lifted commodities as an asset class higher. While none would gainsay the Fed's importance to commodity markets, we would point out the approaching endemicity of COVID-19 in the UK – and the likely follow-on from the US and other large commodity-consuming states – is of equal, if not greater, moment. The UK has been out in front on its public-health response to the COVID-19 pandemic and has become a bellwether in the northern hemisphere; the US will follow. This week, the UK's Office for National Statistics (ONS) reported ~ 95% of England's population tested positive for antibodies to COVID-19 via infection or vaccination in the week beginning 29 November 2021. Similar results were reported for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This is generally observed in all age cohorts tracked by ONS.2 According to David Heymann of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, "population immunity seems to be keeping the virus and its variants at bay, not causing serious illness or death in countries where population immunity is high."3 In a briefing hosted by Chatham House this week, Heymann observed, “And probably, in the UK, it’s the closest to any country of being out of the pandemic if it isn’t already out of the pandemic and having the disease as endemic as the other four coronaviruses” currently in circulation, which are responsible for roughly a quarter of common colds.4 Based on UK government data, the ratios of hospitalizations and deaths to COVID-19 cases has been falling precipitously (Chart 2). This is encouraging, given the sharp increase in cases driven by the rapid spread of the omicron mutant, which appears to be rolling over. Medical experts in the UK suggest the data also point to a possible peaking in the omicron surge. This would lighten the load on hospitals, as well as reduce death rates attributed to the coronavirus (Chart 3).5 Return To Normal? Nothing will return commodity markets to economic normalcy faster than endemicity. If this stays on track over the next month or so, it will spur commodity demand sooner rather than later, as pent-up consumer demand for goods and services is discounted by trading markets. If, as the data appear to indicate, the UK's transition from pandemic to endemic COVID-19 is followed by other states like the US and EU a few months later, we would expect a renewed leg up in the post-pandemic commodities rally. This would be apparent in futures contracts, which already are pricing commodity deliveries a month or more hence. Such a turn of events would force us to accelerate our time table for oil-demand recovery, which we expect will come in 2H22. This could restore our $80/bbl forecast for 2022, and lift our 2023 expectation. We also would have to revisit our copper and base metals view, and bring forward the timing of the copper-price rally we expect will lift COMEX refined copper to $4.80/lb and $6.00/bbl in 2022 and 2023, respectively, on average.6 These industrial commodities would see demand increase amid extremely tight supply conditions. Oil markets are tightening on the back of OPEC 2.0's production discipline, and the inability of many member states to fully restore the 400k b/d every month it signed on for beginning in August of last year, owning to production shortfalls outside the core producers of the coalition (Chart 4). Copper, the base-metals bellwether, remains very tight, as seen in balances (Chart 5) and inventories (Chart 6). Chart 4OPEC 2.0s Strategy Works Chart 5Coppers Physical Deficits Will Persist... Chart 6Globally, Exchange Warehouses Tighten China's zero-COVID-19 policy, which has resulted in numerous lock-downs at the local level, has yet to dent oil demand, which, for the time being, is hovering ~ 16mm b/d. We will be updating our oil balances and price forecasts next week, and will have a more extensive analysis of supply-demand balances then. Return Of Speculative Interest Expected With Endemicity Hedge funds have been reducing their exposure to the industrial commodities over the past year, which suggests they either have better alternatives for investing, or did not believe the rallies in commodities over the past year were durable, given the repeated demand shocks visited upon these markets by COVID-19 (Chart 7). We expect that once the pandemic becomes endemic, hedge funds will return to these markets. All the same, given the higher likelihood of price rallies in these markets, we would expect hedge funds to be cited as a cause of higher prices, as typically happens when markets take a sharp leg higher. Regular readers of our research are aware that this generally is not the case – hedge funds follow the news; they don't lead it. This past week we revisited earlier research to see if hedge-fund involvement in commodity markets causes the prices to go up or down to any meaningful degree. And, again, we found no relationship between hedge-fund positioning and the level of commodity prices.7 The presumed influence of hedge funds has been a persistent feature of futures markets in the post-GFC world, following the collapse of commodity prices along with financial markets in 2008. An entire literature has sprung up to explore the influence of these funds on commodity price formation. Below we highlight a few representative articles consistent with our results. Büyüksahin and Harris (2011) show hedge funds and other speculators follow prices – they do not lead them – based on the Granger-causality testing they performed on oil prices and speculative positioning.8 Brunetti et al (2016) argue hedge funds' trading stabilizes markets – i.e., they provide a bid when markets are selling off and an offer when markets are well bid – while swap-dealer trading is uncorrelated with price volatility.9 Knittel and Pindyck (2016) found speculation has reduced volatility in prices since 2004, including during the 2007-08 price run-up.10 Using a straightforward supply-demand-inventory model, they examined cash and storage markets to determine whether speculation had any effect on them or on convenience yields based on cash-vs-futures spreads. They concluded: "We found that although we cannot rule out that speculation had any effect on oil prices, we can indeed rule out speculation as an explanation for the sharp changes in prices beginning in 2004. Unless one believes that the price elasticities of both oil supply and demand are close to zero, the behavior of inventories and futures-spot spreads are simply inconsistent with the view that speculation has been a significant driver of spot prices. If anything, speculation had a slight stabilizing effect on prices." Investment Implications Assuming the UK remains a bellwether for DM economies with reasonably effective vaccine programs, or which have experienced an omicron surge, markets could be close to exiting the COVID-19 pandemic and entering a phase in which the coronavirus is endemic. This would be bullish for demand. And given the extended tightness on the supply side for industrial commodities in particular, it could presage another leg up in prices as economic normalcy returns. We continue to favor broad-based commodity exposure via the COMT ETF, the PICK ETF, and the S&P GSCI index.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish US LNG baseload and peak liquification capacity is expected to rise ~ 13% this year to 11.4 Bcf/d and 13.8 Bcf/d (on a December-to-December basis), based on the EIA's latest estimates. The agency's forecast for LNG exports is up 17.3% to 11.5 Bcf/d this year, and 12.1 Bcf/d in 2023. With these increases in baseload and peak export capacity, the US is set to become the largest exporter of LNG in the world this year, in the EIA's estimation. This will be integral to US foreign policy, particularly in markets where the US competes with Russia for export sales, in our estimation. Within North America, US pipeline gas exports to Mexico and Canada are expected to average just under 9 Bcf/d this year, a 5% increase vs. 2021, and 9.2 Bcf/d in 2023. Base Metals: Bullish In China, seasonally low production, as stainless-steel firms undergo maintenance, and the upcoming Winter Olympics in February are keeping steel production subdued. To compound this supply shortage, tight raw material markets, particularly that of iron ore and nickel are buoying steel prices. Heavy rainfall in southern-eastern Brazil is curtailing iron ore production in the region. After Australia, Brazil is the second largest iron ore exporter to China. Nickel prices hit a 10-year high on Tuesday on the back of falling inventories. An LME outage also precipitated the price rise. Dwindling inventories point to increasing demand for the metal as electric vehicle companies ramp-up production and sales this year, particularly in China, where the government stated it will remove EV subsidies by the end of 2022. According to The China Passenger Car Association, EV sales in the country will double to 6 million this year. Precious Metals: Bullish Based on the December FOMC minutes, the markets are now pricing in a more hawkish tilt from the Fed, and expect an initial rate hike by March. The Fed may also shrink its balance sheet soon after the initial rate hike, in line with its expectation the U.S. economy will recover faster this time around. While higher nominal interest rates and tighter monetary policy will increase the opportunity cost of holding gold (Chart 8), the commodity-driven inflation we expect this year – especially if COVID-19 becomes endemic across major economies – will buoy demand for the yellow metal as an inflation hedge. An endemic virus this year will also boost physical gold demand from China and India.       Footnotes 1     Please see More Commodity-Led Inflation On The Way, which we published on 9 December 2021. 2     Please see Coronavirus (COVID-19) latest insights: Antibodies, published by the ONS on December 23, 2021. 3    Please see Covid-19: UK ‘closest of any country in northern hemisphere to exiting pandemic’, published on January 11, 2022 by msn.com. 4    Please see What four coronaviruses from history can tell us about covid-19, published by newscientist.com on April 29, 2020. 5    Please see Omicron may be headed for a rapid drop in US and Britain, published by msn.com on January 11, 2022 published by msn.com. 6    Please see 2022 Key Views: Past As Prelude For Commodities, which we published on December 16, 2021. 7     We ran cointegrating regressions – using DOLS and ARDL models – to check for any equilibrium between prices and hedge fund positioning and found none. We looked at the post-GFC period from 2010 to now, since this is the data the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) provides for hedge funds and tested whether hedge-fund positions (in the form of open interest) explained prices vs. the alternative (i.e., prices explain hedge-fund positioning). We again found prices explain position (and not vice versa) for crude oil, natural gas, copper and gold. 8    Please see Büyüksahin, Bahattin and Jeffrey H. Harris (2011),"Do Speculators Drive Crude Oil Futures Prices?" The Energy Journal, 32:2, pp. 167-202. This paper used unique data sets provided by the CFTC. 9    Please see Brunetti, Celso, Bahattin Büyüksahin, and Jeffrey H. Harris (2016), "Speculators, Prices, and Market Volatility," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 51:5, pp. 1545-74. 10   Please see Knittel, Christopher R. and Robert S. Pindyck (2016), "The Simple Economics of Commodity Price Speculation," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics 8:2, pp. 85–110. Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed In 2021

Highlights Global equities are poised to deliver mid-to-high single-digit returns this year, with the outlook turning bleaker in 2023 and beyond. Non-US markets are likely to outperform. We examine the four pillars that have historically underpinned stock market performance. Pillar 1: Technically, the outlook for equities is modestly bullish, as investor sentiment is nowhere near as optimistic as it usually gets near market tops. Pillar 2: The outlook for economic growth and corporate earnings is modestly bullish as well. While global growth is slowing, it will remain solidly above trend in 2022. Pillar 3: Monetary and financial conditions are neutral. The Fed and a number of other central banks are set to raise rates and begin unwinding asset purchases this year. However, monetary policy will remain highly accommodative well into 2023. Pillar 4: Valuations are bearish in the US and neutral elsewhere. Investors should avoid tech stocks in 2022, focusing instead on banks and deep cyclicals, which are more attractively priced. The Bedrock For Equities In assessing the outlook for the stock market, our research has focused on four pillars: 1) Sentiment and other technical factors, which are most pertinent for stocks over short-term horizons of about three months; 2) cyclical fluctuations in economic growth and corporate earnings, which tend to dictate the path for stocks over medium-term horizons of about 12 months; 3) monetary and financial conditions, which are also most relevant over medium-term horizons; and finally 4) valuations, which tend to drive stocks over the long run. In this report, we examine all four pillars, concluding that global equities are likely to deliver mid-to-high single-digit returns this year, with the outlook turning bleaker in 2023 and beyond. Pillar 1: Sentiment And Other Technical Factors (Modestly Bullish)   Chart 1US Equities: Breadth Is A Concern Scaling The Wall Of Worry Stocks started the year on a high note, before tumbling on Wednesday following the release of the Fed minutes. Market breadth going into the year was quite poor. Even as the S&P 500 hit a record high on Tuesday, only 57% of NYSE stocks and 38% of NASDAQ stocks were trading above their 200-day moving averages compared to over 90% at the start of 2021 (Chart 1). The US stock market had become increasingly supported by a handful of mega-cap tech stocks, a potentially dangerous situation in an environment where bond yields are rising and stay-at-home restrictions are apt to ease (more on this later). That said, market tops often occur when sentiment reaches euphoric levels. That was not the case going into 2022 and it is certainly not the case after this week's sell-off. The number of bears exceeded the number of bulls in the AAII survey this week and in six of the past seven weeks (Chart 2). The share of financial advisors registering a bullish bias declined by 25 percentage points over the course of 2021 in the Investors Intelligence poll. Option pricing is far from complacent. The VIX stands at 19.6, above its post-GFC median of 16.7.  