Geopolitical Regions

Highlights Our top five “black swan” risks for 2022: Social unrest in China; Russian invasion of all of Ukraine; unilateral Israeli strikes on Iran; a cyber attack that goes kinetic; and a failure of OPEC 2.0. Too early to buy the dip on Russian assets: President Biden says Putin will probably “move in” and re-invade Ukraine, Russian embassy staff have been evacuating Ukraine, the US and UK have been providing more arms to Ukraine, and the US is warning of a semiconductor embargo against Russia. Talks resume in Geneva on Friday. Tactically investors should take some risk off the table, especially if linked to Russia and Europe.  Stay short the Russian ruble and EM Europe; stay short the Chinese renminbi and Taiwanese dollar; stay long cyber security stocks; and be prepared for oil volatility. Convert tactical long equity trades to relative trades: long large caps versus small caps, long defensives versus cyclicals, and long Japanese industrials versus German industrials. Feature Chart 1Recession Probability And Yield Curve Recession Probability And Yield Curve Recession Probability And Yield Curve The 2/10-year yield curve is flattening and now stands at 79 bps, while the implied probability of a recession over the next 12 months troughed at 5.9% in April 2021, and as of December 2021 stood at 7.7% (Chart 1). Apparently stagflation and recession are too high of a probability to constitute a “black swan” risk for this year. Black swans are not only high impact but also low probability. In this year’s annual “Five Black Swan” report, the last of our 2022 outlook series, we concentrate on impactful but unlikely events. These black swans emerge directly from the existing themes and trends in our research – they are not plucked at random. The key regions are highlighted in Map 1. Chart Black Swan #1: Major Social Unrest Erupts In China China’s financial problems are front and center risks for investors this year. They qualify as a “Gray Rhino” rather than “Black Swan” risk.1 It is entirely probable that China’s financial and property sector distress will negatively impact Chinese and global financial markets in 2022. What investors are not expecting is an eruption of social unrest in China that fouls up the twentieth national party congress this fall and calls into question the Communist Party’s official narrative that it is handling the pandemic and the underlying economic transition smoothly. Social unrest is a major risk around the world in the face of the new bout of inflation. Most of the democracies have already changed governments since the pandemic began, recapitalizing their political systems, but major emerging markets – Russia, India, Turkey, Brazil – have not done so. They have seen steep losses of popular support for both political leaders and ruling parties. There is little opinion polling from China and people who are surveyed cannot speak openly. It is possible that the government’s support has risen given its minimization of deaths from the pandemic. But it is also possible that it has not. Beijing’s policies over the past few years have had a negative impact on the country’s business elite and foreign relations. There are disgruntled factions within China, though the current administration has a tight grip over the main organs of power. Since President Xi is trying to clinch his personal rule this fall, sending China down a path of autocracy that proved disastrous under Chairman Mao Zedong, it is possible he will face surprise resistance. China’s economic growth is decelerating, clocking in at a 4.0% quarter-on-quarter growth rate at the end of last year. While authorities are easing policy to secure the recovery, there is a danger of insufficient support. Private sentiment will remain gloomy, as reflected by weak money velocity and a low propensity to spend among both businesses and households (Chart 2). The government will continue to be repressive in the lead up to the political reshuffle. At least for the first half of the year the economy will remain troubled. Structurally China is ripe for social unrest. It suffers from high income inequality and low social mobility, comparable to the US and Brazil, which are both struggling with political upheaval (Chart 3). Chart 2China's Private Sector Still Depressed China's Private Sector Still Depressed China's Private Sector Still Depressed ​​​​​ Chart 3 ​​​​​​ In addition China is keeping a stranglehold over Covid-19. This “Zero Covid” policy minimizes deaths but suppresses economic activity. Strict policy has also left the population with a very low level of natural immunity and the new Omicron variant is even more contagious than other variants. Hence the regime is highly likely to double down to prevent an explosive outbreak. The service side of the economy will continue to suffer if strict lockdowns are maintained, exacerbating household and business financial difficulties (Chart 4). Yet in other countries around the world, government decisions to return to lockdowns have sparked unrest. Chart 4Zero Covid Policy: Not Sustainable Beyond 2022 Zero Covid Policy: Not Sustainable Beyond 2022 Zero Covid Policy: Not Sustainable Beyond 2022 China’s “Misery Index” (unemployment plus inflation) is rising sharply. While misery is ostensibly lower than that of other emerging markets, China’s unemployment data is widely known to be unreliable. If we take a worst-case scenario, looking at youth unemployment and fuel prices, misery is a lot higher (Chart 5). The youth, who are having the hardest time finding jobs, are also the most likely to protest if conditions become intolerable (Chart 6). Of course, if social unrest is limited to students, it will lack support among the wider populace. But it is inflation, not youth activism, that is the reason for China’s authorities to be concerned, as inflation is a generalized problem that affects workers as well as students. Chart 5China's Misery Index Is Higher Than It Looks China's Misery Index Is Higher Than It Looks China's Misery Index Is Higher Than It Looks ​​​​​ Chart 6China's Troubled Youth China's Troubled Youth China's Troubled Youth Why would protesters stick their necks out knowing that the Communist Party will react ferociously to any sign of instability during President Xi Jinping’s political reshuffle? True, mainland Chinese do not have the propensity to political activism that flared up in protests in Hong Kong in recent years. Also the police state will move rapidly to repress any unrest. Yet the entire focus of Xi Jinping’s administration, since 2012, has been the restoration of political legitimacy and prevention of popular discontent. Xi has cracked down on corruption, pollution, housing prices, education prices, and has announced his “Common Prosperity” agenda to placate the low and middle classes.2 The regime has also cracked down on the media, social media, civil society, and ideological dissent to prevent political opposition from taking root. If the government were not concerned about social instability, it would not have been adopting these policies. Disease, often accompanied by famines or riots, has played a role in the downfall of six out of ten dynasties, so Beijing will not be taking risks for granted (Table 1). Table 1Disease And Downfall Of Chinese Dynasties Five Black Swans For 2022 Five Black Swans For 2022 Social instability would have a major impact as it would affect China’s stability and global investor sentiment toward China. Western democracies would penalize China for violations of human rights, leaving China even more isolated. Bottom Line: Investors should stay short the renminbi and neutral Chinese equities. Foreign investors should steer clear of Chinese bonds in the event of US sanctions. After the party congress this fall there will be an opportunity to reassess whether Xi Jinping will “let a hundred flowers bloom,” thus improving the internal and external political and investment environment, but this is not at all clear today. Black Swan #2: Russia Invades All (Not Just Part) Of Ukraine US-Russia relations are on the verge of total collapse and Russian equities have sold off, in line with our bearish recommendations in reports over the past two years. Russia’s threat of re-invading Ukraine is credible. Western nations are still wishy-washy about the counter-threat of economic sanctions, judging by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s latest comments, and none are claiming they will go to war to defend Ukraine.3 Russia is looking to remove the threat of Ukraine integrating militarily and economically with the West. The US and UK are providing Ukraine with defense weaponry even as Russia specifically demands that they cease to do so. President Putin may choose short-term economic pain for long-term security gain. The consensus view is that if Russia does invade, it will undertake a limited invasion. But what if Russia invades all of Ukraine? To be clear, a full invasion is unlikely because it would be far more difficult and costly for Russia. It would go against Putin’s strategy of calculated risk and limited conflict. Table 2 compares Russia and Ukraine in size and strength, alongside a comparison of the US and Iraq in 2002. This is not a bad comparison given that Ukraine’s and Iraq’s land area and active military personnel are comparable. Table 2Russia-Ukraine Balance Of Power 2022 Compared To US-Iraq 2002 Five Black Swans For 2022 Five Black Swans For 2022 Russia would be biting off a much bigger challenge than the US did. Ukraine’s prime age population is 2.5 times larger than Iraq’s in 2002, and its military expenditure is three times bigger. The US GDP and military spending were 150 and 250 times bigger than Iraq’s, while Russia’s GDP and military spending are about ten times bigger than Ukraine’s today. Iraq was not vital to American national security, whereas Ukraine is vital to Russia; Russia has more at stake and is willing to take greater risks. But Ukraine is in better shape to resist Russian occupation than Iraq was to resist American. The point is that the US invasion went smoothly at first, then got bogged down in insurgency, and ultimately backfired both in political and geopolitical terms. Russia would be undertaking a massive expense of blood and treasure that seems out of proportion with its goal, which is to neutralize Ukraine’s potential to become a western defense ally and host of “military infrastructure.” However, there are drawbacks to partial invasion. The remainder of the Ukrainian state would be unified and mobilized, capable of integrating with the western world, and willing to support a permanent insurgency against Russian troops in eastern Ukraine. Russia has forces in Belarus, Crimea, and the Black Sea, as well as on Ukraine’s eastern border, giving rise to fears that Russia could attempt a three-pronged invasion of the whole country. In short, it is conceivable that Russian leaders could make the Soviet mistake of overreaching in the military aims, or that a war in eastern Ukraine could inadvertently expand into the west. If Russia tries to conquer all of Ukraine, the global impact will be massive. A war of this size on the European continent for the first time since World War II would shake governments and populations to their bones. The borders with Poland, Romania, the Baltic states, Slovakia, Hungary, Finland and the Black Sea area would become militarized (Map 2). Chart NATO actions to secure its members and fortify their borders would exacerbate tensions with Russia and fan fears of a wider war. Trade flows would become subject to commerce destruction, affecting even neutral nations, including in the Black Sea. Energy supplies would tighten further, sending Russia and probably Europe into recession. The disruption to business and travel across eastern Europe would be deep and lasting, not only due to sanctions but also due to a deep risk-aversion that would affect foreign investors in the former Soviet Union and former Warsaw Pact. Germany would be forced to quit sitting on the fence, as it would be pressured by the US and the rest of Europe to stand shoulder to shoulder in the face of such aggression. Finland and Sweden would be much more likely to join NATO, exacerbating Russia’s security fears. Russia would suffer a drastic loss of trade, resulting in recession, and its currency collapse would feed inflation (Chart 7). Chart 7Inflation Poses Long-Term Threat To Putin Regime Inflation Poses Long-Term Threat To Putin Regime Inflation Poses Long-Term Threat To Putin Regime Ultimately the consequences would be negative for the Putin regime and Russia as a result of recession and international isolation. But in the short run the Russian people would rally around the flag and support a war designed to prevent NATO from stationing missiles on their doorstep. And their isolation would not be total, as they would strengthen ties with China and conduct trade via proxy states in the former Soviet Union. Bottom Line: A full-scale invasion of all of Ukraine is highly unlikely because it would be so costly for Russia in military, economic, and political terms. But the probability is not zero, especially because a partial re-invasion could lead to a larger war. While global investors would react in a moderate risk-off matter to a limited war in eastern Ukraine, a full-scale war would trigger a massive global flight to safety as it would call into question the entire post-WWII peace regime in Europe. Black Swan #3: Israel Attacks Iran The “bull market in Iran tensions” continues as there is not yet a replacement for the 2015 nuclear deal that the US abrogated. Our 2022 forecast that the UAE would get caught in the crossfire was confirmed on January 17 when Iran-backed Houthi rebels expanded their range of operations and struck Abu Dhabi (Map 3). The secret war is escalating and US-led diplomacy is faltering. Chart Iran is not going to give up its nuclear program. North Korea achieved nuclear arms and greater military security and is now developing first and second strike capabilities. Meanwhile Ukraine, which faces another Russian invasion, exemplifies what happens to regimes that give up nuclear arms (as do Libya and Iraq). Iran appears to be choosing the North Korean route. While we cannot rule out a minor agreement between President Biden and Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, we can rule out a substantial deal that halts Iran’s nuclear and missile progress. Here’s why: Any day now Iran could reach nuclear “breakout capacity,” with enough highly enriched uranium to construct a nuclear device (Table 3).4 Table 3Iran’s Violations Of 2015 Nuclear Deal Since US Exit Five Black Swans For 2022 Five Black Swans For 2022 Within Iran’s government, the foreign policy doves have been humiliated and kicked out of office while the hawks are fully in control. No meaningful agreement can be reached before 2024 because of the risk that the US will change ruling parties again and renege on any promises. Iran is highly incentivized to make rapid progress on its nuclear program now. The US will not be able to lead the P5+1 coalition to force Iran to halt its program because of its ongoing struggles with Russia and China. China is striking long-term cooperation deals with Iran. Israel has a well-established record of taking unilateral action, specifically against regional nuclear programs, known as the “Begin Doctrine.”5 Israel’s threats are credible on this front, although Iran is a much greater operational challenge than Iraq or Syria. Iran’s timeline from nuclear breakout to deliverable nuclear weapon is 12-24 months.6 Iran’s missile program is advanced. Missile programs cannot be monitored as easily as nuclear activity, so foreign powers base the threshold on nuclear capability rather than missile capability. Iran had a strong incentive to move slowly on its nuclear and missile programs in earlier years, to prevent US and Israeli military interference. But as it approaches breakout capacity it has an incentive to accelerate its tempo to a mad dash to achieve nuclear weaponization before the US or Israel can stop it. Now that time may have come. The Biden administration is afraid of higher oil prices and Israeli domestic politics are more divided and risk-averse than before. And yet Iran’s window might close in 2025, as the US could turn aggressive again depending on the outcome of the 2024 election. Hence Iran has an incentive to make its dash now. The US and Israel will restate their red lines against Iranian nuclear weaponization and brandish their military options this year. But the Biden administration will be risk-averse since it does not want to instigate an oil shock in an election year. Israel is more likely than the US to react quickly and forcefully since it is in greatest danger if Iran surprises the world with rapid weaponization. Here are the known constraints on unilateral Israeli military action: Limited Israeli military capability: Israel would have to commit a large number of aircraft, leaving its home front exposed, and even with US “bunker buster” bombs it may not penetrate the underground Fordow nuclear facility.7 Limited Israeli domestic support: The Israeli public is divided on whether to attack Iran. The post-Netanyahu government recently came around to endorsing the US’s attempt to renegotiate the nuclear deal. Limited US support: Washington opposes Israeli unilateralism that could entangle the US into a war. Israel cannot afford to alienate the US, which is its primary security guarantor. Iranian instability: The Iranian regime is under economic distress due to “maximum pressure” sanctions. It is vulnerable to social unrest, not least because of its large youth population. These constraints have been vitiated in various ways, which is why we raise this Israeli unilateralism as a black swan risk: Where there’s a will, there’s a way: If Israel believes its existence will be threatened, it will be willing to take much greater operational risks. It has already shown some ability to set back Iran's centrifuge program beyond the expected.8 Israeli opinion will harden if Iran breaks out: If Iran reaches nuclear breakout or tests a nuclear device, Israeli opinion will harden in favor of military strikes. Prime Minister Naftali Bennett has an incentive to take hawkish actions before he hands the reins of government over to a partner in his ruling coalition as part of a power-sharing agreement. The ruling coalition is so weak that a collapse cannot be ruled out. US opposition could weaken: Biden will have to explore military options if talks fail and Iran reaches nuclear breakout capacity. Once the midterms are over, Israel may have even more freedom to act, while a gridlocked Biden may be looking to shift his focus to foreign policy. Iranian stability: Iran’s social instability has not resulted in massive unrest or regime fracture despite years of western sanctions and a global recession/pandemic. Yet now energy prices are rising and Iran has less reason to believe sanction regimes will be watertight. From Israeli’s point of view, even regime change in Iran would not remove the nuclear threat once nuclear weapons are obtained. Finally, while Israel cannot guarantee that military strikes would successfully cripple Iran’s nuclear program and prevent weaponization, Israel cannot afford not to try. It would be a worse outcome to stand idly by while Iran gets a nuclear weapon than to attack and fail to set that program back. Hence the likeliest outcome over the long run is that Iran pursues a nuclear weapon and Israel attacks to try to stop it, even if that attack is likely to fail (Diagram 1). Diagram 1Game Theory: Will Israel Attack Iran? Five Black Swans For 2022 Five Black Swans For 2022 Bottom Line: A unilateral Israeli strike is unlikely but would have a massive impact, as 21% of global oil and 26% of natural gas flows through the Strait of Hormuz, and conflict could disrupt regional energy production and/or block passage through the strait itself. Black Swan #4: Cyber Attacks Spill Into Real World Investors are very aware of cyber security risks – it holds a respectable though not commanding position in the ranks of likely crisis events (Table 4). Our concern is that a cyber attack could spill over into the real world, impairing critical infrastructure, supply chains, and/or prompting military retaliation. Table 4Cyber Events Underrated In Consensus View Of Global Risks Five Black Swans For 2022 Five Black Swans For 2022 Russian attacks on US critical infrastructure by means of ransomware gangs disrupted a US fuel pipeline, meat-packing plant, and other critical infrastructure in 2021. Since then the two countries have engaged in negotiations over cyber security. The Russian Federal Security Bureau has cracked down on one of the most prominent gangs, REvil, in a sign that the US and Russia are still negotiating despite the showdown over Ukraine.9 Yet a re-invasion of Ukraine would shatter any hope of cooperation in the cyber realm or elsewhere. Russia is already using cyberattacks against Ukraine and these activities could expand to Ukraine’s partners if the military conflict expands. Should the US and EU impose sweeping sanctions that damage Russia’s economy, Russia could retaliate, not only by tightening energy supply but also by cyber attacks. Any NATO partners or allies would be vulnerable, though some states will be more reactive than others. Interference in the French election, for example, would be incendiary. The key question is: if Russia strikes NATO states with damaging cyber attacks, at what point would it trigger Article V, the mutual defense clause? There are no established codes of conduct or red lines in cyber space, so the world will have to learn each nation’s limits via confrontation and retaliation. Similar cyber risks could emerge from other conflicts. China is probably not ready to invade Taiwan but it has an interest in imposing economic costs on the island ahead of this fall’s midterm elections. Taiwan’s critical role in the semiconductor supply chain means that disruptions to production would have a global impact. Israel and the US have already used cyber capabilities to attack Iran and set back its nuclear program. These capabilities will be necessary as Iran approaches breakout capacity. Yet Iran could retaliate in a way that disrupts oil supplies. North Korea began a new cycle of provocations last September, accelerated missile tests over the past four months, and is dissatisfied with the unfinished diplomatic business of the Trump administration. In the wake of the last global crisis, 2010, it staged multiple military attacks against South Korea. South Korea may be vulnerable due to its presidential elections in May. The semiconductor or electronics supply chain could be interrupted here as well as in Taiwan. Bottom Line: There is no code of conduct in cyber space. As geopolitical tensions rise, and nations test the limits of their cyber capabilities, there is potential for critical infrastructure to be impaired. This could exacerbate supply chain kinks or provoke kinetic responses from victim nations. Black Swan #5: OPEC 2.0 Falls Apart The basis of the OPEC 2.0 cartel is Russian cooperation with Saudi Arabia to control oil supply and manage the forward price curve. Backwardation, when short-term prices are higher than long-term, is ideal for these countries since they fear that long-term prices will fall. In a world where Moscow and Riyadh both face competition from US shale producers as well as the green energy revolution, cooperation makes sense. Yet the two sides do not trust each other. Cooperation broke down both in 2014 and 2020, sending oil prices plunging. Falling global demand ignited a scramble for market share. Interestingly, Russian military invasions have signaled peak oil price in 1979, 2008, and 2014. Russia, like other petro-states, has greater room for maneuver when oil revenues are pouring in. But high prices also incentivize production, disincentivize cartel discipline, and trigger reductions in global demand (Chart 8). Chart 8Russian Invasions And Oil Price Crashes Russian Invasions And Oil Price Crashes Russian Invasions And Oil Price Crashes Broadly speaking, Saudi oil production rose modestly during times of Russian military adventures, while overall OPEC production was flat or down, and Russian/Soviet production went up (Chart 9). Chart 9Saudi And OPEC Oil Production During Russian Military Adventures Saudi And OPEC Oil Production During Russian Military Adventures Saudi And OPEC Oil Production During Russian Military Adventures Since 2020, we have held that OPEC 2.0 would continue operating but that the biggest risk would come in the form of a renewed US-Iran nuclear deal that freed up Iranian oil exports. In 2014, the Saudis increased production in the face of the US shale threat as well as the Iranian threat. This scenario is still possible in 2022 but it has become a low-probability outcome. Even aside from the Iran dynamic, there is some probability that Russo-Saudi cooperation breaks down as global growth decelerates and new oil supply comes online. Bottom Line: The world’s inflation expectations are elevated and closely linked to oil prices. Yet oil prices hinge on an uneasy political agreement between Russia and Saudi Arabia that has fallen apart twice before. If Russia invades Ukraine, or if US withdraws sanctions on Iran, for example, then Saudi Arabia could make a bid to expand its market share and trigger price declines in the process. Two Bonus Black Swans: Turkey And Venezuela Turkey lashes out: Our Turkish Political Capital Index shows deterioration for President Recep Erdogan’s political capital across a range of variables (Table 5). With geopolitical pressures increasing, and domestic politics heating up ahead of the 2023 elections, Erdogan’s behavior will become even more erratic. His foreign policy could become aggressive, keeping the lira under pressure and/or weighing on European assets. Table 5Turkey: Erdogan’s Political Capital Wearing Thin Five Black Swans For 2022 Five Black Swans For 2022 Venezuela’s Maduro falls from power: Venezuelan regime changes often follow from military coups. These coups do not only happen when oil prices collapse – sometimes the army officers wait to be sure prices have recovered. Coup-throwers want strong oil revenues to support their new rule. An unexpected change of regimes would affect the oil market due to this country’s giant reserves. Bottom Line: Turkey’s political instability could result in foreign aggression, while Venezuela’s regime could collapse despite the oil price recovery. Investment Takeaways We are booking profits on our tactical long trades on large caps and defensive sectors. We will convert these to relative trades: long large caps over small caps, and long defensives over cyclicals. We also recommend converting our tactical long Japan trade into long Japanese industrials / short German industrials equities. If US-Russia diplomacy averts a war we will reconsider.     Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      “Gray Rhino” is a term coined by author Michele Wucker to describe large and probable risks that people neglect or avoid. For more, see thegrayrhino.com. 2     Xi Jinping recently characterized the “common prosperity” agenda as follows: “China has made it clear that we strive for more visible and substantive progress in the well-rounded development of individuals and the common prosperity of the entire population. We are working hard on all fronts to deliver this goal. The common prosperity we desire is not egalitarianism. To use an analogy, we will first make the pie bigger, and then divide it properly through reasonable institutional arrangements. As a rising tide lifts all boats, everyone will get a fair share from development, and development gains will benefit all our people in a more substantial and equitable way.” See World Economic Forum, “President Xi Jinping’s message to The Davos Agenda in full,” January 17, 2022, weforum.org. 3     Chancellor Scholz, when asked whether Germany would avoid using the Nord Stream II pipeline if Russia re-invaded Ukraine, said, "it is clear that there will be a high cost and that all this will have to be discussed if there is a military intervention against Ukraine.” He was speaking with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg. See Hans Von Der Burchard, “Scholz: Germany will discuss Nord Stream 2 penalties if Russia attacks Ukraine,” Politico, January 18, 2022, politico.eu. 4     For the Begin Doctrine, see Meir Y. Soloveichik, “The Miracle of Osirak,” Commentary, April 2021, commentary.org. 5     The estimate of 12-24 months to mount a nuclear warhead on a missile has been cited by various credible sources, including David Albright and Sarah Burkhard, “Highlights of Iran’s Perilous Pursuit of Nuclear Weapons,” Institute for Science and International Security, August 24, 2021, isis-online.org, and Eric Brewer and Nicholas L. Miller, “A Redline for Iran?” Foreign Affairs, December 23, 2021, foreignaffairs.com. 6     See Edieal J. Pinker, Joseph Szmerekovsky, and Vera Tilson, “Technical Note – Managing a Secret Project,” Operations Research, February 5, 2013, pubsonline.informs.org, as well as “What Can Game Theory Tell Us About Iran’s Nuclear Intentions?” Yale Insights, March 17, 2015, insights.som.yale.edu.  7     See Josef Joffe, “Increasingly Isolated, Israel Must Rely On Nuclear Deterrence,” Strategika 35 (September 2016), Hoover Institution, hoover.org. 8     The sabotage of the Iran Centrifuge Assembly Center at the Natanz nuclear facility in July 2020 “set back Iran’s centrifuge program significantly and continues to do so,” according to David Albright, Sarah Burkhard, and John Hannah, “Iran’s Natanz Tunnel Complex: Deeper, Larger Than Expected,” Institute for Science and International Security, January 13, 2022, isis-online.org. For a recent positive case regarding Israel’s capabilities, see Mitchell Bard, “Military Options Against Iran,” Jewish Virtual Library, American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, January 2022, jewishvirtuallibrary.org.  9     For the FSB and REvil, see Chris Galford, “Russian FSB arrests members of REvil ransomware gang following attacks on U.S. infrastructure,” Homeland Preparedness News, January 18, 2022, homelandprepnews.com. For the Colonial Pipeline and JBS attacks, and other ransomware attacks, see Jonathan W. Welburn and Quentin E. Hodgson, “How the United States Can Deter Ransomware Attacks,” RAND Blog, August 9, 2021, rand.org. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)