According to the Minneapolis Fed’s market-based probabilities model, the market was discounting a slightly negative 12-month return for the S&P 500 as of end-2021, with a 3.6 percentage-point larger chance of a 20% decline in the index than a 20% increase (Chart 3). Chart 3Option Pricing Is Not Pointing To Elevated Complacency Chart 2Sentiment Is Not Exceptionally Bullish, Despite The S&P 500 Trading Close To All-Time Highs Equities do best when sentiment is bearish but improving (Chart 4). With bulls in short supply, stocks can continue to climb the proverbial wall of worry.   Whither The January Effect? Historically, stocks have fared better between October and April than between May and September (Chart 5). One caveat is that the January effect, which often saw stocks rally at the start of the year, has disappeared. In fact, the S&P 500 has fallen in January by an average annualized rate of 5.2% since 2000 (Table 1). Other less well-known calendar effects – such as the tendency for stocks to underperform on Mondays but outperform on the first trading day of each month – have persisted, however. Table 1Calendar Effects Bottom Line: January trading may be choppy, but stocks should rise over the next few months as more bears join the bullish camp. Last year’s losers are likely to outperform last year’s winners. Pillar 2: Economic Growth And Corporate Earnings (Modestly Bullish)   Economic Growth And Earnings: Joined At The Hip The business cycle is the most important driver of stocks over medium-term horizons of about 12 months. The reason is evident in Chart 6: Corporate earnings tend to track key business cycle indicators such as the ISM manufacturing index, industrial production, business sales, and global trade. Chart 6The Business Cycle Is The Most Important Driver Of Stocks Over Medium-Term Horizons Chart 7PMIs Signaling Above-Trend Growth Global growth peaked in 2021 but should stay solidly above trend in 2022. Both the service and manufacturing PMIs remain in expansionary territory (Chart 7). The forward-looking new orders component of the ISM exceeded 60 for the second straight month in December. The Bloomberg consensus is for real GDP to rise by 3.9% in the G7 in 2022, well above the OECD’s estimate of trend G7 growth of 1.4% (Chart 8). Global earnings are expected to increase by 7.1%, rising 7.5% in the US and 6.7% abroad (Chart 9). Our sense is that both economic growth and earnings will surprise to the upside in 2022. Chart 9Analysts Expect Single-Digit Earnings Growth Plenty Of Pent-Up Demand For Both Consumer And Capital Goods US households are sitting on $2.3 trillion in excess savings (Chart 10). Around half of these savings will be spent over the next few years, helping to drive demand. Households in the other major advanced economies have also buttressed their balance sheets. Chart 10Plenty Of Pent-Up Demand After two decades of subdued corporate investment, capital goods orders have soared. This bodes well for capex in 2022. Inventories remain at rock-bottom levels, which implies that output will need to exceed spending for the foreseeable future (Chart 11). On the residential housing side, both the US homeowner vacancy rate and the inventory of homes for sale are near multi-decade lows. Building permits are 11% above pre-pandemic levels (Chart 12). Chart 11Business Investment Should Be Strong In 2022 Chart 12Residential Construction Will Remain Well Supported Chart 13China's Credit Impulse Has Bottomed Chinese Growth To Rebound, Europe To Benefit From Lower Natural Gas Prices Chinese credit growth decelerated last year. However, the 6-month credit impulse has bottomed, and the 12-month impulse is sure to follow (Chart 13). Chinese coal prices have collapsed following the government’s decision to instruct 170 mines to expand capacity (Chart 14). China generates 63% of its electricity from coal. Lower energy prices and increased stimulus should support Chinese industrial activity in 2022. Like China, Europe will benefit from lower energy costs. Natural gas prices have fallen by nearly 50% from their peak on December 21st. A shrinking energy bill will support the euro (Chart 15). Chart 14Coal Prices Are Renormalizing In China Chart 15A Shrinking Energy Bill Will Support The Euro Omicron Or Omicold? While the Omicron wave has led to an unprecedented spike in new cases across many countries, the economic fallout will be limited. The new variant is more contagious but significantly less lethal than previous ones. In South Africa, it blew through the population without triggering a major increase in mortality (Chart 16). Preliminary data suggest that exposure to Omicron confers at least partial immunity against Delta. The general tendency is for viral strains to become less lethal over time. After all, a virus that kills its host also kills itself. Given that Omicron is crowding out more dangerous strains such as Delta, any future variant is likely to emanate from Omicron; and odds are this new variant will be even milder than Omicron. Meanwhile, new antiviral drugs are starting to hit the market. Pfizer claims that its new drug, Paxlovid, cuts the risk of hospitalization by almost 90% if taken within five days from the onset of symptoms. Bottom Line: While global growth has peaked and the pandemic remains a risk, growth should stay well above trend in the major economies in 2022, fueling further gains in corporate earnings and equity prices.   Pillar 3: Monetary And Financial Factors (Neutral)   Chart 17The Overall Stance Of Monetary Policy Will Not Return To Pre-Pandemic Levels For At Least Another 12 Months Tighter But Not Tight Monetary and financial factors help govern the direction of equity prices both because they influence economic growth and also because they affect the earnings multiple at which stocks trade. There is little doubt that a number of central banks, including the Federal Reserve, are looking to dial back monetary stimulus. However, there is a big difference between tighter monetary policy and tight policy. Even if the FOMC were to raise rates three times in 2022, as the market is currently discounting, the fed funds rate would still be half of what it was on the eve of the pandemic (Chart 17). Likewise, even if the Fed were to allow maturing assets to run off in the middle of this year, as the minutes of the December FOMC meeting suggest is likely, the size of the Fed’s balance sheet will probably not return to pre-pandemic levels until the second half of this decade.   A Higher Neutral Rate We have argued in the past that the neutral rate of interest in the US is higher than widely believed. This implies that the overall stance of monetary policy remains exceptionally stimulative. Historically, stocks have shrugged off rising bond yields, as long as yields did not increase to prohibitively high levels (Table 2). Table 2As Long As Bond Yields Don’t Rise Into Restrictive Territory, Stocks Will Recover If the neutral rate ends up being higher than the Fed supposes, the danger is that monetary policy will stay too loose for too long. The question is one of timing. The good news is that inflation should recede in the US in 2022, as supply-chain bottlenecks ease and spending shifts back from goods to services. The bad news is that the respite from inflation will not last. As discussed in Section II of our recently-published 2022 Strategy Outlook, inflation will resume its upward trajectory in mid-2023 on the back of a tightening labor market and a budding price-wage spiral. This second inflationary wave could force the Fed to turn much more aggressive, spelling the end of the equity bull market. Bottom Line: While the Fed is gearing up to raise rates and trim the size of its balance sheet, monetary policy in the US and in other major economies will remain highly accommodative in 2022. US policy could turn more restrictive in 2023 as a second wave of inflation forces a more aggressive response from the Fed.   Pillar 4: Valuations (Bearish In The US; Neutral Elsewhere)   US Stocks Are Looking Pricey… While valuations are a poor timing tool in the short run, they are an excellent forecaster of stock prices in the long run. Chart 18 shows that the Shiller PE ratio has reliably predicted the 10-year return on equities. Today, the Shiller PE is consistent with total real returns of close to zero over the next decade. Investors’ allocation to stocks has also predicted the direction of equity prices (Chart 19). According to the Federal Reserve, US households held a record high 41% of their financial assets in equities as of the third quarter of 2021. If history is any guide, this would also correspond to near-zero long-term returns on stocks. Chart 19Valuations Matter For Long-Term Returns (II)   … But There Is More Value Abroad Valuations outside the US are more reasonable. Whereas US stocks trade at a Shiller PE ratio of 37, non-US stocks trade at 20-times their 10-year average earnings. Other valuation measures such as price-to-book, price-to-sales, and dividend yield tell a similar story (Chart 20). Chart 20AUS Stocks Are Trading At A Significant Premium To Their Non-US Peers (I) Chart 20BUS Stocks Are Trading At A Significant Premium To Their Non-US Peers (II) Cyclicals And Banks Overrepresented Abroad Our preferred sector skew for 2022 favors non-US equities. Increased capital spending in developed economies and incremental Chinese stimulus should boost industrial stocks and other deep cyclicals, which are overrepresented outside the US (Table 3). Banks are also heavily weighted in overseas markets; they should also do well in response to faster-than-expected growth and rising bond yields (Chart 21). Table 3Deep Cyclicals And Financials Are Overrepresented Outside The US Chart 21Rising Bond Yields Will Help Bank Shares Bottom Line: Valuations are more appealing outside the US, and with deep cyclicals and banks set to outperform tech over the coming months, overseas markets are the place to be in 2022. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Highlights Industrial commodity and ag markets will continue to pull widely followed inflation gauges higher, as global fuel and fertilizer prices remain well bid (Chart of the Week). Unplanned production outages in Libya, faltering supply growth within OPEC 2.0 and a bullish read-through on demand in the wake of relatively mild public-health effects due to the omicron variant will keep oil prices well supported over the short term. Base metals prices will be pulled higher by the ongoing energy crises in Europe and China, which are forcing refiners to shutter capacity as fuels are re-directed to human needs. This is compounded by lockdowns in China – home to ~ 50% of global refining capacity – due to its zero-tolerance COVID-19 policy. These energy crises also are pulling grains higher, as farmers deal with soaring fertilizer costs – driven by soaring natgas prices – this year. Longer term – 2024 and beyond – industrial-commodity production will be concentrated in the hands of a few large producers. More explicit carbon pricing and ESG-induced cost increases will have to be recovered in higher wholesale prices for oil and metals. Grains will remain subject to volatile input costs, and erratic weather. We continue to favor broad-based exposure to commodities vis the S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF. Feature Fundamental supply-demand conditions in commodity markets – largely out of the control of fiscal- and monetary-policymakers – will continue to pull inflation gauges higher this year and for the rest of the 2020s. Oil markets are tight and getting tighter, owing to a dearth of capex since the price collapse triggered by OPEC's market-share war in 2014 (Chart 2). The same is true for base metals, where capex also has languished.1 Chart of the WeekCommodities Continue To Contribute To Global Inflationary Pressures Ag markets are confronting massive cost increases brought about by natgas shortages that first surfaced in 2021 and will continue to dog European and Asian fertilizer markets this year (Chart 3). These tight conditions leave markets vulnerable to unexpected supply and demand shocks, no matter how short-lived they might be. This is easily seen in oil markets: A force majeure declaration by Libya's national oil company following unplanned production shutdowns and pipeline maintenance pulled output below 800k b/d, or 30% lower than November 2021 levels, and almost completely neutralized a supply increase agreed by OPEC 2.0 earlier this week. Combined with what appears to be a relatively sanguine read-through on the impact of surging omicron infections in major consuming markets, these developments took prompt Brent back above $80/bbl.2 Chart 3Tight Natgas Markets Drive Fertilizer/Grain Prices Higher Oil Price Strength Will Persist Longer term – 2024 and beyond – OPEC 2.0's capacity to increase oil supply will be concentrated in the hands of a few large producers, while US shale-oil producers will face tougher ESG hurdles, which will raise their costs. More explicit carbon pricing also will raise costs. These cost increases will have to be recovered in higher prices. OPEC 2.0’s raison d'être at its inception in 2016 was to regain control over the level of global oil inventories. It has been remarkably successful in this endeavour, despite massive geopolitical uncertainty and a global pandemic (Chart 4). We do not expect any course changes over the coming years. What will change, however, are the fortunes of states in this coalition capable of increasing supply as global demand increases. At present, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia are the putative leaders of OPEC 2.0, and are two of the five states that can increase production at present (Iraq, the UAE and Kuwait also are in that group). By the end of this decade, the leadership of the coalition could come down to KSA and the UAE. While not certain, the US EIA expects Russia's output to level off and then gradually decline over the course of this decade. (Chart 5).3 Russia will remain a significant producer in the coalition, but it likely will be managing declining output as opposed to fighting for higher market share. Chart 4OPEC 2.0s Strategy Works Producers outside the OPEC 2.0 coalition – i.e., the price-taking cohort – have gone to great lengths to improve the attractiveness of their equity, and to maintain access to debt markets to fund their growth. These goals will not support any effort to increase production at the risk of reducing ROEs, as this would set efforts to regain investors' and lenders' favor back years. Going forward, capital markets, climate activists in board rooms and courtrooms, and an increasing load of ESG-related measures – most not yet even defined – will become central to the price-taking cohort's operations and returns. These will impose additional costs on the production of hydrocarbons, with explicit carbon pricing only one of many costs that will have to be recovered in higher prices. Base Metals Again Hit By Gas Shortages Shortages of natural gas continue to plague Europe: According to Gazprom, the Russian state-owned gas company, the continent has withdrawn more than 45% of total gas injected into storage this year, with peak winter in the Northern Hemisphere still to come.4 Just over 20% of power generation in Europe is gas-fired, which means tight gas markets drive gas prices and power prices higher. This power crunch is hitting the continent’s supply of refined aluminum and zinc particularly hard, which means global supplies also are being hit hard. Europe is responsible for ~ 12.5% and ~ 18% of global primary aluminum and zinc slab production, respectively. Low inventories at the start of winter, and cold weather is forcing European natgas to be directed to human needs at the expense of power generation. This has resulted in shutdowns of aluminum smelters in Europe – e.g., Aluminium Dunkerque Industries France was forced to curb production in the second half of December. Around the same time, Trafigura’s Nyrstar – which has the capacity to produce ~ 5.2% of global refined zinc – also announced plans to shut its zinc operations in France beginning January, citing high power prices. While power rationing has helped stabilize an earlier crisis in the world’s largest refined copper, aluminum, and zinc producer, the odds China’s power crisis will worsen has increased, following Indonesia's coal export ban in January to preserve the fuel for domestic energy security. China’s plans to curb air pollution ahead of the Winter Olympics next month will also dampen refining activity. Base metals also are contending with a new fundamental supply risk: Political uncertainty in the critically important producing states of Chile and Peru, the world’s largest producers of the red metal. Gabriel Boric, the new Chilean president, supports higher taxes on copper mining firms, as does his Peruvian counterpart Pedro Castillo. Boric’s election also signals more scrutiny on ore miners’ environmental practices – putting additional ESG-induced costs into wholesale copper prices. The uncertainty surrounding Peru’s constitutional rewrite, with the possibility for a change in mining rules to favor wealth redistribution and the environment will deter mining investments, according to Diego Hernandez, head of Sonami, the Chilean mining society. In Peru, the motion to and failure to impeach Castillo last month will increase political uncertainty, potentially reducing investors’ faith in the country’s mining sector. All of this has a chilling effect on investment in markets that are starved for capex.5 The lack of stable supply and low inventories have caused major price surges over the last year for industrial metals (Chart 6). We expect prices to rise and maintain higher levels over the course of this decade. Base metals production likely will fall short of demand as the world undertakes the green energy transition. Chart 6Copper Inventories Drawing Hard Investment Implications Industrial commodity markets are tightening over the short term and are on course to tighten further as the current decade progresses. This will raise the cost of the energy transition, as higher prices will be required to spur new supply investments in base metals, which are the sine qua non for this transition. This also will spur additional investment in oil and natgas supply, since these already have the infrastructure in place to move supply to market in order to meet the rising demand for energy we expect going forward. We will be exploring these themes throughout the year, particularly the implications for policy around the development of carbon-capture technologies – especially in natgas markets – and nuclear power, both of which may be the most "shovel ready" sources of incremental energy supply this decade.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish European natgas prices are once again rallying as inventories continue to be drawn down hard due to cold weather, reduced gas supplies from Russia, and higher demand generally (Chart 7). By the end of 2021, European natgas inventories were 57% full, vs the seasonal norm of 72%. At the end of December, close to 50 LNG tankers from the US were sailing to European destinations. As 2022 opens, the European TTF price for natural gas rose 30% to €94/MWh off their recent lows. Cargoes now will be bid in Asia, particularly in China, due to a halt in coal exports during January from Indonesia announced by the government at year end. China had replaced Australian coal imports with Indonesian-sourced material last year. Base Metals: Bullish MMG Ltd’s Las Bambas mine in Apurímac, Peru will restart operations after suspending production in late December. The mine's owner enacted the suspension following a month-long blockade at one of its key roads by the Chumbivilcas community. Prime Minister, Mirtha Vasquez travelled to the region to ensure the conflicting parties reached an agreement.  Las Bambas mine makes up ~2% of global mined copper supply and its tax payments are a significant source of government revenue. While an agreement was reached to lift the blockade, it did not address the Chumbivilcas’ primary concerns. The community wants the mine to employ more locals and provide higher cash contributions to support local infrastructure. This elevates the likelihood of further blockades and supply disruptions this year. Since it commenced operations in 2016, the Las Bambas mine has dealt with blockades over key roads on and off for over 400 days.  Ags/Softs:Neutral Global fertilizer markets will remain tight as natgas prices resume their rally and drive input costs higher. This will contribute to rising food price inflation and may result in global food shortages in 2022. High fertilizer prices might encourage farmers to delay planting this year, in the hope prices will fall. This risks increasing price volatility if too many farmers wait too long to apply fertilizers for their spring crops. Footnotes 1     Please see our most recent update on these factors in 2022 Key Views: Past As Prelude For Commodities, which we published on December 16, 2021. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2     Please see Libyan crude output falls below 800,000 b/d published by argusmedia.com on January 4, 2022, and Oil futures: Prices steady after OPEC+ hike, Brent close to $80/b published by qcintel.com on January 5, 2022. 3    In its December 2021 assessment of Russia's oil-production potential, the US EIA noted: "… declining output from Russia’s more mature fields (primarily in Western Siberia, Russia’s largest oil producing region) may offset the production growth coming from greenfield development, which may result in Russia’s crude oil production declining by the end of the 2020s decade. In addition to greenfield development, companies are increasing drilling at some existing mature oil fields and are tying in smaller fields to existing infrastructure at larger fields to help increase recovery rates and mitigate some of the production decline. However, brownfield development efforts in Russia are unlikely to reverse the decline in production in the longer term." Please see Country Analysis Executive Summary: Russia, published by the EIA on December 13, 2021. 4    Please refer to Hoping for cheaper gas to come, Europe reverses Russian link to tap storage, published by Reuters on December 30, 2021. 5    Please see Add Local Politics To Copper Supply Risks, which we published on November 25, 2021 for additional discussion   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed in 2021

Dear Client, This week we present our annual Commodities & Energy Strategy outlook, which contains our key views on the principal markets we cover – energy, base metals and bulks, precious metals, and ags.  Over the coming decade, we expect industrial commodity prices to move higher in an increasingly volatile fashion, not unlike these markets' recent experience.  In the short term, commodity markets will remain exquisitely sensitive to the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic.  The highly transmissible omicron variant of the coronavirus – now spreading at more than 4x the rate of the delta variant – appears to be less lethal than previous mutations, suggesting it could become the dominant variant globally.  We remain wary, however, particularly as China still is operating under a zero-tolerance COVID-19 policy, and has relied on less efficacious vaccines that appear to offer no protection against the omicron variant of the coronavirus.  This also is a risk for EM economies that rely on these vaccines.  However, the roll-out of mRNA vaccines globally via joint ventures will be gathering steam in 2H22, which is bullish for commodity demand. Longer term, the effort to decarbonize global energy markets is gaining traction, with the three largest economies in the world – the US, China and EU – embarked on a massive transition to renewables.  This will be a multi-decade undertaking that literally could transform the world.  We expect this to continue to unfold in an erratic and uncoordinated fashion, as states work out how to decarbonize the production, delivery and consumption of goods and services.  Markets critical to this transition, particularly base metals, face long odds developing the supply that will be necessary for this effort.  Conventional energy markets – oil, gas and coal – are in a forced wind-down imposed by courts, investors, governments, climate activists, public opinion and policymakers, which is reducing supply at a faster rate than demand.  This leaves markets exposed to volatile price bursts.  As is our custom, this will be the last CES report of the year.  This decade promises to be extraordinary for commodities, and we are hopeful we will continue to be of service in navigating the epic transition to a low-carbon future.  As you gather with friends and loved ones, we wish you all the best in this beautiful season, Robert Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist Highlights Macro: Bullish. Systematically important central banks will remain wary of moving too strongly too soon, in the wake of the COVID-19 omicron variant. US real rates will remain low and the USD will weaken, which will support commodities. Energy: Bullish. OPEC 2.0 and the price-taking cohort will maintain existing production policies, which will restrain oil supply. The omicron variant likely will dent demand, not tank it. Our 2022 Brent forecast is slightly weaker on omicron risk, averaging $78.50/bbl, with most of the demand hit in 1H22 made up in 2H22, while our 2023 forecast is $80/bbl. Base Metals: Bullish. Supply-demand balances will remain tight. Climate activism in courts and boardrooms; ESG-related costs, local and geopolitical uncertainty will continue to weigh on supply. COMEX copper will average $4.80/lb next year and $6.00/lb in 2023. Precious Metals: Bullish. Rising commodity prices will feed directly into inflation gauges favored by the Fed. Inflation and inflation expectations will remain elevated. Gold will push to $2,000/oz and silver to $30/oz in 2022. Ags/Softs: Neutral. Ag markets will remain balanced, with a bias to the upside from higher costs of fertilizer and transportation. Erratic weather remains an upside risk. Risk: Elevated. On the upside, a less lethal omicron variant that dominates other COVID-19 variants will rally markets. A more virulent mutant would hit demand harder and push prices lower. Hospitalizations/Cases and Deaths/Cases remain the critical ratios – trajectories need to remain flat to downward for growth (Chart of the Week). Recommendations: Our COMT ETF position was stopped out on 13 December 2021, which is when the ETF went ex-dividend. The ETF paid $5.4941/share for an 18.44% dividend (p.a.). Our stop-loss is being overridden, and we remain long the COMT ETF, in the expectation commodity markets will remain tight and backwardation will continue to drive returns. Feature COVID-19 continues to determine the trajectory of global growth – hence commodity demand – and how it will be distributed in the short run. Reports this week indicating the widely used Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine used in China and EM states is ineffective in neutralizing the omicron variant will renew the focus on an underappreciated risk: High vaccination rates in and of themselves are not useful indicators of successful public-health responses.1 More than anything, what appears to matter most is the vaccine that's been used to address the public-health threat posed by COVID-19. A booster of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine, e.g., appears to neutralize the omicron variant, and to convey a higher likelihood of avoiding serious illness and hospitalization.2 This will be important going forward, as the COVID-19 omicron variant appears to be transmitted at a rate that is 4.2x as contagious as the delta variant. This raises the odds that hospital beds will fill faster as the omicron mutant spreads.3 This could again lead to reduced availability of health care, and additional lockdowns to contain the spread of the omicron variant, which would again radiate through global supply chains. Oil Market Outlook Hinges On Omicron Response The risk exposed in these public-health developments is the global commodity recovery – particularly for crude oil and refined products like gasoline and jet fuel – could become more bifurcated this year, with economies using primarily mRNA technology continuing to open and recover. States without access to or distribution of these vaccines will have to rely more on social distancing and lockdowns to contain the spread of the virus. We would expect this to be a powerful inducement to accelerate local production and distribution of mRNA vaccines in Asia, Latin America and Europe. Successful implementation of this strategy would boost commodity demand, particularly for transportation fuels.4 Our prior regarding the omicron variant is it will dent demand but not tank oil demand. To account for the so-far-unknown effects of omicron, we are assuming 1H22 global crude and refined-product demand falls to 100.4mm b/d, versus our earlier estimate of 101.5mm b/d. Most of this demand is recovered in 2H22, when we expect oil consumption to average 101.8mm b/d