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 US Resilience US 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 2 ​​​​​ Chart 3Social Restrictions Short Of Lockdown Social Restrictions Short Of Lockdown Social 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 Waning Monetary And Credit Stimulus Waning Monetary And Credit Stimulus Chart 5Global Growth Stabilization Global Growth Stabilization Global 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 2022 Key Views: The Gathering Storm 2022 Key Views: The Gathering Storm 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). 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). 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) America's Global Role Persists (If Lessened) America'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 From 'Hyper-Globalization' To Hypo-Globalization From '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 Hypo-Globalization And Hegemonic Instability Hypo-Globalization And Hegemonic Instability Chart 11Hypo-Globalization: Temporary Trade Rebound Hypo-Globalization: Temporary Trade Rebound Hypo-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 DM: Political Risk High But New Governments In Place DM: Political Risk High But New Governments In Place ​​​​​ Chart 13EM: Political Risk High But Governments Not Recapitalized EM: Political Risk High But Governments Not Recapitalized EM: Political Risk High But Governments Not Recapitalized ​​​​​​ Chart 14EM Populism/Nationalism Threatens Negative Surprises In 2022 EM Populism/Nationalism Threatens Negative Surprises In 2022 EM 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 Eases Fiscal Policy To Secure Recovery In 2022 China 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 China Aims For Stability, Not Rapid Growth, Ahead Of 20th National Party Congress China 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 17 ​​​​​​ Chart 17BMarket-Based Risk Indicators Say China/Taiwan Risk Has Not Peaked Market-Based Risk Indicators Say China/Taiwan Risk Has Not Peaked Market-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. Chart 18 Chart 19 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 Inflation Constrains Biden Ahead Of Midterms Inflation Constrains Biden Ahead Of Midterms Chart 21 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 Geopolitical Risk Will Rise, Market Impacts Variable Geopolitical Risk Will Rise, Market Impacts Variable ​​​​​​ Chart 23Economic Policy Uncertainty Will Rise, Not Bad For US Assets Economic Policy Uncertainty Will Rise, Not Bad For US Assets Economic 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 China: GeoRisk Indicator China: GeoRisk Indicator Russia Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator United Kingdom UK: GeoRisk Indicator UK: GeoRisk Indicator Germany Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator France France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator Italy Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Canada Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Spain Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan Taiwan Territory: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan Territory: GeoRisk Indicator Korea Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Australia Australia: GeoRisk Indicator Australia: GeoRisk Indicator South Africa South Africa: GeoRisk Indicator South Africa: GeoRisk Indicator 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 Ruble Faces More Downside From Geopolitics Ruble 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). Chart 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. Chart 2 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). 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 Russia/Ukraine: Don’t Be Complacent Russia/Ukraine: Don’t Be Complacent 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. Chart 4 ​​​​​​ Chart 5 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 Market Slow To React To Ukraine Crisis - Risk To Downside For Russian Assets Market 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 Russia Falling Off Peaks Of Performance Versus EM-Ex-Asia Russia Falling Off Peaks Of Performance Versus EM-Ex-Asia ​​​​​​ Chart 8Developed Europe A Safer Bet Than Emerging Europe Amid Tensions Developed Europe A Safer Bet Than Emerging Europe Amid Tensions Developed 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)

Mr. X and his daughter, Ms. X, are long-time BCA clients who visit our office toward the end of each year to discuss the economic and financial market outlook for the year ahead. This report is an edited transcript of our recent conversations, which we held remotely for a second year in a row due to the COVID-19 pandemic.   Mr. X: It is typically the case that I look forward to our end of year conversations, as they always help clarify the investment landscape for my daughter and I. This year, the feeling of excitement has unusually given way to a sense of foreboding. As far as the pandemic is concerned, clearly this year was a better one than last year, and I am encouraged by the progress that has been made around the world at protecting people from COVID-19 – although I do have some questions about the recent discovery of the Omicron variant. Risky assets have generally performed well year-to-date, and our portfolio has benefitted from that. But the longer-term investment outlook has certainly deteriorated: equity market multiples remain extremely elevated, government debt loads are still extraordinarily high, and now we have finally seen a surge in inflation – which, as you know, I have been concerned about for several years. I feel strongly that investors are unprepared for the eventual policy consequences of what has happened this year. Financial markets have been underpinned by easy money for too long, and if interest rates have to rise on a structural basis to control inflation, the financial market consequences will be severe – let alone the potential political and social consequences! I have steeled myself for a depressing conversation. Ms. X: As you may have sensed during our discussions over the past few years, I tend to have a more optimistic outlook than my father does. At a minimum, I believe that there are always investment opportunities that one can pursue, regardless of whether the macro regime is bullish or bearish for economic activity and risky asset prices. But I do have to say that the extent of the rise in consumer prices this year has unnerved me and made me marginally more inclined to agree with my father’s pessimistic long-term outlook. It is very unsettling to see headline inflation in the US at its highest level in three decades, and I very much hope that you will be able to provide some perspective about whether elevated inflation is here to stay. But before we get into our discussion of the outlook, perhaps we can briefly review your predictions from last year? BCA: Certainly. A year ago, our key conclusions were the following: In 2021, stocks will outperform bonds thanks to the global economic recovery, the lack of immediate inflationary pressures and the prospects of a resolution to the pandemic. Imbalances in the global economy are growing, and the explosion in debt loads witnessed this year will carry significant future costs. Rising inflation is the most likely long-term consequence because of rising populism and the meaningful chance of financial repression. This change in inflation dynamics will generate poor long-term returns for a 60/40 portfolio, especially because asset valuations are so expensive. Compared to the past two years, geopolitical uncertainty will recede in 2021, but will remain elevated by historical standards. China and the US are interlocked in a structural rivalry, which means that flashpoints, such as Taiwanese independence, will remain a source of tensions. Europe will enjoy geopolitical tailwinds next year. For now, no central bank or government wants to remove economic support too quickly. Monetary policy will remain very stimulative as long as inflation is low, which means no tightening until late 2022, at the earliest. Fiscal deficits will narrow, but more slowly than private savings will decline. The US will grow faster than potential thanks to this policy backdrop. Moreover, household finances are robust and industrial firms are taking advantage of low interest rates as well as surprisingly resilient goods demand to increase their capex plans. Outside of the US, China’s stimulus and an inventory restocking will fuel a continued upswing in the global industrial cycle that will push 2021 GDP growth well above trend. However, at the beginning of the year, we will likely feel the remnants of the lockdowns currently engulfing Western economies. Bond yields can rise next year, but not by much. Ebbing deflationary pressures and the global industrial cycle upswing will lift T-Note and T-Bond yields. However, the extremely low probability of monetary tightening in 2021 and 2022 will create a ceiling for yields. We favor peripheral European bonds at the expense of German Bunds and US Treasuries. Corporate spreads should stay contained thanks to a very easy policy backdrop and the positive impact on cash flows and defaults of the ongoing recovery. We also like municipal bonds but worry about pre-payment risks for MBS. Global stocks should enjoy a robust advance in 2021, even if the market’s gains will be smaller and more volatile than from March 2020 to today. Easy monetary conditions will buttress valuations while recovering economic activity will support earning expectations. Within equities, we favor cyclical versus defensive names and value stocks relative to growth stocks. As a corollary, we prefer small cap to large cap and foreign DM-equities to US equities. We are neutral on EM equities due to their large tech sector weighting. The dollar bear market is set to continue, and high-beta European currencies will benefit most. The yen remains an attractive portfolio hedge. Oil and gold have upside next year. Crude will benefit from both supply-side discipline and a recovery in oil demand. Gold will strengthen as global central banks will maintain extremely accommodative conditions and global fiscal authorities will remain generous. A weaker dollar will flatter both commodities. A balanced portfolio is likely to generate average returns of only 1.0% a year in real terms over the next decade. This compares to average returns of around 6.1% a year between 1990 and 2020. Most of our investment recommendations panned out quite well this year (Table 1). Global stocks significantly outperformed long-maturity government bonds, advanced economies grew meaningfully above trend, monetary policy remained extremely easy, long-maturity bond yields rose moderately, and our call to favor cyclical sectors was a profitable one. Our bullish oil call worked out especially well, with Brent prices having risen roughly 60% from the beginning of the calendar year until the discovery of the Omicron variant. It remains 43% above its late-2020 level. Table 12021 Asset Market Returns OUTLOOK 2022: Peak Inflation – Or Just Getting Started? OUTLOOK 2022: Peak Inflation – Or Just Getting Started? A few calls did not perform in line with our expectations, however. We favored value versus growth stocks this year, and this call did work out in the first half of 2021. However, growth rallied in the back half of the year, in response to a renewed decline in long-maturity bond yields that was catalyzed by the emergence of the Delta variant. We would note that financials did outperform broadly-defined technology stocks this year (the two main representative sectors of the value and growth styles, respectively), underscoring that other factors impacted the overall value versus growth call. DM ex-US stocks underperformed this year, contrary to our expectations. When considering the euro area as a proxy for DM ex-US and when examining combined sector effects (both sector weight and performance) in local currency terms, almost all of the underperformance this year occurred due to the euro area’s comparatively low weight in the information technology and communication services sectors, underscoring that there has been a value vs. growth dimension to European equity underperformance. But when measured in common currency terms, the underperformance of DM