versus our earlier expectation of 102.5mm b/d. On the supply side, OPEC 2.0 core producers – KSA, Russia, Iraq, UAE and Kuwait – will continue to implement the coalition's production-management strategy – i.e., keeping the level of supply just below demand. Meanwhile, the price-taking cohort led by the US shale-oil producers will continue to focus on profitability, not production for the sake of production. Accelerating production too rapidly at this point would undo much of the work and effort undertaken to establish oil and gas companies as attractive alternatives for investors. Our 2022 Brent forecast is weaker by $1.50/bbl vs last month's estimate, averaging $78.50/bbl. Our 2023 forecast is $1/bbl lower, with our average expectation at $80.00/bbl (Chart 2). Longer term, oil + gas capex remains weak (Chart 3). As we have stressed repeatedly, this is wicked bullish for prices in 2024 and beyond. Chart 2Brent Forecast Slightly Weaker In 2022 Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) To Dec23 Weak Capex Keeps Base Metals Outlook Bullish Weak capex is a common theme in the industrial commodities – oil and base metals – which points to tight supply-demand balances for these markets going forward. This is as true for base metals as it is for oil (Chart 4). The principal drivers of the capex squeeze are similar in both markets: A desire to regain investors' favor after years of poor returns. This has managements focused on returning capital to shareholders either in the form of share buybacks or higher dividend payments. However, there are additional pressures adding to the cost structures of industrial commodities, particularly the seismic shifts in the political underpinnings of commodity-exporting countries, where left-of-center politicians are proving more attractive to the median voter in states with contestable elections. Once elected – e.g., in Peru, and, likely Chile after this weekend's elections – politicians push hard to secure a greater share of mining revenues for long-neglected poor and indigenous populations.5 The bellwether base metal market – copper – best highlights these factors, which, in our view, will keep base-metals capex tentative and restrained over the medium term. Miners are almost forced to exercise capex restraint until they get greater clarity on how newly elected governments will deliver on their avowed intent to secure a greater share of mining revenues for their constituents. This is particularly true in Chile and Peru – which together account for a combined 40% of global copper ore output – where poor and indigenous populations are engaging in more frequent civil disobedience.6 In addition to the contentious changing of the guard at the political level, ESG-related initiatives brought to the fore by climate activists elected to corporate boards and in court proceedings are adding new layers of cost to base-metals mining (and oil and gas exploration for that matter). This week, Reuters reported on separate court decisions in Australia and Chile that redress mistreatment of aboriginal peoples in key metals-exporting states.7 We believe political and ESG-related costs will raise miners' all-in sustaining costs, which will have to be covered by higher prices going forward. The additional costs that will be imposed on miners trying to meet the demand that will be driven by the global decarbonization and renewable-energy buildout now kicking into high gear will require prices to spur investment in new mine production, and to keep existing and brownfield production up and running.8 Copper prices will get an assist from a weaker USD, which will boost demand for the metal ex-US (Chart 5). We are expecting copper to push to $4.80/lb on average next year and $6.00/lb in 2023 on the COMEX, on the back of stronger supply fundamentals and a weaker USD. Chart 5A Weaker USD Will Boost Copper Gold Will Rally As Inflation, Uncertainty Remain Elevated Gold prices will move higher in 2022 – our target remains $2,000/oz – as investors seek cover from higher commodity prices, which will feed directly through to higher inflation (Chart 6).9 This has been apparent in the recent US PCEPI and core PCEPI – the Fed's preferred inflation gauge – and CPI data, and at the wholesale level in PPI data. Most of this results from tight supplies for commodities and strong demand for goods, which is driving the price increases. We expect this to continue into 2022, as pent-up consumer demand continues to drive goods purchases and supply-side tightness for most manufacturing inputs. Higher prices across commodity markets will keep inflation gauges elevated in 2022. In addition to the inflation-hedging demand we expect next year, investors also will turn to gold as a hedge against economic policy uncertainty: As inflation and policy uncertainty increase, gold prices move higher (Chart 7). Chart 6Higher Commodity Prices Will Pressure Inflation Higher Chart 7Investors Will Use Gold To Hedge Inflation, Uncertainty   Lastly, in line with our colleagues in BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy service, we remain USD bears in 2022. As is the case with all commodities, gold will benefit from a weaker USD.10 Ags Remain Balanced In 2022 Global ag markets, by and large, will remain balanced over the current crop year (Chart 8), with a bias to the upside as input and transportation costs – chiefly fertilizers and grain vessels, respectively – remain high (Charts 9 and 10). Erratic weather, as always, remains an upside risk. Chart 10… And Fertilizer Costs Will Push Grains, Beans Higher While we remain neutral grains, the periodic price spikes resulting from higher freight rates and natural gas prices will support overall commodity exposures. Over the short term, the risk of higher prices is acute: Markets still are contending with the possibility of another colder-than-normal winter. This would push natgas prices – and, because it is 70% natgas, fertilizer costs – sharply higher next year. This will have to be recouped by higher food prices, particularly if shipping costs spike higher due to COVID-19-induced port closures. Surging food prices will keep inflation rates higher globally, making them more persistent (vs. transitory). Investment Implications Global supply-demand fundamentals continue to support our conviction commodity markets will remain tight in 2022. As such we remain long commodity index exposure – the S&P GSCI and COMT ETF – expecting market tightness to result in renewed backwardation. We also remain long the PICK expecting continued tightness in base metals. Risks to our views remain elevated – and occur in both directions. On the upside, commodities will rally if a less-lethal omicron variant becomes the dominant COVID-19 strain and does not overly tax hospital resources or drive death rates higher. It could actually convey a global benefit as the dominant strain, crowding out other mutations and pushing states to herd immunity. On the downside, it's still too early to tell how this new variant and other mutations will behave. Given the fragility of the current global recovery and reopening shown in the initial response to omicron, a more virulent mutant likely would hit aggregate demand hard, forcing yet another supply-side adjustment in commodities generally. Upside risks dominate in our assessment, but, as always, we remain cautious.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     Please see Sinovac shot offers inadequate shield from Omicron variant, says HK study published by straitstimes.com on December 15, 2021. The Sinovac vaccine is almost half as effective as mRNA-based vaccines, and is widely distributed in EM economies. We flagged this risk earlier in July in our report titled Assessing Risks To Our Commodity Views; it is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2     Please see Pfizer Booster Shots Are Effective Against Omicron Variant, Israeli Study Says published by wsj.com on December 12, 2021. 3    Please see Omicron four times more transmissible than Delta in Japan study published by straitstimes.com on December 9, 2021. 4    Please see Upside Price Risk Rises For Crude, which we published on September 16, 2021, for addition discussion of the global joint-ventures engaged in local production of mRNA vaccines. 5    Please see Add Local Politics To Copper Supply Risks, which we published on November 25, 2021 and Chile: Prepare For A Boric Win, published by BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy service on December 15, 2021. The latter report discusses the growing odds of a victory for the left-of-center candidate in Chile's election this weekend. 6    Please see, e.g., Peru's poor Andean hamlets, backed by state, unleash anger at mines, published by reuters.com on December 14, 2021. 7     Please see Australian mining state passes Aboriginal heritage protection law, and Chile's Supreme Court orders new evaluation of Norte Abierto mining project published by reuters.com on December 15 and 14, 2021, respectively. 8    Incremental investment needed to meet 2050 net-zero climate goals will come to almost $2 trillion per year, half of which will go into renewable power generation, industrial processes, and transportation, according to estimates by Goldman Sachs, published on December 13, 2021. 9    Please see More Commodity-Led Inflation On The Way, which we published on December 9, 2021. It is worthwhile reiterating Granger-causality between realized and expected inflation gauges (US PCEPI, core PCEPI, CPI, along with 5-year/5-year CPI swap rates) and commodity price indices (the S&P GSCI and Bloomberg Commodity Index) is very strong. 10   Please see 2022 Key Views: Tug Of War, published by BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy service on December 10, 2021.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed in 2021

Highlights Our three strategic themes over the long run: (1) great power rivalry (2) hypo-globalization (3) populism and nationalism. The implications are inflationary over the long run. Nations that gear up for potential conflict and expand the social safety net to appease popular discontent will consume a lot of resources. Our three key views for 2022: (1) China’s reversion to autocracy (2) America’s policy insularity (3) petro-state leverage. The implications are mostly but not entirely inflationary: China will ease policy, the US will pass more stimulus, and energy supply may suffer major disruptions. Stay long gold, neutral US dollar, short renminbi, and short Taiwanese dollar. Stay tactically long global large caps and defensives. Buy aerospace/defense and cyber-security stocks. Go long Japanese and Mexican equities – both are tied to the US in an era of great power rivalry. Feature Chart 1US Resilience Global investors have not yet found a substitute for the United States. Despite a bout of exuberance around cyclical non-US assets at the beginning of 2021, the year draws to a close with King Dollar rallying, US equities rising to 61% of global equity capitalization, and the US 30-year Treasury yield unfazed by inflation fears (Chart 1). American outperformance is only partly explained by its handling of the lingering Covid-19 pandemic. The US population was clearly less restricted by the virus (Chart 2). But more to the point, the US stimulated its economy by 25% of GDP over the course of the crisis, while the average across major countries was 13% of GDP. Americans are still more eager to go outdoors and the government has been less stringent in preventing them (Chart 3). ​​​​​ Chart 3Social Restrictions Short Of Lockdown​​​​​​ Going forward, the pandemic should decline in relevance, though it is still possible that a vaccine-resistant mutation will arise that is deadlier for younger people, causing a new round of the crisis. The rotation into assets outside the US will be cautious. Across the world, monetary and credit growth peaked and rolled over this year, after the extraordinary effusion of stimulus to offset the social lockdowns of 2020 (Chart 4). Government budget deficits started to normalize while central banks began winding down emergency lending and bond-buying. More widespread and significant policy normalization will get under way in 2022 in the face of high core inflation. Tightening will favor the US dollar, especially if global growth disappoints expectations. Chart 4Waning Monetary And Credit Stimulus Chart 5Global Growth Stabilization Global manufacturing activity fell off its peak, especially in China, where authorities tightened monetary, fiscal, and regulatory policy aggressively to prevent asset bubbles from blowing up (Chart 5). Now China is easing policy on the margin, which should shore up activity ahead of an important Communist Party reshuffle in fall 2022. The rest of the world’s manufacturing activity is expected to continue expanding in 2022, albeit less rapidly. This trend cuts against US outperformance but still faces a range of hurdles, beginning with China. In this context, we outline three geopolitical themes for the long run as well as three key views for the coming 12 months. Our title, “The Gathering Storm,” refers to the strategic challenge that China and Russia pose to the United States, which is attempting to form a balance-of-power coalition to contain these autocratic rivals. This is the central global geopolitical dynamic in 2022 and it is ultimately inflationary. Three Strategic Themes For The Long Run The international system will remain unstable in the coming years. Global multipolarity – or the existence of multiple, competing poles of political power – is the chief destabilizing factor. This is the first of our three strategic themes that will persist next year and beyond (Table 1). Our key views for 2022, discussed below, flow from these three strategic themes. Table 1Strategic Themes For 2022 And Beyond 1. Great Power Rivalry Multipolarity – or great power rivalry – can be illustrated by the falling share of US economic clout relative to the rest of the world, including but not limited to strategic rivals like China. The US’s decline is often exaggerated but the picture is clear if one looks at the combined geopolitical influence of the US and its closest allies to that of the EU, China, and Russia (Chart 6). China’s rise is the most destabilizing factor because it comes with economic, military, and technological prowess that could someday rival the US for global supremacy. China’s GDP has surpassed that of the US in purchasing power terms and will do so in nominal terms in around five years (Chart 7). True, China’s potential growth is slowing and Chinese financial instability will be a recurring theme. But that very fact is driving Beijing to try to convert the past 40 years of economic success into broader strategic security. Chart 8America's Global Role Persists (If Lessened)​​​​​ Since China is capable of creating an alternative political order in Asia Pacific, and ultimately globally, the United States is reacting. It is penalizing China’s economy and seeking to refurbish alliances in pursuit of a containment policy. The American reaction to the loss of influence has been unpredictable, contradictory, and occasionally belligerent. New isolationist impulses have emerged among an angry populace in reaction to gratuitous wars abroad and de-industrialization. These impulses appeared in both the Obama and Trump administrations. The Biden administration is attempting to manage these impulses while also reinforcing America’s global role. The pandemic-era stimulus has enabled the US to maintain its massive trade deficit and aggressive defense spending. But US defense spending is declining relative to the US and global economy over time, encouraging rival nations to carve out spheres of influence in their own neighborhoods (Chart 8). Russia’s overall geopolitical power has declined but it punches above its weight in military affairs and energy markets, a fact which is vividly on display in Ukraine as we go to press. The result is to exacerbate differences in the trans-Atlantic alliance between the US and the European Union, particularly Germany. The EU’s attempt to act as an independent great power is another sign of multipolarity, as well as the UK’s decision to distance itself from the continent and strengthen the Anglo-American alliance. If the US and EU do not manage their differences over how to handle Russia, China, and Iran then the trans-Atlantic relationship will weaken and great power rivalry will become even more dangerous. 