ex-US stocks has mostly occurred due to the rise in the US dollar. The dollar was flat to down for the first half of the year, in line with our prediction, but rallied in the back half – especially over the past month, as new COVID cases surged in several European countries. Within the commodity space, our oil call worked out extremely well but gold fared poorly. This underscores that gold is far more sensitive to real interest rate dynamics than it is to the US dollar trend, which likely has bearish long-term implications for the yellow metal. We can address that later when we discuss the commodity outlook. Finally, we argued last year that we were experiencing a secular inflection point in inflation, but we did not anticipate the magnitude of the rise in consumer prices this year. As we will discuss in a moment, that reflects major pandemic-induced supply-side effects affecting consumer prices, which we believe will wane next year on average. That does not, however, mean that demand-side factors are irrelevant, and we do believe that core inflation will come in higher than the Fed currently expects in 2022. Peak Inflation – Or Just Getting Started? Ms. X: You mentioned the pandemic in your comments about supply-side inflation, and I feel that it would be a good idea to get your thoughts about COVID-19 up front. As my father noted, there has been enormous progress made this year towards ending the pandemic, but it is not yet over – as evidenced both by Europe’s recent 5th wave, as well as this highly concerning Omicron variant. I understand that you are not medical professionals, but what is your base case view of what is likely to happen next year? BCA: When we discussed last year’s outlook, it was certainly our hope that we would have declared a decisive victory in the war against COVID-19 by this point. That has not occurred, due to three major factors. Chart 1Vaccination Rates Are Too Low To Stop COVID From Circulating Vaccination Rates Are Too Low To Stop COVID From Circulating Vaccination Rates Are Too Low To Stop COVID From Circulating The first was the emergence of the Delta variant of COVID-19 in the middle of the year. Delta’s transmission and serious illness rate is higher than the original SARS-COV-2 virus and its Alpha variant, which rendered the goal of true herd immunity unachievable. The Delta variant of SARS-COV-2 has accounted for all new confirmed cases of COVID-19 around the world (until very recently), meaning that the bar for ending the pandemic has risen this year. Vaccine hesitancy and a slow approval process for vaccinating children is the second factor that has prolonged the end of the COVID-19 pandemic. While vaccine penetration has generally been high in most countries, a combination of hesitancy and the inability to vaccinate children under the age of 12 has left 1/4th to 1/3rd of the population of advanced economies unprotected against COVID-19. That might have been enough to prevent rising transmission of the original SARS-COV-2 virus, but it has proven to be too low to durably stop the ongoing spread of the Delta variant once disease control measures are relaxed or eliminated (Chart 1). In fact, as you noted, Chart 1 highlights that a 5th wave of the pandemic is in the process of occurring, especially within Europe. The vaccination of children has already begun in the United States and a few other countries, and many countries will likely follow suit in the weeks and months ahead. However, vaccination rates are likely to be lower among children given the considerably lower risk of severe illness, and it is clear that vaccine hesitancy among adults is sticky. The extent of vaccine hesitancy is most visible in the United States, where it has taken on a political dimension. Chart 2 highlights that US state vaccination rates are strongly predicted by the 2020 US Presidential election results, with states that voted for Donald Trump having on average a 12% lower vaccination rate than those that voted for Joe Biden. Chart 2 The third factor that has prolonged the pandemic, which seems to be linked to the emergence of the Omicron variant, is the fact that poorer parts of the world have not been able to make as much progress in vaccinating their populations, at least in part due to vaccine nationalism. We do not pass judgement on the governments of richer economies for prioritizing their own citizens, and indeed it would be hypocritical for us to do so as most of us at BCA have personally benefitted from that. But the consequence of those decisions is that some parts of the world, especially in Africa, have been left as de-facto breeding grounds for new variants. While the Omicron variant only came to light in the days leading up to the publication of this report, it does appear based on the available data that the variant emerged in Africa. Given all of this, we would be considerably more cautious in our outlook for the global economy next year if the progression of the pandemic were only dependent on the vaccination rate, especially now given the emergence of Omicron. However, two other factors will strongly influence the evolution of the pandemic and its impact on economic activity over the coming 12 months. First, in the US, states with a comparatively low vaccination rates likely have higher acquired immunity levels from previous infections, given that these states have recorded higher confirmed cases on a per capita basis. Chart 3The Delta Strain On US Hospitals Has Fallen, And Will Fall Further With Anti-Viral Drugs The Delta Strain On US Hospitals Has Fallen, And Will Fall Further With Anti-Viral Drugs The Delta Strain On US Hospitals Has Fallen, And Will Fall Further With Anti-Viral Drugs Second, and much more important, is the fact that anti-viral drug treatments with the ability to significantly reduce hospitalization and death have been discovered and are already under production. Molnupiravir, developed/produced by Merck and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, has been shown to reduce the risk of hospitalization by 30%, and Merck is projecting that 10 million courses of treatment will be available by the end of December 2021, with at least 20 million courses to be produced next year. 1.7 million courses of treatments are set to be delivered to the US upon FDA approval, which compares with approximately 2 million COVID-related hospitalizations in the US over the past year. Chart 3 highlights that US ICU bed occupancy has already lessened, and the imminent deployment of effective drugs should lower ICU utilization even further over the winter months. Paxlovid, Pfizer’s oral anti-viral treatment for COVID-19, has been shown to be even more effective at reducing hospitalization, and news reports suggest the US government will order enough Paxlovid to treat 10 million Americans. Pfizer expects to produce roughly 50 million courses of treatment in 2022, and recently agreed to allow 95 developing countries to produce Paxlovid locally, suggesting that the impact of COVID-19 on the global medical system will be greatly reduced next year. This seems likely to be true even given the emergence of Omicron, as Paxlovid works by stopping the virus from replicating, by blocking an enzyme that does not appear to have mutated since the onset of the pandemic. Paxlovid does not target the spike protein, unlike monoclonal antibody treatments. Ms. X: The development of anti-viral treatments was seen as a very positive announcement because it had the strong potential to reduce or eliminate the impact of vaccine hesitancy on the medical system. But this new variant appears to be vaccine-resistant; doesn’t that mean that we might need far more of these drugs than we originally thought? BCA: Indeed. The fact that Omicron appears to be even more contagious than Delta and at least partially vaccine-resistant is legitimately concerning, because it could mean that many more courses of treatment of Molnupiravir and Paxlovid will be needed than will be available in the coming weeks and months to prevent a sharp rise in hospitalizations and deaths. At the same time, public comments by South African doctor Angelique Coetzee, who chairs the South African Medical Association and treated several patients suspected of having been infected with the Omicron variant, suggest that it may produce milder symptoms – which would be associated with a lower hospitalization rate.1 If Omicron outcompetes the Delta variant of the virus, but produces less severe disease, that could ironically prove to be a positive development. The fact that Omicron could render monoclonal antibody treatments useless could further reduce vaccine hesitancy in advanced economies and encourage the vaccination of children. That would further reduce the total incidence of severe illnesses even if Omicron is partially vaccine-resistant, and thus would be positive from the perspective of reducing the burden on the health care system. Still, South Africa’s population is considerably younger than those of advanced economies, and we will not know for some time whether a reduction in severe illness, if that proves to be true, applies also to those who are older. If Omicron threatens a significant hospitalization or fatality rate among the elderly who have been fully vaccinated, Omicron-specific booster shots for that age cohort will likely be required – which could take 3-4 months to become available. If that proves to be the path forward, the widespread reintroduction of “non-pharmaceutical interventions” (NPIs) – the policymaker codeword for travel bans, school closures, and lockdowns – is certainly a possible outcome in the first quarter. Omicron will have at least some impact on global travel over the coming month, as countries around the world decide to err on the side of caution and impose travel restrictions while more information is gathered about this new variant. To conclude on this question, as you noted, we are not medical experts. And frankly even if we were, we would not be able to project exactly how the pandemic will unfold next year. Thus, there is more uncertainty concerning our 2022 outlook than would normally be the case. Prior to the emergence of Omicron, our base case view was that the pandemic would meaningfully recede in importance next year, which would lay the groundwork for a more normal labor market, prices, and the supply of both goods and services. For the reasons that we have laid out, we have not yet seen enough information to change that view for 2022 as a whole, although the opposite will likely be true for the next few weeks at a minimum. We may have to have you both back for another discussion in the first half of next year to revisit our outlook, but for now it is not our expectation that we are back to square one on the pandemic front. Chart 4A 30-Year High In US Inflation A 30-Year High In US Inflation A 30-Year High In US Inflation Mr. X: Thank you for your insights. Although this is clearly a concerning development, I suppose that there is no use panicking yet, as we do not have the information that we need to make an informed judgement. Perhaps we can turn to the question of inflation, given that seems likely to be an important economic and policy factor next year regardless of whether Omicron extends the duration of the pandemic. As both my daughter and I highlighted, this year’s rise in consumer prices was extreme, at least by the standard of the past three decades. As you know, I have my own views about why this has occurred, and I suspect that you do not fully agree with me. But for the sake of our discussion, please outline your views about what has occurred this year, and what that implies for policy and financial markets. BCA: As you noted, in both the US and euro area economies, headline consumer price inflation rose this year to their highest levels since the early-1990s (Chart 4). The rise in core inflation has been less extreme in the euro area, but it is also back to early-1990s levels in the US (panel 2). It is understandable that investors are worried about inflation remaining very elevated, and we agree that US inflation will likely be both above the Fed’s target as well as its forecast next year. However, our base case view is that investors are currently overestimating the magnitude of inflation over the coming 12 months, and that actual inflation will come in lower next year than what short-maturity inflation expectations are currently suggesting. As such, we do not expect that inflation next year will lead to a major shift in the monetary policy outlook, and we would continue to recommend that global investors stay overweight stocks versus bonds in 2022. Mr. X: I am surprised that you have a sanguine inflation outlook given how sharply consumer prices have risen this year. It sounds like you are blindly accepting the “transitory” narrative that central banks themselves are now questioning! This year’s surge in consumer prices has several causes, and a review of these factors is necessary to predict how future prices are likely to evolve. Fundamentally, any change in price can be traced to changes in supply and demand, and both of those effects worked in the direction of higher consumer prices this year. Chart 5 outlines the clear evidence of demand-side effects. The US fiscal response to the pandemic was more forceful than in the euro area, and US core consumer prices have correspondingly risen much more than in Europe. The chart highlights that US durable goods prices have been responsible for more of the surge in prices this year than has been the case for services, reflecting strong goods demand from US consumers. Chart 6 highlights that US real goods spending is 9.8% above its pre-pandemic trend, whereas it is 4.5% below for services. Extremely strong goods demand partially reflects the impact of fiscal and monetary stimulus, but also a shift in spending from services to goods owing to the nature of the pandemic and the type of activity that it has restricted. We expect that another shift in spending mix will occur next year in the opposite direction, barring a major extension of the pandemic from Omicron. Chart 5A Breakdown Of US Inflation Provides Clear Evidence For Demand-Pull Effects A Breakdown Of US Inflation Provides Clear Evidence For Demand-Pull Effects A Breakdown Of US Inflation Provides Clear Evidence For Demand-Pull Effects Chart 6US Goods Demand Is Well Above Trend US Goods Demand Is Well Above Trend US Goods Demand Is Well Above Trend You referenced the “transitory” debate in your question, and the answer to whether above-target inflation is likely to be transitory is both yes and no. Many of the supply-side effects that are driving prices are transitory, in the sense that they will not last beyond the pandemic. That view should not be controversial. But, some of the demand-side effects lifting prices are not. Chart 7A Shortage Of Service-Sector Workers Has Boosted Wages And Services Prices A Shortage Of Service-Sector Workers Has Boosted Wages And Services Prices A Shortage Of Service-Sector Workers Has Boosted Wages And Services Prices In the US, supply effects are seen by observing services prices. Services prices in the US have risen despite a collapse in demand, pointing to supply-side effects as the dominant driver of higher prices. A significant decline in labor force participation has caused a shortage of workers, which is driving up wages for the first quartile of wage earners (the lowest paid) who often work in service-providing industries (Chart 7). Faced with higher labor costs alongside low operating margins and the expectation that demand will continue to recover, service providers have raised prices to stay afloat. The specific causes of the ongoing labor market shortage in the US are multifaceted, but most relate directly to the pandemic: There has been a surge in the number of retirees, mainly driven by a sharp slowdown in the number of older Americans (who are more vulnerable to COVID-19) shifting from “retired” to “in the labor force”. Workers in some sectors of the economy that experienced a surge in demand during the pandemic (technology, health care, food products, transportation, and manufacturing) have experienced burnout and have quit their jobs. Some service-sector workers have complained of difficult working conditions during the pandemic (the need to wear masks, the policing of masks and vaccination passports, overwork due to short-staffed conditions, negative interactions with customers, etc.) and have instead chosen not to work until these conditions improve. Some parents have been unable or unwilling to reenter the labor force due to increased childcare requirements resulting from daycare/school/classroom closures. Chart 8Fewer Immigrants = Higher Wages Fewer Immigrants = Higher Wages Fewer Immigrants = Higher Wages Chart 8 highlights that legal immigration to the US collapsed during the pandemic following a restriction in worker visas last year, which has also likely exacerbated worker shortages in some industries. Illegal immigration has surged over the past year, but illegal workers do not necessarily immediately enter the labor market and are often employed in a narrow set of industries. Mr. X: But if these supply-side effects that you are pointing to are mostly on the services side, does that not imply that goods inflation will remain very elevated next year due to excessive demand? BCA: No. As we mentioned, some of this goods spending is being funded by income that would normally go towards services spending. We doubt that a services spending deficit will be sustained if the pandemic recedes next year, meaning that some spending will naturally be diverted away from goods. Chart 9Supply-Side Effects Have Significantly Boosted Global Shipping Costs Supply-Side Effects Have Significantly Boosted Global Shipping Costs Supply-Side Effects Have Significantly Boosted Global Shipping Costs In addition, other supply-side factors are also impacting consumer prices for both goods and services, and on both sides of the Atlantic: Global shipping costs have surged, particularly for cargo containers traveling from China / East Asia to the west coast of the US. US demand for goods has certainly boosted shipping prices, but Chart 9 highlights that supply-side effects have also been present. The large rise in China/US shipping costs since late-June appears to have been caused by the one-month closure of the Port of Yantian that began in late-May, in response to an outbreak of COVID-19 in Guangdong province. Semiconductor shortages have limited automotive production, thereby significantly boosting US vehicle prices. These shortages have occurred, in part, due to a global surge in semiconductor demand stemming from work-from-home policies, but also demand/supply coordination failures last year (auto producers initially cut chip orders on the expectation of collapsing car sales) and COVID-driven plant shutdowns in some Asian countries such as Malaysia. Energy prices have risen this year, partially due to supply-side / policy decisions. In the case of oil & gasoline prices, OPEC’s production decisions clearly reflect a desire to maintain oil prices at roughly $80/bbl, 30% above the level that prevailed prior to the pandemic. US shale producers have focused on repairing their balance sheets over the past year, and have not been able to take advantage of higher prices to boost output. Chart 10 highlights that US tight oil production remains roughly 10% below its pre-pandemic peak. In Europe, the impact of higher energy prices has occurred mainly though a spike in the price of natural gas, mostly due to weather, carbon pricing, Russian supply issues, and a surge in China’s natural gas demand. Chinese natural gas demand has surged in response to very strong manufacturing activity / export demand, but also previous decisions by Beijing to shift towards cleaner energy sources and the limitation of coal imports from certain countries (which has contributed to a collapse in Chinese coal inventories). So while it is clear that there is a strong underlying demand component that has boosted goods prices, supply-side factors have magnified the acceleration in consumer prices this year. Most of these supply-side factors (except for oil) have been directly linked to the pandemic, and thus are likely to wane in 2022 if the pandemic recedes (as we currently expect). In the case of oil, our view is that spot prices in 2022 are likely to average the price that prevailed prior to the Omicron-driven collapse in prices, meaning that the energy component that has been boosting headline price indexes this year will likely disappear next year even if recent travel bans are not long lasting and oil prices fully recover. Ms. X: Even if the pandemic does recede in importance and household spending shifts from goods to services next year, you acknowledged that goods spending is also being boosted by policy. This implies that goods spending will remain above trend next year, and that it will continue to boost consumer prices. Doesn’t that argue for elevated inflation? BCA: We agree that several factors point to above-trend goods spending next year, and this is the basis – in addition to lingering supply-side effects – for our view that US inflation will likely be both above the Fed’s target as well as its forecast for 2022 (2.2% headline and 2.3% core). However, Chart 11 shows a historically unprecedented “goods spending gap” relative to the overall output gap. It is unlikely that this has occurred only due to stimulative policy. Services spending collapsed during the pandemic, as Chart 6 highlights. So while goods spending will likely remain above its trend, supported by policy as well as a large stock of excess savings, it is likely to decline next year. Chart 10US Shale Production Has Not Returned To Its Pre-Pandemic Level US Shale Production Has Not Returned To Its Pre-Pandemic Level US Shale Production Has Not Returned To Its Pre-Pandemic Level Chart 11US Goods Spending Is Much Too Strong To Be Explained By Policy Alone US Goods Spending Is Much Too Strong To Be Explained By Policy Alone US Goods Spending Is Much Too Strong To Be Explained By Policy Alone   Lower goods demand in advanced economies will not only ease rising goods prices. It will also help ease Europe’s energy crisis, as it implies less competition for natural gas from China’s power companies which are struggling to supply the manufacturing sector. Chart 12Short-Term Inflation Expectations Have Exploded; Long-Term Expectations Are Contained Short-Term Inflation Expectations Have Exploded; Long-Term Expectations Are Contained Short-Term Inflation Expectations Have Exploded; Long-Term Expectations Are Contained Ms. X: One thing that has concerned me is how significantly inflation expectations have risen. Won’t persistent price increases become self-fulfilling if consumers and businesses come to expect inflation? BCA: This is a risk, and the dynamic that you are referring to is explicitly incorporated into modern-day interpretations of the Phillips Curve. However, if this were likely to occur, we should be able to observe a dangerous rise in both short- and long-dated inflation expectations on the part of investors, businesses, and households. Chart 12 highlights that long-term inflation expectations are not out of control. Short-term expectations for inflation have indeed exploded higher, but longer-term expectations remain under control. Inflationary pressure during the pandemic has normalized longer-term household expectations for inflation, which fell following the 2014/2015 collapse in oil prices. And long-dated market-based expectations for inflation have not even risen back to pre-2014 levels, underscoring that investors do not believe that current inflationary pressures are likely to persist. A breakout in long-dated inflation expectations next year would negatively alter our monetary policy and economic outlook, but it is clear that economic agents believe that current price pressure is directly linked to the pandemic. We agree, for the most part, and thus expect concerns about inflation to step down next year. Mr. X: Let’s turn to the question of extremely elevated government debt. We discussed this issue last year, and you noted that the explosion in public debt loads would carry significant future costs. Governments have been kicking the can down the road for a long time now, and I am interested in your perspective about the timing of the endgame. When do you think the day of reckoning will arrive? BCA: It is true that government debt-to-GDP ratios have risen substantially over the past two decades, as a consequence of the fiscal response to both the global financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. This has been truer in the US and UK than in the euro area, which has seen a comparatively smaller rise in government net debt as a % of GDP since the early 2000s (Chart 13). In the US, the government debt-to-GDP is now nearly as high as it was at the end of the Second World War. Chart 13 Chart 13 also highlights that the IMF is forecasting a reduction in government net debt as a share of GDP in the euro area over the coming 5 years, a modest rise in the UK, and larger rise in the US. Over a 30-year time horizon, the US government debt-to-GDP ratio is projected by the US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to explode higher over the coming 30 years (Chart 14). Part of the CBO’s forecast of a catastrophic rise in government debt-to-GDP is due to projections of a persistent primary deficit that will grow over time. But it is also the case that the net interest component of the CBO’s projected deficit begins to rise significantly as a share of the total deficit at the start of the next decade. This rise in net interest payments occurs significantly because the CBO assumes that interest rates will eventually exceed the prevailing rate of economic growth due to crowding out effects (Chart 15). Chart 14The CBO's Long-Term Budget Outlook Is Dire... The CBO's Long-Term Budget Outlook Is Dire... The CBO's Long-Term Budget Outlook Is Dire... Chart 15...Partially Because Of The CBO's Interest Rate Assumptions ...Partially Because Of The CBO's Interest Rate Assumptions ...Partially Because Of The CBO's Interest Rate Assumptions   We doubt that this will occur, at least not in the linear fashion the CBO is projecting. It is true that central banks only control the short-end of the yield curve (absent yield curve control policies), meaning that investors could force yields on long-maturity government bond yields to rise above the prevailing level of nominal growth. But in a world of scarce absolute returns, it is unlikely that investors will price long-maturity US government bonds with an elevated term premium until the US government’s debt service burden becomes extreme. Given that a significant portion of the US government’s debt is issued with a short maturity, that debt service burden is at least partially a function of the Fed’s decisions, not those of bond investors. Chart 16US Taxes Are Low, Contributing To Its Primary Deficit US Taxes Are Low, Contributing To Its Primary Deficit US Taxes Are Low, Contributing To Its Primary Deficit An increase in real short-term interest rates over the coming several years might, ironically, be the best thing for US government debt sustainability over the long term, even though it would cause the US government’s debt service burden to rise. Ultimately, debt sustainability requires a balanced primary budget, and the structural US primary balance is heavily impacted by elevated medical costs and the fact that US government revenue as a share of GDP is considerably lower than in other countries (Chart 16). Given the political costs involved, primary balance reform in the US is unlikely to occur without some form of budgetary pressure from rising interest costs, and the longer the US government’s debt service burden remains low the longer that this reform is delayed. You asked about the timing of the endgame, and a potential tipping point may be when US government spending on net interest as a share of GDP exceeds the prior high reached in the early-1990s, which could occur as soon as 5 years from now were the Fed to raise interest rates towards the pace of nominal GDP growth.2Without such an increase, the US government’s debt burden will likely remain serviceable for decades, even without primary balance reform. Mr. X: I am happy that you referenced the Fed in your answer, because I wanted to address the question of central bank independence. Will elevated government debt prevent the Fed from raising rates if needed to control inflation? With the Fed projecting