2. Hypo-Globalization The second strategic theme is hypo-globalization, in which the ancient process of globalization continues but falls short of its twenty-first century potential, given advances in technology and governance that should erode geographic and national boundaries. Hypo-globalization is the opposite of the “hyper-globalization” of the 1990s-2000s, when historic barriers to the free movement of people, goods, and capital seemed to collapse overnight. Chart 9From 'Hyper-Globalization' To Hypo-Globalization The volume of global trade relative to industrial production  peaked with the Great Recession in 2008-10 and has declined slowly but surely ever since (Chart 9). Many developed markets suffered the unwinding of private debt bubbles, while emerging economies suffered the unwinding of trade manufacturing. Periods of declining trade intensity – trade relative to global growth – suggest that nations are turning inward, distrustful of interdependency, and that the frictions and costs of trade are rising due to protectionism and mercantilism. Over the past two hundred years globalization intensified when a broad international peace was agreed (such as in 1815) and a leading imperial nation was capable of enforcing law and order on the seas (such as the British empire). Globalization fell back during times of “hegemonic instability,” when the peace settlement decayed while strategic and naval competition eroded the global trading system. Today a similar process is unfolding, with the 1945 peace decaying and the US facing the revival of Russia and China as regional empires capable of denying others access to their coastlines and strategic approaches (Chart 10).1 Chart 10Hypo-Globalization And Hegemonic Instability Chart 11Hypo-Globalization: Temporary Trade Rebound No doubt global trade is rebounding amid the stimulus-fueled recovery from Covid-19. But the upside for globalization will be limited by the negative geopolitical environment (Chart 11). Today governments are not behaving as if they will embark on a new era of ever-freer movement and ever-deepening international linkages. They are increasingly fearful of each other’s strategic intentions and using fiscal resources to increase economic self-sufficiency. The result is regionalization rather than globalization. Chinese and Russian attempts to revise the world order, and the US’s attempt to contain them, encourages regionalization. For example, the trade war between the US and China is morphing into a broader competition that limits cooperation to a few select areas, despite a change of administration in the United States. The further consolidation of President Xi Jinping’s strongman rule will exacerbate this dynamic of distrust and economic divorce. Emerging Asia and emerging Europe live on the fault lines of this shift from globalization to regionalism, with various risks and opportunities. Generally we are bullish EM Asia and bearish EM Europe. 3. Populism And Nationalism A third strategic theme consists of populism and nationalism, or anti-establishment political sentiment in general. These forces will flare up in various forms across the world in 2022 and beyond. Even as unemployment declines, the rise in food and fuel inflation will make it difficult for low wage earners to make ends meet. The “misery index,” which combines unemployment and inflation, spiked during the pandemic and today stands at 10.8% in the US and 11.4% in the EMU, up from 5.2% and 8.1% before the pandemic, respectively (Chart 12). Large budget deficits and trade deficits, especially in the US and UK, feed into this inflationary environment. Most of the major developed markets have elected new governments since the pandemic, with the notable exception of France and Spain. Thus they have recapitalized their political systems and allowed voters to vent some frustration. These governments now have some time to try to mitigate inflation before the next election. Hence policy continuity is not immediately in jeopardy, which reduces uncertainty for investors. By contrast, many of the emerging economies face higher inflation, weak growth, and are either coming upon elections or have undemocratic political systems. Either way the result will be a failure to address household grievances promptly. The misery index is trending upward and governments are continually forced to provide larger budget deficits to shore up growth, fanning inflation (Chart 13). Chart 12DM: Political Risk High But New Governments In Place​​​​​ Chart 13EM: Political Risk High But Governments Not Recapitalized​​​​​​ Chart 14EM Populism/Nationalism Threatens Negative Surprises In 2022 Just as social and political unrest erupted after the Great Recession, notably in the so-called “Arab Spring,” so will new movements destabilize various emerging markets in the wake of Covid-19. Regime instability and failure can lead to big changes in policies, large waves of emigration, wars, and other risks that impact markets. The risks are especially high unless and until Chinese imports revive. Investors should be on the lookout for buying opportunities in emerging markets once the bad news is fully priced. National and local elections in Brazil, India, South Korea, the Philippines, and Turkey will serve as market catalysts, with bad news likely to precede good news (Chart 14). Bottom Line: These three themes – great power rivalry, hypo-globalization, and populism/nationalism – are inflationary in theory, though their impact will vary based on specific events. Multipolarity means that governments will boost industrial and defense spending to gear up for international competition. Hypo-globalization means countries will attempt to put growth on a more reliable domestic foundation rather than accept dependency on an unreliable international scene, thus constraining supplies from abroad. Populism and nationalism will lead to a range of unorthodox policies, such as belligerence abroad or extravagant social spending at home. Of course, the inflationary bias of these themes can be upset if they manifest in ways that harm growth and/or inflation expectations, which is possible. But the general drift will be an inflationary policy setting. Inflation may subside in 2022 only to reemerge as a risk later. Three Key Views For 2022 Within this broader context, our three key views for 2022 are as follows: 1. China’s Reversion To Autocracy As President Xi Jinping leads China further down the road of strongman rule and centralization, the country faces a historic confluence of internal and external risks. This was our top view in 2021 and the same dynamic continues in 2022. The difference is that in 2021 the risk was excessive policy tightening whereas this coming year the risk is insufficient policy easing. Chart 15China Eases Fiscal Policy To Secure Recovery In 2022 China’s economy is witnessing a secular slowdown, a deterioration in governance, property market turmoil, and a rise in protectionism abroad. The long decline in corporate debt growth points to the structural slowdown. Animal spirits will not improve in 2022 so government spending will be necessary to try to shore up overall growth. The Politburo signaled that it will ease fiscal policy at the Central Economic Work Conference in early December, a vindication of our 2021 view. Neither the combined fiscal-and-credit impulse nor overall activity, indicated by the Li Keqiang Index, have shown the slightest uptick yet (Chart 15). Typically it takes six-to-nine months for policy easing to translate to an improvement in real economic activity. The first half of the year may still bring economic disappointments. But policymakers are adjusting to avoid a crash. Policy will grow increasingly accommodative as necessary in the first half of 2022. The key political constraint is the Communist Party’s all-important political reshuffle, the twentieth national party congress, to be held in fall 2022 (usually October). While Xi may not want the economy to surge in 2022, he cannot afford to let it go bust. The experience of previous party congresses shows that there is often a policy-driven increase in bank loans and fixed investment. Current conditions are so negative as to ensure that the government will provide at least some support, for instance by taking a “moderately proactive approach” to infrastructure investment (Chart 16). Otherwise a collapse of confidence would weaken Xi’s faction and give the opposition faction a chance to shore up its position within the Communist Party. Chart 16China Aims For Stability, Not Rapid Growth, Ahead Of 20th National Party Congress Party congresses happen every five years but the ten-year congresses, such as in 2022, are the most important for the country’s overall political leadership. The party congresses in 1992, 2002, and 2012 were instrumental in transferring power from one leader to the next, even though the transfer of power was never formalized. Back in 2017 Xi arranged to stay in power indefinitely but now he needs to clinch the deal, lest any unforeseen threat emerge from at home or abroad. Xi’s success in converting the Communist Party from “consensus rule” to his own “personal rule” will be measurable by his success in stacking the Politburo and Politburo Standing Committee with factional allies. He will also promote his faction across the Central Committee so as to shape the next generations of party leaders and leave his imprint on policy long after his departure. The government will be extremely sensitive to any hint of dissent or resistance and will move aggressively to quash it. Investors should not be surprised to see high-level sackings of public officials or private magnates and a steady stream of scandals and revelations that gain prominence in western media. The environment is also ripe for strange and unexpected incidents that reveal political differences beneath the veneer of unity in China: defections, protests, riots, terrorist acts, or foreign interference. Most incidents will be snuffed out quickly but investors should be wary of “black swans” from China in 2022. Chinese government policies will not be business friendly in 2022 aside from piecemeal fiscal easing. Everything Beijing does will be bent around securing Xi’s supremacy at all levels. Domestic politics will take precedence over economic concerns, especially over the interests of private businesses and foreign investors, as is clear when it comes to managing financial distress in the property sector. Negative regulatory surprises and arbitrary crackdowns on various industrial sectors will continue, though Beijing will do everything in its power to prevent the property bust from triggering contagion across the economic system. This will probably work, though the dam may burst after the party congress. Relations with the US and the West will remain poor, as the democracies cannot afford to endorse what they see as Xi’s power grab, the resurrection of a Maoist cult of personality, and the betrayal of past promises of cooperation and engagement. America’s midterm election politics will not be conducive to any broad thaw in US-China relations. While China will focus on domestic politics, its foreign policy actions will still prove relatively hawkish. Clashes with neighbors may be instigated by China to warn away any interference or by neighbors to try to embarrass Xi Jinping. The South and East China Seas are still ripe for territorial disputes to flare. Border conflicts with India are also possible. Taiwan remains the epicenter of global geopolitical risk. A fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis looms as China increases its military warnings to Taiwan not to attempt anything resembling independence (Chart 17A). China may use saber-rattling, economic sanctions, cyber war, disinformation, and other “gray zone” tactics to undermine the ruling party ahead of Taiwan’s midterm elections in November 2022 and presidential elections in January 2024. A full-scale invasion cannot be ruled out but is unlikely in the short run, as China still has non-military options to try to arrange a change of policy in Taiwan. ​​​​​​ Chart 17BMarket-Based Risk Indicators Say China/Taiwan Risk Has Not Peaked China has not yet responded to the US’s deployment of a small number of troops in Taiwan or to recent diplomatic overtures or arms sales. It could stage a major show of force against Taiwan to help consolidate power at home. China also has an interest in demonstrating to US allies and partners that their populations and economies will suffer if they side with Washington in any contingency. Given China’s historic confluence of risks, it is too soon for global investors to load up on cheap Chinese equities. Volatility will remain high. Weak animal spirits, limited policy easing, high levels of policy uncertainty, regulatory risk, ongoing trade tensions, and geopolitical risks suggest that investors should remain on the sidelines, and that a large risk premium can persist throughout 2022. Our market-based geopolitical risk indicators for both China and Taiwan are still trending upwards (Chart 17B). Global investors should capitalize on China’s policy easing indirectly by investing in commodities, cyclical equity sectors, and select emerging markets. 2. America’s Policy Insularity Our second view for 2022 centers on the United States, which will focus on domestic politics and will thus react or overreact to the many global challenges it faces. The US faces the first midterm election after the chaotic and contested 2020 presidential election. Political polarization remains at historically high levels, meaning that social unrest could flare up again and major domestic terrorist incidents cannot be ruled out. So far the Biden administration has focused on the domestic scene: mitigating the pandemic and rebooting the economy. Biden’s signature “Build Back Better” bill, $1.75 trillion investment in social programs, has passed the House of Representatives but not the Senate. The spike in inflation has shaken moderate Democratic senators who are now delaying the bill. We expect it to pass, since tax hikes were dropped, but our conviction is low (65% subjective odds), as a single defection would derail the bill. The implication would be inflationary since it would mark a sizable increase in government spending at a time when the output gap is already virtually closed. Spending would likely be much larger than the Congressional Budget Office estimate, shown in Chart 18, because the bill contains various gimmicks and hard-to-implement expiration clauses. Equity markets may not sell if the bill fails, since more fiscal stimulus would put pressure on the Federal Reserve to hike rates faster. Whether the bill passes or fails, Biden’s legislative agenda will be frozen thereafter. He will have to resort to executive powers and foreign policy to lift his approval rating and court the median voter ahead of the midterm elections. Currently Democrats are lined up to lose the House and probably also the Senate, where a single seat would cost them their majority (Chart 19). The Senate is still in play so Biden will be averse to taking big risks. For the same reason, Biden’s foreign policy goal will be to stave off various bubbling crises. Restoring the Iranian nuclear deal was his priority but Russia has now forced its way to the top of the agenda by threatening a partial reinvasion of Ukraine. In this context Biden will not have room for maneuver with China. Congress will be hawkish on China ahead of the midterms, and Xi Jinping will be reviving autocracy, so Biden will not be able to improve relations much. Biden’s domestic policy could fuel inflation, while his domestic-focused foreign policy will embolden strategic rivals, which increases geopolitical risks. 3. Petro-State Leverage A surge in gasoline prices at the pump ahead of the election would be disastrous for a Democratic Party that is already in disarray over inflation (Chart 20). Biden has already demonstrated that he can coordinate an international release of strategic oil reserves this year. Oil and natural gas producers gain leverage when the global economy rebounds, commodity prices rise, and supply/demand balances tighten. The frequency of global conflicts, especially those involving petro-states, tend to rise and fall in line with oil prices (Chart 21). Chart 20Inflation Constrains Biden Ahead Of Midterms Both Russia and Iran are vulnerable to social unrest at home and foreign strategic pressure abroad. Both have long-running conflicts with the US and West that are heating up for fundamental reasons, such as Russia’s fear of western influence in the former Soviet Union and Iran’s nuclear program. Both countries are demanding that the US make strategic concessions to atone for the Trump administration’s aggressive policies: selling lethal weapons to Ukraine and imposing “maximum pressure” sanctions on Iran. Biden is not capable of making credible long-term agreements since he could lose office as soon as 2025 and the next president could reverse whatever he agrees. But he must try to de-escalate these conflicts or else he faces energy shortages or price shocks, which would raise the odds of stagflation ahead of the election. The path of least resistance for Biden is to lift the sanctions on Iran to prevent an escalation of the secret war in the Middle East. If this unilateral concession should convince Iran to pause its nuclear activities before achieving breakout uranium enrichment capability, then Biden would reduce the odds of a military showdown erupting across the region. Opposition Republicans would accuse him of weakness but public opinion polls show that few Americans consider Iran a major threat. The problem is that this logic held throughout 2021 and yet Biden did not ease the sanctions. Given Iran’s nuclear progress and the US’s reliance on sanctions, we see a 40% chance of a military confrontation with Iran over the coming years. With regard to Ukraine, an American failure to give concessions to Russia will probably result in a partial reinvasion of Ukraine (50% subjective odds). This in turn will force the US and EU to impose sanctions on Russia, leading to a squeeze of natural gas prices in Europe and eventually price pressures in global energy markets. If Biden grants Russia’s main demands, he will avoid a larger war or energy shock but will make the US vulnerable to future blackmail. He will also demoralize Taiwan and other US partners who lack mutual defense treaties. But he may gain Russian cooperation on Iran. If Biden gives concessions to both Russia and Iran, his party will face criticism in the midterms but it will be far less vulnerable than if an energy shock occurs. This is the path of least resistance for Biden in 2022. It means that the petro-states may lose their leverage after using it, given that risk premiums would fall on Biden’s concessions. Of course, if energy shocks happen, Europe and China will suffer more than the US, which is relatively energy independent. For this reason Brussels and Beijing will try to keep diplomacy alive as long as possible. Enforcement of US sanctions on Iran may weaken, reducing Iran’s urgency to come into compliance. Germany may prevent a hardline threat of sanctions against Russia, reducing Russia’s fear of consequences. Again, petro-states have the leverage. Therefore investors should guard against geopolitically induced energy price spikes or shocks in 2022. What if other commodity producers, such as Saudi Arabia, crank up production and sink oil prices? This could happen. Yet the Saudis prefer elevated oil prices due to the host of national challenges they face in reforming their economy. If the US eases sanctions on Iran then the Saudis may make this decision. Thus downside energy price shocks are possible too. The takeaway is energy price volatility but for the most part we see the risk as lying to the upside. Investment Takeaways Traditional geopolitical risk, which focuses on war and conflict, is measurable and has slipped since 2015, although it has not broken down from the general uptrend since 2000. We expect the secular trend to be reaffirmed and for geopolitical risk to resume its rise due to the strategic themes and key views outlined above. The correlation of geopolitical risk with financial assets is debatable – namely because some geopolitical risks push up oil and commodity prices at the expense of the dollar, while others cause a safe-haven rally into the dollar (Chart 22).  Global economic policy uncertainty is also measurable. It is in a secular uptrend since the 2008 financial crisis. Here the correlation with the US dollar and relative equity performance is stronger, which makes sense. This trend should also pick up going forward, which is at least not negative for the dollar and relative US equity performance (Chart 23). Chart 22Geopolitical Risk Will Rise, Market Impacts Variable​​​​​​ Chart 23Economic Policy Uncertainty Will Rise, Not Bad For US Assets​​​​​​ We are neutral on the US dollar versus the euro and recommend holding either versus the Chinese renminbi. We are short the currencies of emerging markets that suffer from great power rivalry, namely the Taiwanese dollar versus the US dollar, the Korean won versus the Japanese yen, the Russian ruble versus the Canadian dollar, and the Czech koruna versus the British pound.     We remain long gold as a hedge against both geopolitical risk and inflation. We recommend staying long global equities. Tactically we prefer large caps and defensives. Within developed markets, we favor the UK and Japan. Japan in particular will benefit from Chinese policy easing yet remains more secure from China-centered geopolitical risks than emerging Asian economies. Within emerging markets, Mexico stands to benefit from US economic strength and divorce from China. We would buy Indian equities on weakness and sell Chinese and Russian equities on strength. We remain long aerospace and defense stocks and cyber-security stocks.   -The GPS Team We Read (And Liked) … Conspiracy U: A Case Study “Crazy, worthless, stupid, made-up tales bring out the demons in susceptible, unthinking people.” Thus the author’s father, a Holocaust survivor translated from Yiddish, on conspiracy theories and the real danger they present in the world. Scott A. Shay, author and chairman of Signature Bank, whose first book was a finalist for the National Jewish Book Award, has written an intriguing new book on the topic and graciously sent it our way.2 Shay is a regular reader of BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy and an astute observer of international affairs. He is also a controversialist who has written essays for several of America’s most prominent newspapers. Shay’s latest, Conspiracy U, is a bracing read that we think investors will benefit from. We say this not because of its topical focus, which is too confined, but because of its broader commentary on history, epistemology, the US higher education system – and the very timely and relevant problem of conspiracy theories, which have become a prevalent concern in twenty-first century politics and society. The author and the particular angle of the book will be controversial to some readers but this very quality makes the book well-suited to the problem of the conspiracy theory, since it is not the controversial nature of conspiracy theories but their non-falsifiability that makes them specious. As the title suggests, the book is a polemical broadside. The polemic arises from Shay’s unique set of moral, intellectual, and sociopolitical commitments. This is true of all political books but this one wears its topicality on its sleeve. The term “conspiracy” in the title refers to antisemitic, anti-Israel, and anti-Zionist conspiracy theories, particularly the denial of the Holocaust, coming from tenured academics on both the right and the left wings of American politics. The “U” in the title refers to universities, namely American universities, with a particular focus on the author’s beloved alma mater, Northwestern University in Chicago, Illinois. Clearly the book is a “case study” – one could even say the prosecution of a direct and extended public criticism of Northwestern University – and the polemical perspective is grounded in Shay’s Jewish identity and personal beliefs. Equally clearly Shay makes a series of verifiable observations and arguments about conspiracy theories as a contemporary phenomenon and their presence, as well as the presence of other weak and lazy modes of thought, in “academia writ large.” This generalization of the problem is where most readers will find the value of the book. The book does not expect one to share Shay’s identity, to be a Zionist or support Zionism, or to agree with Israel’s national policies on any issue, least of all Israeli relations with Arabs and Palestinians. Shay’s approach is rigorous and clinical. He is a genuine intellectual in that he considers the gravest matters of concern from various viewpoints, including viewpoints radically different from his own, and relies on close readings of the evidence. In other words, Shay did not write the book merely to convince people that two tenured professors at Northwestern are promoting conspiracy theories. That kind of aberration is sadly to be expected and at least partially the result of the tenure system, which has advantages as well, not within the scope of the book. Rather Shay wrote it to provide a case study for how it is that conspiracy theories can manage to be adopted by those who do not realize what they are and to proliferate even in areas that should be the least hospitable – namely, public universities, which are supposed to be beacons of knowledge, science, openness, and critical thinking, but also other public institutions, including the fourth estate. Shay is meticulous with his sources and terminology. He draws on existing academic literature to set the parameters of his subject, defining conspiracy theories as “improbable hypotheses [or] intentional lies … about powerful and sinister groups conspiring to harm good people, often via a secret cabal.” The definition excludes “unwarranted criticism” and “unfair/prejudiced perspectives,” which are harmful but unavoidable. Many prejudices and false beliefs are “still falsifiable in the minds of their adherents,” which is not the case with conspiracy theories, although deep prejudices can obviously be helpful in spreading such theories. Conspiracy theories often depend on “a stunning amount of uniformity of belief and coordination of action without contingencies.” They also rely excessively on pathos, or emotion, in making their arguments, as opposed to logos (reason) and ethos (credibility, authority). Unfortunately there is no absolute, infallible distinction between conspiracy theories and other improbable theories – say, yet-to-be-confirmed theories about conspiracies that actually occurred. Conspiracy theories differ from other theories “in their relationship to facts, evidence, and logic,” which may sound obvious but is very much to the point. Again, “the key difference is the evidence and how it is evaluated.” There is no ready way to refute the fabrications, myths, and political propaganda that people believe without taking the time to assess the claims and their foundations. This requires an open mind and a grim determination to get to the bottom of rival claims about events even when they are extremely morally or politically sensitive, as is often the case