a very low Federal funds rate in the future, it seems like today’s central bankers may be incapable of acting as Volker did, should they need to do so. BCA: It is true that the Fed is projecting a very low average long-term Fed funds rate, but this projection is not due to political pressure or concerns about the US government’s future debt service burden. It reflects the Fed’s belief that the neutral rate of interest has fallen, based on the economic experience of the past decade, as well as the belief that an asymmetry exists in the economic costs of errors associated with estimating the neutral rate. On the latter point, the Fed believes that the cost of overestimating the neutral rate is likely to be higher than the cost of underestimating it, given the inability to cut interest rates meaningfully below zero. During our discussion last year, we noted that rising populism will make it very difficult for fiscal authorities to take preemptive action to address the US’s primary deficit, and it is possible that public opposition to normalized interest rates could cause the Fed to maintain easier monetary policy than is otherwise warranted – especially if the public perceives a link between Fed tightening and painful fiscal reform. However, our base case view remains that the Fed would resist these pressures, and would act in a way that the central bank felt was the best course of action to pursue its mandate. We would underscore that the risk of an overshoot in inflation from too-easy monetary policy does not require the Fed’s independence to become compromised. The Fed could be wrong in its assessment of the neutral rate of interest, and also wrong in its assessment of the costs of that error. Leaving the latter issue aside for now, there are good arguments in favor of the view that the neutral rate of interest is higher than the Fed currently believes. We can discuss those arguments in detail when we turn to the bond market outlook, but this does imply that inflation may be even more above the Fed’s target over the medium term than we believe will be the case next year. Ms. X: I have one last question related to inflation before we move on to your economic outlook. In terms of the usage of technology, the pandemic caused major behavioral changes to occur very quickly. Is it possible that we are on the cusp of a productivity boom, similar to what occurred during the 1990s, that will act to restrain inflation over the coming few years? BCA: It is possible that the pandemic has catalyzed some changes that will end up boosting productivity, given that many consumers, workers, and businesses were forced to embrace innovation quickly over the past 18 months. Governments have also made historic investments in both hard and soft infrastructure, including high-speed internet and renewable energy. But, for now, there is little evidence to support the idea that a major, technologically-driven productivity boom is occurring. Chart 17 Chart 17 highlights that measured productivity has fallen outside of the US since the pandemic began, and the US surge is likely explained by three factors: labor market composition effects, the fact that US productivity normally rises during recessions, and the fact that US fiscal response was more forceful than elsewhere (boosting spending and output relative to the number of workers). The cyclical characteristics of US measured productivity were particularly evident in Q3, when output per hour of all employees fell by roughly 5% on an annualized basis. It is also the case that the pandemic has likely lowered potential output in some areas of the economy, particularly sectors related to office worker presence in central business districts. Even if employer plans for workers to return to the office prevail and office presence increases significantly in 2022, it is very likely that some work-from-home activity will permanently stick and that this will structurally increase the US unemployment rate.3 For now, our sense is that this increase will be modest, but the key point is that the rapid adoption of new technology and ways of working during the pandemic have not occurred without cost, and it is far from clear that this will be productivity-enhancing on a net basis. The ongoing, typical pace of technological development may help ease inflationary pressures over the longer-term, but investors should not yet conclude that the pandemic has accelerated this process. The Economic Outlook Chart 18On Average, We Expect Above-Trend Growth In The DM World Next Year On Average, We Expect Above-Trend Growth In The DM World Next Year On Average, We Expect Above-Trend Growth In The DM World Next Year Ms. X: Thank you. I am not entirely sure that I am convinced, but I take your point that the productivity issue needs to be examined on a net basis. Let’s turn now to the outlook for growth next year. Starting first with developed markets, what do you expect in terms of the pace of economic growth, and how does that expectation differ from consensus market expectations? BCA: While we are less concerned about short-term inflation than most investors, we generally agree with consensus expectations for growth next year. Chart 18 shows that both official and private forecasts for real GDP growth in the US and euro area are well above trend, and that the US and euro area output gaps are likely to turn positive next year. In Q4 2021 and Q1 2022, it is possible that the Omicron variant will negatively impact economic growth. But assuming that the pandemic does recede in importance for the year as a whole, the basis for expecting above-trend growth in advanced economies next year is straightforward: we expect that monetary policy will remain extremely accommodative in the US and euro area, and will likely remain so even if the Fed begins to raise interest rates. In addition, the collapse in spending that occurred last year, arrayed against stable-to-higher income, has caused households to accumulate a massive amount of savings that will support consumption. Chart 19Households In The US And Europe Have Accumulated Excess Savings Households In The US And Europe Have Accumulated Excess Savings Households In The US And Europe Have Accumulated Excess Savings Chart 19 highlights that this has occurred in both the US and the euro area. In the euro area, income was relatively stable, and spending has yet to fully recover – supporting the view that a catch-up in European consumption will boost euro area growth to above-trend levels. In the US, personal income rose during the pandemic, because the US government issued stimulus checks to Americans who did not lose their job. Some of these excess savings have been spent or used to pay down debt, but a sizeable portion remains to support spending. Chart 20 highlights that US household net worth has exploded higher over the past 7 quarters, by a magnitude that far exceeds any other instance since the Second World War. It is true that fiscal policy will subtract from growth in both the US and euro area next year, although it remains an open question how much drag will occur in the US. Chart 21 presents the Hutchins Center Fiscal Impact Measure from the Brookings Institution, which suggests that US fiscal drag will be significant in 2022. This measure does not include the recent infrastructure bill, or the Build Back Better plan. However, Chart 22 presents the IMF’s projections for the US and euro area cyclically-adjusted budget balance, which suggest meaningfully less drag next year for the US. Chart 20US Household Net Worth Has Surged US Household Net Worth Has Surged US Household Net Worth Has Surged Chart 21 Chart 22 In the case of the euro area, Chart 22 highlights that the IMF is forecasting considerable fiscal drag next year, which seemingly contradicts optimistic expectations for euro area growth. There are two reasons to believe that euro area growth will be meaningfully above-trend in 2022, despite fiscal retrenchment. First, the IMF’s projected reduction in the euro area’s cyclically-adjusted primary deficit reflects the expiry of employment support programs such as the Kurzarbeit scheme in Germany, a social insurance program that incentivizes employers to reduce employee hours rather than laying off workers. The expiry of these types of programs is politically tied to a continued recovery in domestic consumption and further gains in service-sector employment, meaning that some of the fiscal drag projected in Chart 22 is necessarily linked to a growth impulse from the private sector. Certainly, these programs will be renewed or extended if the Omicron variant significantly weakens near-term economic growth in the euro area. Second, while the positive contribution to euro area growth from goods exports will likely wane over the coming year as spending in advanced economies shifts from goods to services, European services exports will eventually improve. Chart 23 highlights that the recovery in foreign tourist visits to the euro area is in its very early innings, and a normalization of tourist travel will eventually act as a significant contributor to income and employment growth in the region. According to the World Travel & Tourism Council, Europe was the third most impacted region globally from the decline in travel, after the Caribbean and Asia Pacific.4 It is clear that tourist travel will not pick up as long as Omicron-related travel bans are in effect, but Europe’s peak tourist season typically runs from June to August, which is beyond the range of time supposedly needed by vaccine manufacturers to produce Omicron-specific booster shots (should they be required). Chart 23European Tourism Will Eventually Recover, Adding To A Domestic Consumer Spending Tailwind European Tourism Will Eventually Recover, Adding To A Domestic Consumer Spending Tailwind European Tourism Will Eventually Recover, Adding To A Domestic Consumer Spending Tailwind Mr. X: I would like to challenge you on your growth view. First, the economy was already slowing, and now there is a risk that the Omicron variant might slow at least some economic activity even further in the near term. You have stated that there will be some degree of fiscal drag next year, and that savings might be deployed to support spending – but might not. Should I not be concerned that growth might fall back to trend or even below it? BCA: The pandemic was economically unprecedented, and investors should thus be careful about what growth rates are used to characterize the pace of ongoing economic activity. For example, Chart 24 highlights that euro area real GDP growth is slowing on a year-over-year basis, but it accelerated fractionally on a sequential basis in Q3 and grew substantially above-trend. It should not be surprising that advanced economies are no longer reporting double-digit growth rates given the ongoing recovery from extremely depressed rates of economic activity last year. The question is whether growth will slow dramatically further, and whether at or below trend growth is likely on average next year. Prior to the discovery of the Omicron variant, investors had little reason to be concerned about significantly below trend growth in 2022. Forward-looking economic indicators were not pointing to this outcome; Chart 25 shows our global Nowcast indicator, a high-frequency measure of economic activity that is designed to predict global industrial production, alongside our global leading economic indicator. The chart shows that both the Nowcast and global leading economic indicator (LEI) are indeed declining, but that this decline is occurring from an extremely elevated level. It is therefore correct to say that the global economy is at an inflection point in terms of the pace of growth, but Chart 25 still points to above-trend growth – and certainly not to a major cyclical downturn. Chart 24Growth In DM Economies Is Slowing, But Remains Above-Trend Growth In DM Economies Is Slowing, But Remains Above-Trend Growth In DM Economies Is Slowing, But Remains Above-Trend Chart 25Leading Indicators Continue To Point To Above-Trend Growth Leading Indicators Continue To Point To Above-Trend Growth Leading Indicators Continue To Point To Above-Trend Growth   The US economy did experience a very significant sequential slowdown in Q3, with activity having increased at only a trend rate. Chart 26 makes it clear that this occurred due to the impact of the semiconductor shortage on automotive production and the impact that the Delta wave of COVID-19 had on services spending. Real-time estimates for US growth in the fourth quarter are (for now) quite strong, and growth estimates for next year already likely incorporate the expectation of supply-side limitations. In fact, those expectations could surprise to the upside next year if these limitations ease more quickly than many investors currently expect, and if the Omicron variant turns out to be economically insignificant. If, however, the new variant does end up causing the return of lockdowns and other large-scale “NPIs” – especially in emerging market countries – the risk of further bottlenecks or an extension of existing supply-side problems will certainly rise. Chart 26 Chart 27 Ms. X: Could you provide us some scenarios that combine your growth and inflation views, as well as the odds that you would assign to them? BCA: Certainly. Chart 27 presents our odds of three scenarios for global growth and inflation next year. We assign a 60% chance to above-trend growth and above-target inflation, a 30% chance to a “stagflation-lite” scenario of growth at or below potential and inflation well above target, a 10% chance of a recession. We describe the second scenario as “stagflation-lite” because true stagflation, as experienced in the late-1970s, involved a very elevated unemployment rate. Using the US Misery Index as real-time stagflation indicator for advanced economies (Chart 28), investors should note that true stagflation is not likely unless the unemployment rate rises. Despite the ongoing impact of component and labor shortages, there is no evidence yet of a contraction in goods-producing or service-producing jobs. For now, the impact of outright component shortages appears to be limited to the auto sector. Chart 28It's Not True Stagflation Unless The Unemployment Rate Rises It's Not True Stagflation Unless The Unemployment Rate Rises