with wars, political conflicts, atrocities, and genocides: Reliable historians, journalists, lawyers, and citizens must first approach the question of the cause or the identity of perpetrators and victims of an event or process with an open mind, not prejudiced to either party, and then evaluate the evidence. The diagnosis may be easy but the treatment is not – it takes time, study, and debate, and one’s interlocutors must be willing to be convinced. This problem of convincing others is critical because it is the part that is so often left out of modern political discourse. Conspiracy theories are often hateful and militant, so there is a powerful urge to censor or repress them. Openly debating with conspiracy theorists runs the risk of legitimizing or appearing to legitimize their views, providing them with a public forum, which seems to grant ethos or authority to arguments that are otherwise conspicuously lacking in it. In some countries censorship is legal, almost everywhere when violence is incited. The problem is that the act of suppression can feed the same conspiracy theories, so there is a need, in the appropriate context, to engage with and refute lies and specious arguments. Clients frequently email us to ask our view of the rise of conspiracy theories and what they entail for the global policy backdrop. We associate them with the broader breakdown in authority and decline of public trust in institutions. Shay’s book is an intervention into this topic that clients will find informative and thought-provoking, even if they disagree with the author’s staunchly pro-Israel viewpoint. It is precisely Shay’s ability to discuss and debate extremely contentious matters in a lucid and empirical manner – antisemitism, the history of Zionism, Holocaust denialism, Arab-Israeli relations, the Rwandan genocide, QAnon, the George Floyd protests, various other controversies – that enables him to defend a controversial position he holds passionately, while also demonstrating that passion alone can produce the most false and malicious arguments. As is often the case, the best parts of the book are the most personal – when Shay tells about his father’s sufferings during the Holocaust, and journey from the German concentration camps to New York City, and about Shay’s own experiences scraping enough money together to go to college at Northwestern. These sequences explain why the author felt moved to stage a public intervention against fringe ideological currents, which he shows to have gained more prominence in the university system than one might think. The book is timely, as American voters are increasingly concerned about the handling of identity, inter-group relations, history, education, and ideology in the classroom, resulting in what looks likely to become a new and ugly episode of the culture and education wars. Let us hope that Shay’s standards of intellectual freedom and moral decency prevail.   Matt Gertken, PhD Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      The downshift in globalization today is even worse than it appears in Chart 10 because several countries have not yet produced the necessary post-pandemic data, artificially reducing the denominator and making the post-pandemic trade rebound appear more prominent than it is in reality. 2     Scott A. Shay, Conspiracy U: A Case Study (New York: Post Hill Press, 2021), 279 pages. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Appendix: GeoRisk Indicator China Russia United Kingdom Germany France Italy Canada Spain Taiwan Korea Turkey Brazil Australia South Africa Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights A partial reinvasion of Ukraine cannot be ruled out. The constraints on Russia are not prohibitive, especially amid global energy shortages. On this issue, it is better to be alarmist than complacent. We would put the risk of a partial re-invasion of Ukraine as high as 50/50, albeit with an uncertain time frame over 12-36 months. The negative impact of conflict may not stay contained within Russian and eastern European markets. The US and EU are now threatening major retaliatory sanctions if Russia invades. In response Russia could reduce energy exports, exacerbating global shortages and damaging Europe’s overall economy. Investors should stay short Russian assets and overweight developed European equities over emerging European peers. Stay long gold and GBP-CZK. The dollar will be flat-to-up. Feature Chart 1Ruble Faces More Downside From Geopolitics Geopolitical tensions surrounding Russia remain unresolved and investors should continue to reduce holdings of assets exposed to any renewed conflict in Ukraine and the former Soviet Union. The ruble has dropped off its peaks since early November when strategic tensions revived (Chart 1). Presidents Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin held their second bilateral summit on a secure video link on December 7 to discuss the situation in Ukraine, where Russia has amassed 95,000-120,000 troops on the border in a major show of force. Russia also mustered troops in April and only partially drew them down after the Biden-Putin summit in Geneva where the two sides agreed to hold talks to address differences. The two presidents agreed to hold consultations regarding Ukraine. Putin accused NATO of building up Ukraine’s military and demanded “reliable, legally fixed guarantees excluding the expansion of NATO in the eastern direction and the deployment of offensive strike weapons systems in the states adjacent to Russia.”1 President Putin’s red line against Ukraine joining NATO is well known. Recently he said his red line includes the placement of western military infrastructure or missile systems in Ukraine. Biden refused to accept any limits on NATO membership in keeping with past policy. After the summit National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said, “I will tell you clearly and directly [Biden] made no such commitments or concessions. He stands by the proposition that countries should be able to freely choose who they associate with.” 2 Biden, who had conferred with the UK, France, Germany, and Italy prior to the call, outlined the coordinated economic sanctions that would be leveled against Russia if it resorted to military force, as well as defense aid that would go to Ukraine and other eastern European countries.  Thus Putin gave an ultimatum and Biden rebuffed it – and yet the two agreed to keep talking. The Russians have since said that they will present proposals to the Americans in less than a week. Talks are better than nothing. But neither side has given concrete indication of a change in position that would de-escalate strategic tensions – instead they have both raised the stakes. Therefore investors should proceed with the strong presumption that tensions will remain elevated or escalate in the coming months. Clearing Away Misconceptions Before going further we should clear away a few misconceptions about the current situation: Ukraine has unique strategic value to Russia. Like Belarus, but unlike Central Asia, Ukraine serves as critical buffer territory protecting Moscow and the Russian core from any would-be invaders. Russia lacks firm geological borders so it protects itself by means of distance and winter. This grand strategy succeeded against King Charles XII of Sweden, Napoleon, and Hitler. The collapse of the Soviet Union left Russia shorn of much of its buffer territory. Ukraine also offers access to the Black Sea. Russia has long striven to gain access to warm-water ports. The loss of control over Ukraine resulted in a loss of access. Russia’s seizure of Crimea in 2014 only partially rectified the situation. Ukraine’s southern coastline around Crimea is the territory at risk today (Map 1). It is Ukraine’s physical existence and unique strategic value – not its democratic leanings or ideological orientation – that ensures perpetual tensions with post-Soviet Russia. Russia has a strategic imperative to reassert control or at least prevent control by foreign powers. Ideological opposition may make things worse but an anti-Russian Ukrainian dictator would also face Russian coercion or aggression, perhaps even more than the current weak democracy. In fact Russia is trying to force Ukraine to revise its constitution and adopt a federal structure so as to grant greater autonomy to separatist regions Donetsk and Luhansk that Russia helped break away in 2014. But Ukraine has not relented to Moscow’s demands of political reform. It is not authoritarianism but a permanent foreclosure of Ukrainian membership in the EU and NATO that Moscow is after. Yet it is highly unlikely that Russia would try to invade and conquer all of Ukraine. Ukraine is the largest country by territory in Europe and has 255,000 active soldiers and 900,000 reserves (contra Russia’s 1 million active and 2 million reserves) who would defend their freedom and sovereignty against an invader.3 Russia would not be able to stage a full-scale invasion with the 175,000 maximum troop buildup that US intelligence is warning about. It would have to mobilize fully, dangerously neglecting other vast dimensions of its national security, and would inevitably get bogged down fighting a vicious insurgency backed by the NATO powers. It would save blood and treasure by paralyzing Ukraine’s politics and preventing it from allying with western militaries, which is what Putin is attempting to do today. Putin uses foreign adventures to strengthen his grip at home but an adventure of this nature would impose such burdens as to threaten his grip at home. A limited re-invasion of Ukraine could yield historic strategic advantages to Russia. Moscow could focus on a partial military incursion that would annex or shore up Donbass, or extend its control from Donbass to the Black Sea, conceivably all the way to the Dnieper river. This pathway would yield Russia maritime access and a buffer space to fortify Crimea. Naval warfare could also yield control of deep-water ports (Yuzhne, Odessa, Mykolaiv, Chornomorsk), control of the mouth of the Dnieper, control of the canal that supplies water to Crimea, and a means of bottling up the Ukrainian navy and preventing foreign maritime assistance. Ukraine would be further weakened and Russia would have a larger beachhead in Ukraine for future pressure tactics. Russia is not bluffing – its military buildup poses a credible threat. If there is anywhere Russia’s threats are credible, it is in taking military action against former Soviet republics like Georgia (2008) and Ukraine (2014) that have pro-western leanings yet lack the collective security of the NATO alliance. At very least, given that Russian forces did deploy in Ukraine in 2014, Russian action in Ukraine cannot be ruled out. The military balance has not changed so significantly in that time and strongly favors Russia (Chart 2). The US has provided around $2.5 billion in military aid to Ukraine since 2014, and has sent lethal weapons including Javelin anti-tank missiles and launchers since 2017-18, including $450 million worth of military aid under the Biden administration (and $300 million just authorized by Congress on December 7). NATO allies have also provided defense aid. This is part of Putin’s complaint but these new arms are not game changers that would prevent Russia from taking military action. Thus if the West rejects Moscow’s core demands, war is likely. This is true even if Russia would prefer to achieve its aims through political and economic rather than military means. Russia does not deem the West’s threat of sanctions as prohibitive of invasion. The West’s sanctions since 2014 have failed to change Russia’s government, strategy, or posture in Ukraine. Yes, European nations joined the US in imposing sanctions. But Germany also pursued the Nord Stream II pipeline as a means of bypassing Ukraine and working directly with Russia to preserve economic engagement and energy security. Former Chancellor Merkel forced the pipeline through despite the objections of eastern Europeans and the United States. The allies also formed the “Normandy Quartet,” excluding the US, to force Ukraine to accept the Minsk agreements on resolving the conflict. Thus the lesson of 2014-21 is not that NATO allies stood shoulder-to-shoulder in defense of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity but rather that Germany and the EU, and the EU and the US, have major differences in interests and risk-tolerance in dealing with Russia. Russia does not face, or may think it does not face, a united front among the western powers. A partial reinvasion of Ukraine would bring the western allies together initially but probably not for long. Russia determines the timing of any new military incursion in Ukraine. Winter is not the ideal time to invade Ukraine, though it is possible. Russia could act in spring 2022, as the US has warned, but it could also act in the summer of 2023, the spring of 2024, or other times. From a strategic point of view, Russia has enjoyed a historic window of opportunity since 2001 when the US got bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq and then the US and the EU got bogged down in economic and financial crisis. Given that the American political establishment is withdrawing from foreign quagmires, reactivating fiscal policy, bulking up the military-industrial complex, and making a dedicated effort to revitalize its global alliances, Russia may believe that its historic window is closing. Russia’s domestic fundamentals are deteriorating over time. Putin could decide it is necessary to seize strategic ground in Ukraine sooner rather than later. Bottom Line: Ukraine offers unique and irreplaceable buffer space and maritime access to Russia. Russia’s military actions in 2014 led to stalemate, such that Russia remains insecure, Ukraine remains defiant, and the West is still entertaining defense cooperation or even NATO membership with Ukraine. Yet the Crimea conflict also revealed a lack of concert among western powers exemplified by Germany’s Nord Stream II pipeline. Today Russia has the military capability to seize another slice of Ukrainian territory. Western retaliatory actions would be painful but may not be deemed prohibitive. Investors cannot rule out a partial re-invasion of Ukraine. Nord Stream Pipeline Is Not The Sole Factor Is Russia not making a show of military force merely to ensure that Nord Stream II pipeline goes into operation? Will Russia not back down if the pipeline is guaranteed? A common view in Washington and the financial industry is that Russia’s military buildup is just a bluff, i.e. Moscow’s aggressive way of demanding that Germany’s new government and the European Union approve Nord Stream. The pipeline finished construction in September but now awaits formal regulatory certification. Approval was originally expected by May 2022 but has now been delayed. The pipeline would carry 55 billion cubic meters of natural gas into Europe, about half of Russia’s current export capacity outside of Ukraine. Ukraine’s total capacity is around 150 billion cubic meters. The pipeline enables Russia and Germany to bypass Ukraine, whose conflicts with Moscow since 2004 have threatened Germany’s energy security. About 18% of EU’s total energy imports come from Russia, whilst this figure is 16% for Germany. That is about 0.5% and 0.2% of EU and German GDP, respectively. Meanwhile Russian energy exports to Germany and the EU make up 0.8% and 5.6% of GDP, respectively (Chart 3). The problem with this reasoning is that the US conceded Nord Stream to Russia over the summer. The US initially raised the threat of sanctions because the pipeline  strengthened Russo-German ties, diminished Ukraine’s leverage, and deprived the US of a chance to sell liquefied natural gas to Europe. But the Biden administration proved unwilling to take this aggressive approach. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has a long history of arguing that the US should prioritize strong relations with its European allies rather than punitive measures to try to block Russian gas sales. Biden met with outgoing Chancellor Angela Merkel in July and agreed to let Nord Stream go forward. The only proviso was that Russia not “weaponize natural gas,” i.e. withhold supplies for geopolitical purposes, as it has done in the past.4 Before Russia’s military threats, Germany and the EU were expected to certify the pipeline by no later than May 2022 and an earlier certification looked possible because of Europe’s low natural gas supplies. Yet Russia, fresh off parliamentary elections, did precisely what Germany said it was not supposed to do. The pipeline was completed in September and reports of Russian limitations on natural gas supply surfaced in October. Moscow not only weaponized the gas but also mustered its army on the Ukrainian border again. Putin may have feared that the new German government, which officially took office on December 8, would change policy and refuse to certify the pipeline. He also could have feared that the US Congress would pass a Republican-backed provision that would require Biden to impose sanctions that would halt the pipeline. But these explanations are not satisfactory. First, the German government was not likely to halt Nord Stream. Quite the opposite, Berlin has pushed against all opposition to speed the pipeline into action. It only delayed the regulatory approval when Russia did the one thing that Germany had expressly prohibited, which was weaponize natural gas. Second, the US Congress was never likely to pass mandatory sanctions on Nord Stream operators. The Democrats opposed it, as it would have tied Biden’s hands, whereas presidents always retain discretion over foreign policy and national security. Even moderate Republicans opposed the measure, for the same reason. If either of these were the reason for Putin’s latest buildup, then the buildup will probably dissipate in the coming months. Putin also wants to force Ukraine to implement the Minsk agreements. But the Biden administration adopted the Minsk framework in June for the first time, which was a concession to Russia. So the latest military threats are not solely about coercing Europe to approve the pipeline or Ukraine to implement Minsk. Putin is driving at something else. Putin’s Focus On Ukraine And NATO Putin used military pressure on Ukraine’s border to force the US to accept the pipeline and the Minsk agreements. He is now using the same tactic to raise the stakes and demand that the US and its allies permanently rule out NATO membership and defense cooperation with Ukraine. Biden rejected the first demand during the summit, as mentioned. There is no way that the US or NATO will forswear any and all eastward expansion. Even on Ukraine specifically, Biden cannot give Russia a legal guarantee because it would require a 60-seat majority in the Senate (not likely). Any future president would retain prerogative over the matter anyway and Putin knows this. Moreover Ukraine is never going to join NATO. Russia would attack. And NATO members would not be unanimous (as is required for new members) because the collective defense treaty would require them to defend Ukraine. They would be signing up for a war with Russia. Still Biden is unlikely to disavow Ukrainian NATO membership because to do so would be to deny the self-determination of nations, capitulate to Russian coercion, and demoralize the Ukrainians, whom the US hopes will maintain a plucky resistance against Russian domination. It would also demoralize US allies and partners – namely Taiwan, which also lacks a formal defense treaty and would be forced to sue for peace with China in the face of American abandonment. Biden’s refusal to ban Ukraine from NATO is encapsulated in Diagram 1, an exercise in game theory that exemplifies why the risk of war should not be dismissed. Diagram 1Game Theory Suggests Russia Will Keep Applying Military Pressure Biden may give private or executive assurances on Ukraine and NATO but Putin will know that these mean nothing since Biden may be out of office as early as January 2025 and then Putin would have to renegotiate. America is not a credible negotiator because partisanship has resulted in extreme foreign policy vacillations – the next president could revoke the deal. Even after Putin is gone Russia would have to negotiate with the US to prevent the US from arming Ukraine. Hence Moscow may decide to reduce Ukraine and improve Russia’s strategic position by force of arms. This is true even if Biden forswears the NATO option, as Diagram 1 illustrates. Putin’s second demand – that the US not provide offensive weapon systems in countries adjacent to Russia – is more material. This is what the new round of talks will focus on. This new Ukraine line of talks is separate, more urgent and important, than the other bilateral dialogues on the arms race, and cyber-war. US-Russia talks on Iran are also urgent, however, and Russia’s cooperation there may be contingent on US concessions regarding Ukraine. The US may be willing to stop its defense cooperation with Ukraine but not with other allies and partners, however. It is also not clear what Putin will accept. These negotiations will have to be watched. Biden cannot make major concessions with a gun to his head. It is unclear how far the US is willing to concede on defense cooperation with countries around Russia. The US may quietly abandon Ukraine but then it would need to reinforce its other defense relationships. If Putin draws down the troops, and Biden calls a stop to defense aid to Ukraine, then a crisis may be averted. What Could Go Wrong? Economic sanctions under consideration in Washington are significant: the US could freeze bank transactions, expand restrictions on trading Russian sovereign and corporate debt, and lobby Belgium to kick Russia off the SWIFT financial messaging system. However, these sanctions may not be effective in preventing Russia from using military force. Russia has weathered US sanctions since 2014, and the smaller and weaker Iranian economy has weathered maximum pressure sanctions since 2019. Energy producers like Russia and Iran have maximum geopolitical leverage when global energy inventories draw down, as is the case today. Even in the face of Russian military aggression, the Biden administration is vacillating on sanctions targeting Russia’s energy sector that would contribute to global shortages and ultimately raise prices at the pump for voters in a midterm election year.5 Germany’s new government also hesitates to declare unambiguously that it will discontinue the Nord Stream II pipeline if Russia invades Ukraine. True, Germany signaled that the pipeline would be halted. Its energy regulator declared that the pipeline’s ownership must be unbundled, which pushes back the certification date to sometime after May 2022 – this was a geopolitical not a legalistic decision. But construction is completed, the pipeline physically exists, which will vitiate Germany’s commitment to sanctions whenever natural gas shortages occur, as is the case this winter (Chart 4). Shortages will continue to occur and Russia controls a large share of supply. ​​​​​​ It would take a catastrophe to drive Germany to restart coal and nuclear plants, so natural gas will continue to be in demand. Germany does not have liquefied natural gas import capability yet. If Europe imposes crippling sanctions on Russia, Russia could reduce energy supplies and harm Europe’s economy (Chart 5). The Russian economy and society would suffer which is one reason any military action in Ukraine would be limited in scope. Still, Moscow may believe that Germany would restrain the EU, and the EU would restrain the US, thereby preventing sanctions from being fully, uniformly, and durably implemented. Prior to Russia’s aggression, public opinion polls showed that the German public strongly supported Nord Stream. Even a majority of Green Party members supported it despite the fact that the Greens were the most critical of increasing Germany’s dependency on fossil fuels and an authoritarian petro-state. While public approval of the pipeline has surely suffered in the face of Russian aggression, a majority probably still favors the pipeline. Germany has a national consensus in support of engagement with Russia and avoiding a new cold war, given that the original Cold War cut Germany in half. For that reason invasion may only temporarily unite the western powers – it could ultimately drive a wedge between Germany and other EU members, namely in the former Soviet bloc. It would also divide the more risk-averse EU from the US in terms of how to deal with Russia. And it would weaken the Biden administration at a time when it is extremely vulnerable, exacerbating America’s internal divisions. Russian domestic patriotism would rally, at least initially. Note that Russia could miscalculate on this issue and that is one reason for high level of risk. Perhaps the West would prove far more unified and aggressive in its sanctions enforcement than it was after 2014. A falling ruble and rising inflation could cause Russian social unrest. But Russia could misread the situation. Unless the US and Europe escalate the sanctions threat massively to better deter Russia, their lack of concert is another reason for investors not to be complacent about renewed conflict. Bottom Line: The threat of sanctions may prove insufficient to deter renewed Russian aggression against Ukraine. Germany favors engagement with Russia and Europe’s energy dependency on Russia makes it vulnerable to supply disruptions. Russia has leverage given tight global energy markets, Europe’s low natural gas inventories, and US domestic political considerations ahead of the 2022 midterms. Investment Takeaways The point of this report argues that a partial re-invasion of Ukraine cannot be ruled out. Russia has the capability to reinforce de facto control of Donbas, or expand its footprint in southern Ukraine, though not to invade the whole country. The threat of economic sanctions is not yet so overwhelming as to warrant overconfident predictions of de-escalation. In this case it is better to be alarmist than complacent. Russia would want to maintain an element of surprise so the timing of any belligerence is hard to predict. For de-escalation, investors should watch for Russia to withdraw troops from the Ukrainian border, US-Russia consultations to begin promptly and proceed regularly, and for the US and allies to delay or halt defense cooperation and arms transfers to Ukraine. While global investors would quickly become de-sensitized to conflict that is entirely contained in Ukraine, the trans-Atlantic threat of major sanctions now raises the stakes and suggests that global energy shocks could negatively affect the European or global economy in the event of conflict. Any conflict could also spill outside of Ukraine’s borders, as with Malaysian Airlines flight MH17, which was shot down by Russian-backed Ukrainian separatists in July 2014. The Black Sea has seen a dangerous uptick in naval saber-rattling and that strategic situation would become permanently more dangerous if Russia seized more of coastal Ukraine. Russian military integration with Belarus is also a source of insecurity for EU and NATO members. Global financial markets have only started to price the geopolitical risk emanating from Russia. Our Russian GeoRisk Indicator has ticked up (Chart 6). But Russian equity performance relative to broad emerging markets is only arguably underperforming what is implied by Brent crude oil prices. Chart 6Market Slow To React To Ukraine Crisis - Risk To Downside For Russian Assets This relatively muted reaction suggests more downside lies ahead if we are right that strategic tensions will be flat-to-up over the coming months. Sell the RUB-USD on any strength. Stay long GBP-CZK. Tactically short Russian equities versus EM-ex-Asia (Chart 7). They are exposed to further correction as a result of escalating geopolitical risk. Chart 7Russia Falling Off Peaks Of Performance Versus EM-Ex-Asia​​​​​​ Chart 8Developed Europe A Safer Bet Than Emerging Europe Amid Tensions​​​​​​ Stick to long DM Europe versus EM Europe – our main trade this year to capture rising geopolitical risk between Russia and the West (Chart 8).     Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      President of Russia, "Meeting with US President Joseph Biden," December 7, 2021, kremlin.ru.  2     White House, "Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jen Psaki and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, December 7, 2021," whitehouse.gov. 3     Dan Peleschuk, "Ukraine’s military poses a tougher challenge for Russia than in 2014," Politico, April 14, 2021, politico.eu.; see also Gav Don, "LONG READ: Russia looks poised to invade Ukraine, but what would an invasion actually look like?" Intellinews, November 24, 2021, intellinews.com. 4     US Department of State, "Joint Statement of the United States and Germany on Support for Ukraine, European Energy Security, and our Climate Goals," July 21, 2021, state.gov. 5     Kylie Atwood and Natasha Bertrand, "US likely to hold off for now on energy sanctions for Russia, fearing impact on global prices," CNN, December 9, 2021, cnn.com. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)