It's Not True Stagflation Unless The Unemployment Rate Rises Even if goods-producing employment slows anew over the coming few months due to supply constraints, the unemployment rate is still likely to fall if services spending normalizes. This underscores the importance of services spending in advanced economies as a core driver of global economic activity over the coming year, given the ongoing weakness in several segments on China’s economy. Mr. X: My daughter and I have been closely watching China’s economy this year, and we have been getting increasingly concerned by the extent of the slowdown in activity there. Do you anticipate a pickup in Chinese growth in 2022? BCA: Yes, but a reacceleration in Chinese economic activity is more likely in the back half of next year than over the coming 6 months. There are three reasons for this. First, economic output in China will continue to be restrained over the coming months by the country’s ongoing energy crisis, which caused a sharp slowdown in electricity production in August (Chart 29). Production rebounded somewhat in September and October, but remained fairly weak. China’s energy crisis has occurred due to a combination of very strong electricity demand from the country’s manufacturing sector, as well as a significant reduction in coal emphasis, including coal imports from key producers that otherwise would have helped close the supply-demand gap (Chart 30). China’s coal stocks remain extremely low, underscoring that Chinese policymakers would not be capable of pushing through traditionally energy-intensive stimulus even if they were inclined to do so. Chart 29China's Energy Crisis Will Linger China's Energy Crisis Will Linger China's Energy Crisis Will Linger Second, strong external demand is supporting Chinese manufacturing employment (Chart 31), so Chinese policymakers feel less of a sense of urgency to boost economic growth despite a significant slowdown in China’s credit impulse and the ongoing slowdown in real-estate activity. Social stability will always remain the paramount objective of Chinese policymakers, and we fully expect a policy response if economic growth slows to the point that it impacts employment. Chart 30China's Energy Crisis: Strong Power Demand, Constrained Coal Supply China's Energy Crisis: Strong Power Demand, Constrained Coal Supply China's Energy Crisis: Strong Power Demand, Constrained Coal Supply Chart 31Strong External Demand Is Supporting Chinese Employment Strong External Demand Is Supporting Chinese Employment Strong External Demand Is Supporting Chinese Employment But because of the extreme rise in private-sector debt that has accumulated in China over the past decade, Chinese policymakers now perceive a tradeoff between economic growth and additional leveraging. This implies that the timing and magnitude of reflationary efforts from China’s policymakers are likely to be carefully calibrated to avoid a dramatic overshoot of credit growth, in line with what occurred in 2018 and 2019. In fact, while many investors regard China’s policy response during that time as having been too timid, within China many commentators have lauded it as an example of finely balanced decision-making. Third, China’s zero-tolerance COVID policy will likely remain in effect at least until the Beijing Olympics in February, and potentially until the 20th National Party Congress in October. The potential risk from the Omicron variant will only reinforce the resolve of Chinese policymakers on this issue, which implies that Chinese consumption and services activity could follow a stop-and-go pattern over the coming 6 months. Chinese policymakers are likely aware that a zero-tolerance policy towards COVID is ultimately unsustainable, but we expect policymakers to react aggressively towards outbreaks next year in advance of these two major events. Ms. X: It sounds like Chinese policymakers do not want to stimulate at all. Why is a reacceleration in activity even likely? BCA: We expect further easing from Chinese policymakers next year because the strong demand for Chinese goods that is currently supporting employment is likely to slowly wane over the coming several months. Chinese export volume has been very closely tied to US real goods consumption over the past year (Chart 32), which, as we noted earlier, is 9.8% above the level implied by its pre-pandemic trend. A likely decline in US goods spending from current levels, even if it remains above trend, suggests that Chinese manufacturing employment will not be as strong on average next year as is currently the case. Chart 33 highlights the extent of the weakness in China’s credit impulse and its real estate sector, underscoring that China is currently a “one-legged” economy that is supported by manufacturing. Chart 32China's Exports And US Goods Spending Are Closely Linked China's Exports And US Goods Spending Are Closely Linked China's Exports And US Goods Spending Are Closely Linked Chart 33China's Economy Is Now Entirely Supported By External Demand China's Economy Is Now Entirely Supported By External Demand China's Economy Is Now Entirely Supported By External Demand     In addition, for political reasons, policymakers in China are very likely to want stable-to-improving economic conditions in the lead up to the National Party Congress in October. Given the lags between the implementation of stimulus and its effect on the economy, this points to further easing and/or outright stimulus in Q1 or Q2, and a reacceleration in economic activity in the latter half of the year. Chart 34Inflation Expectations, Not Real Rates, Have Been Driving The Bond Market Inflation Expectations, Not Real Rates, Have Been Driving The Bond Market Inflation Expectations, Not Real Rates, Have Been Driving The Bond Market Ms. X: Let’s turn now to monetary policy. You mentioned that monetary policy will remain very easy next year, but investors have moved to price between one and two interest rate hikes from the Federal Reserve in 2022. Do you agree with the market’s assessment? BCA: Our base case view is that investors are now overly hawkish and that an initial rate hike will most likely occur only in September or December 2022 – despite a seemingly hawkish pivot from the Fed. It is important to note that investors have moved up their expectations for rate hikes next year entirely in response to elevated inflation. Chart 34 highlights that the sharp increase in the US 2-year Treasury yield over the past few months has occurred alongside a decline in the real 2-year yield, underscoring that investors believe that inflation will force the Fed to raise interest rates earlier than it currently expects. We expect the pressure on prices to wane next year rather than intensify, meaning that rate-hike bets have likely been driven by the wrong factor. A dangerous rise in long-dated inflation expectations would change our view and validate market pricing. But, as we noted above, this has not yet occurred despite very elevated inflation this year and expectations of elevated inflation next year. This underscores that economic agents view the current pace of inflation as strongly linked to the pandemic, and thus see it as a temporary phenomenon. Table 2The Fed’s Liftoff Criteria OUTLOOK 2022: Peak Inflation – Or Just Getting Started? OUTLOOK 2022: Peak Inflation – Or Just Getting Started? Table 2 presents the three factors that will determine when the Fed decides to lift rates, based on the Fed’s official forward guidance. The two inflation-related criteria are currently checked, but the remaining labor market criterion is not checked. The Fed has officially pledged not to lift rates until “maximum employment” is reached, although that pledge may change in December. Still, we expect that progress towards “maximum employment” will influence the timing of the first rate hike unless there are no signs of easing inflation over the next several months. Our sense is that an unemployment rate close to 3.8% and a working-age participation rate close to its pre-pandemic level will be required to check the third box shown in Table 2. Chart 35The Working-Age Participation Rate Still Has Further To Rise The Working-Age Participation Rate Still Has Further To Rise The Working-Age Participation Rate Still Has Further To Rise Importantly, it is not clear that these factors will be in place before September next year. Chart 35 highlights that while the working-age participation rate has moved back closer to its pre-pandemic level, it still has further to go. If the rate increases at the pace that occurred in the first half of this year, it would not return to its pre-pandemic level until August/September at the earliest, which would certainly narrow the window for two rate hikes next year. The bar for the Fed’s unemployment rate criterion is also high enough that betting on two rate hikes next year appears excessive. Table 3 presents the average monthly jobs growth needed to reach an unemployment rate of 3.8% at different points over the next year. This highlights that a meaningful and sustained acceleration in jobs growth is required for the Fed to raise interest rates in July. Table 3Calculating The Time To Maximum Employment OUTLOOK 2022: Peak Inflation – Or Just Getting Started? OUTLOOK 2022: Peak Inflation – Or Just Getting Started? Mr. X: But these projections are based on the overall participation rate, and we have seen a surge in retirements during the pandemic. Doesn’t that mean that the unemployment rate will fall faster than the Fed currently expects, and that investors are right to move up their rate hike expectations? BCA: We have seen a huge increase in the number of retirees, and you are correct that a more rapid reduction in the unemployment rate could occur if pandemic retirements turn out to be “sticky”. However, we would point to two facts that suggest at least a portion of the surge in retirements will reverse. Chart 36Retirements Have Significantly Overshot Their Demographic Trend Retirements Have Significantly Overshot Their Demographic Trend Retirements Have Significantly Overshot Their Demographic Trend First, the surge in retirement during the pandemic is more than what would be implied by underlying demographic trends. Chart 36 shows that while the share of the US population that is retired has been steadily rising, it is now significantly above its 2010-2019 trend. Second, a recent study from the Kansas City Fed suggests that the non-demographic component of the recent surge in retirements has mainly been driven by a decline in the number of retirees rejoining the labor force,5 a phenomenon that we would expect to reverse as the pandemic abates. If the Omicron variant turns out to be threatening to the health of the older population even if they have been vaccinated, then we would not expect retiree reentry into the labor force until variant-specific booster shots are available. Chart 37Investors Expect The ECB To Lag The Fed, And We Agree Investors Expect The ECB To Lag The Fed, And We Agree Investors Expect The ECB To Lag The Fed, And We Agree Uncertainty over the status of retired workers is why we believe the Fed will focus on the working-age participation rate in judging whether the labor market has returned to a state of maximum employment. If the unemployment rate falls more quickly than expected because of a retiree-effect on the overall participation rate, the Fed will then turn to the working-age participation rate to judge the extent of labor market slack. It is only if non-supply driven wage growth is excessive and/or long-dated inflation expectations move sharply higher that the Fed will move in line with current market pricing. Mr. X: What about the ECB? Do you expect any monetary policy tightening in the euro area in 2022? BCA: Chart 37 highlights that investors had previously been expecting the ECB to raise interest rates once next year, lagging the Fed by roughly one rate hike. These expectations have been dialed back recently in response to the COVID situation in Europe as well as the news about Omicron. Chart 38Euro Area Inflation Is Not Broad-Based Euro Area Inflation Is Not Broad-Based Euro Area Inflation Is Not Broad-Based We agree that the ECB will raise rates after the Fed does, but we do not think that a euro area rate hike will occur next year – even once the pandemic situation improves. As is the case for the Fed, investors had been expecting that the ECB will be forced to respond to very elevated inflation. But Chart 38 highlights that euro area core inflation is barely above 2%, and panel 2 makes it clear that the rise in core euro area prices is not broad-based. This underscores that much of the rise in euro area prices is driven by commodities and problems with the global supply chain, neither of which will be fixed by higher euro area interest rates. As such, we agreed with ECB President Christine Lagarde’s pushback against market expectations for a rate hike next year, barring a much faster labor market recovery in advanced economies than we currently expect. Bond Market Prospects Mr. X: Thank you. Our monetary policy discussion serves as an excellent segue to the bond market outlook, and a question that I have been eager to pose to you. I find it astounding that long-maturity government bond yields remained so low this year given the longer-term inflationary risk, and given recent bets that central banks would be forced to move earlier than they had previously anticipated. Even if those bets unwind as a result of Omicron, I would like an explanation of what kept bond yields so low this year. In particular, I would like you to share your thoughts about what could cause bond yields to eventually react to the potential for higher inflation? Chart 39Investors, And The Fed, Continue To Subscribe To The Secular Stagnation Narrative Investors, And The Fed, Continue To Subscribe To The Secular Stagnation Narrative Investors, And The Fed, Continue To Subscribe To The Secular Stagnation Narrative BCA: The behavior of long-maturity government bonds this year reflects the view of both the Fed and market participants that the neutral rate of interest (“R-star”) remains very low relative to the potential growth rate of the economy (Chart 39). According to the Federal Reserve’s Statement on Longer Run Goals And Monetary Policy Strategy, the FOMC “judges that the level of the federal funds rate consistent with maximum employment and price stability over the longer run has declined relative to its historical average.” Bond investors agree with the Fed’s view, bolstered by previously low academic estimates of the neutral rate of interest such as those presented by the Laubach-Williams model. We agree that R-star fell in the US for a time following the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), but it is far from clear that it remains as low as the Fed and investors believe. The neutral rate of interest fell during the first half of the last economic cycle because of a persistent period of household deleveraging and balance-sheet repair, which was a multi-year consequence of the financial crisis and the insufficient fiscal response to the 2008-09 recession. Academic estimates of R-star are misleading,6 and it is clear that US household balance sheets are now in a much better state than they were in the lead-up to the GFC. Debt to disposable income for US households has fallen back to 2001 levels (Chart 40), the ratio of total liabilities to net worth has fallen meaningfully for most income categories (panel 2), and the household debt service ratio is now the lowest it has been since the 1970s (Chart 41), underscoring the capacity of US consumers to withstand higher interest rates. It is true that the US corporate sector leveraged itself over the course of the last economic cycle, but at least some of this increase in debt has served to fund capital structure changes, rather than the accumulation of a large stock of “deadweight” excess capacity. Chart 40US Household Balance Sheets Are In Far Better Shape Than They Used To Be US Household Balance Sheets Are In Far Better Shape Than They Used To Be US Household Balance Sheets Are In Far Better Shape Than They Used To Be Chart 41The US Household Debt Service Burden Is At A 40-Year Low The US Household Debt Service Burden Is At A 40-Year Low The US Household Debt Service Burden Is At A 40-Year Low     Investors should certainly be on the lookout for signs that market expectations for “R-star” are rising, but it is not probable that this will occur before the Fed begins to normalize monetary policy. This means that the bond market outlook over the coming year is dependent on the market’s assessment of the timing and pace of Fed rate hikes. Ms. X: You noted earlier that you disagree with the bond market’s outlook for US rate hikes next year. What are the fixed-income portfolio implications of that view? BCA: It is possible that the Fed may begin raising interest rates as early as next summer, but this is only likely to occur if jobs growth meaningfully accelerates, the surge in net retirements during the pandemic is durably sticky (beyond any potential impact from the Omicron variant), or long-dated inflation expectations become unanchored. It is not likely to occur simply because actual inflation, driven significantly by supply-side factors, is elevated. Chart 42A Moderate Rise In US Long-Maturity Bond Yields Next Year A Moderate Rise In US Long-Maturity Bond Yields Next Year A Moderate Rise In US Long-Maturity Bond Yields Next Year For short-maturity bonds, the investment implications of this view are more focused on the real versus inflation components of yields, rather than the existence of major mispricing of 2-year Treasury yields. US government bond yields have risen both at the short- and long-end due to rising inflation expectations, and real yields have fallen. We expect a more significant rise in real than nominal yields over the coming year. As such, investors should sell 2-year inflation protection, which is currently pricing too tepid of a deceleration in the pace of advance of consumer prices. For 10-year US Treasurys, we expect that yields will rise to between 2-2.25% over the coming year, as the Fed moves towards eventual rate hikes. Chart 42 presents FOMC-implied fair value estimates for the 2-, 5-, and 10-year Treasury yield, and underscores that bond yields are set to moderately rise next year. We are uncomfortable with the Fed’s projection of a permanently lower neutral rate of interest, but we see no evidence yet that surging inflation is changing the market’s assessment of the long-run average Fed funds rate. So for now, we recommend that fixed-income investors maintain a short-duration stance, but we do not expect a very severe rise in yields at the long-end of the curve next year. Ms. X: And what positioning would you recommend within a global fixed-income portfolio? BCA: The likely sequencing of central bank rate hikes over the coming 12-18 months suggests that global fixed-income investors should maintain an underweight stance towards US, UK, Canada, and New Zealand, and an overweight stance towards Japan, Europe, and Australia. Among our overweight recommendations, our view that the ECB will lag the Fed makes a clear case to be overweight euro area versus US bonds (both core and periphery), and Chart 43 highlights that rising US bond yields have been strongly correlated with the outperformance of euro area government bonds in US$ hedged terms over the past five years. For Japan, long-maturity JGB yields are likely to remain flat over the next year as they have been since 2016, underscoring that our allocation to JGBs is a strict function of our global duration call (with a short duration stance favoring Japan). In Australia, expectations for monetary policy have turned aggressively hawkish over the past month, with markets now discounting multiple rate hikes next year. While there is a growing case for the RBA to tighten, there are still enough lingering uncertainties about the trajectory for growth and inflation for the RBA to credibly remain on the sidelines next year. As such, we recommend that investors fade the aggressive 2022 rate hike profile discounted in Australian interest rate markets by staying overweight Australian government bonds in global bond portfolios. Among our underweight recommendations, the fact that the BOE is likely to be the next major developed economy central bank to raise interest rates supports a reduced allocation to UK government bonds. Relative to global government bonds, long-dated gilts have recovered somewhat from their earlier selloff in anticipation of a rate hike in early November, but we expect renewed underperformance in 2022. Unlike in the US, long-dated UK inflation expectations are meaningfully above their average of the past 15 years (Chart 44), which is motivating the BOE’s hawkishness. In Canada, the labor market has fully recovered the jobs lost during the pandemic, and the BOC has grown very concerned about the housing market and the potential for low interest rates to further inflate an already excessive amount of household sector debt. We expect a first rate hike from the BOC in the first half of 2022. Chart 43Rising US Treasury Yields Translates To Hedged Euro Area Government Bond Outperformance Rising US Treasury Yields Translates To Hedged Euro Area Government Bond Outperformance Rising US Treasury Yields Translates To Hedged Euro Area Government Bond Outperformance Chart 44UK Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Not Contained UK Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Not Contained UK Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Not Contained Finally, a rate hike cycle has already begun in New Zealand, which also has an important link to the housing market. The New Zealand government has altered the remit of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) to more explicitly factor in the impact of monetary policy on housing costs, suggesting that the RBNZ will prove to be one of the most hawkish central banks in the developed world over the next couple of years as the central bank attempts to cool off housing demand. Chart 45Speculative-Grade Corporate Bonds Offer Better Value Speculative-Grade Corporate Bonds Offer Better Value Speculative-Grade Corporate Bonds Offer Better Value Ms. X: Given the reality of low government bond yields globally, corporate credit has become an increasingly important part of our fixed-income portfolio. My father and I have noticed that corporate bond spreads are very low; should we be making any changes to our allocation to corporate credit? The combination of above-trend economic growth and accommodative monetary policy provides strong support for corporate bond spreads. However, US investment-grade corporate bonds offer essentially no value, and we advise investors to seek out higher returns in speculative-grade corporates. The 12-month breakeven spread for US investment-grade bonds is currently at its 2nd historical percentile (Chart 45), and we currently expect excess returns for IG corporates versus duration-matched Treasuries to be capped at 85 bps. For US high-yield bonds, we recommend an overweight stance within a fixed-income portfolio. We estimate that spreads are currently pricing an expected default rate of 3.1%, assuming a 100 bps risk premium and a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt. Based on gross corporate leverage (pre-tax profits over total debt) and C&I lending standards, we model that the 12-month default rate will stay between 2.3% and 2.8% next year, below what the market currently discounts. Notably, the corporate default rate is tracking at an annualized rate of roughly 1.7% through the first ten months of this year, well below the estimate generated by our model. The accommodative monetary backdrop provided by the Fed will start to shift at some point in 2022. For now, an elevated 2/10 Treasury slope 85-90 bps suggests that monetary conditions are still accommodative, and our prior work suggests that corporate bond returns are typically strong when the slope is above 50 bps. But when the slope breaks below 50 bps, which could happen as soon as the first half of 2022, we will likely turn more defensive on corporate bonds. A flatter curve suggests a more neutral monetary backdrop, and with valuations already tight it will make sense to take some money off the table. The shifting US monetary policy backdrop leads us to favor European high-yield over US equivalents, as the ECB will be more dovish than the Fed next year. From a fundamental perspective, default rates are projected to be a bit lower in Europe in 2022 (around 2%) compared to the US, in an environment of solid nominal corporate revenue growth and still-moderate borrowing rates. Although valuations are hardly cheap on either side of the Atlantic, we do see better relative value in Ba-rated European junk bonds over similarly rated US credits. 12-month breakeven spreads for European Ba-rated high-yield are in the 38th percentile of its historical distribution, while US Ba-rated junk sits in the 24th percentile. Equity Market Outlook Mr. X: Thank you for your bond market comments. My view that bond yields have potentially much further to rise over the coming few years suggests that we will earn very little in the way of returns from our fixed-income portfolio, but the equity market outlook is no better. In fact, the medium-to-long term equity outlook is probably the worst that I have seen in a long time. Next year’s outlook is arguably bad as well; equity valuation is extreme, and you are forecasting a rise in long-maturity bond yields next year. In addition, you acknowledge that the longer-term term risks of inflation have risen, and believe that the Fed and investors are underestimating the neutral rate of interest. All of that seems wildly bearish to me! Chart 46US Revenue Growth Will Be Stout In 2022... US Revenue Growth Will Be Stout In 2022... US Revenue Growth Will Be Stout In 2022... BCA: Let’s address the longer-term outlook for stocks in a moment, and for now focus on what is likely to occur next year. Since the US equity market now accounts for 60% of global stock market capitalization, we will outline our US equity views first before turning to the rest of the world. The starting point for any cyclical view of the stock market should be one’s earnings outlook, and based on our economic view we agree with analyst expectations that US revenue growth will remain elevated next year relative to what has prevailed on average over the past decade (Chart 46). Above-trend growth and consumer price inflation point to revenue growth in the high single-digits, and this would normally serve as a conservative estimate for earnings growth given that profit margins have been trending higher since the beginning of the 2009 economic recovery. However, US profit margins have already risen to a new high both for the tech sector (broadly-defined) and ex-tech (Chart 47), and there are credible arguments in favor of an outright contraction in margins over the coming year.7 As such, we expect earnings growth to come in at or below revenue growth, which is currently expected to be about 7% next year. You referenced extreme overvaluation of the equity market, and Chart 48 highlights that the S&P 500 12-month forward P/E ratio is indeed now as high as it was during the stock market bubble of the late-1990s. But panel 2 of Chart 48 highlights that our proxy for the US equity risk premium (ERP) is in line with its historical average, in stark contrast to the lows that were reached in the late-1990s. Chart 47...But Profit Margins Are Extremely Elevated And May Fall ...But Profit Margins Are Extremely Elevated And May Fall ...But Profit Margins Are Extremely Elevated And May Fall Chart 48US Equity Multiples Are Extremely High, But The ERP Is Normal US Equity Multiples Are Extremely High, But The ERP Is Normal US Equity Multiples Are Extremely High, But The ERP Is Normal Chart 49Equity Multiples Are High Because Interest Rates Are Extremely Low Equity Multiples Are High Because Interest Rates Are Extremely Low Equity Multiples Are High Because Interest Rates Are Extremely Low These seemingly contradictory perspectives are resolved by the observation that real bond yields are extremely low today. It is reasonable to expect a structural decline in real bond yields over time given a structural decline in the potential growth rate of the economy, but Chart 49 highlights that real long-maturity yields are already substantially lower than estimates of trend growth. If we believed that real US government bond yields were set to rise by 200 basis points over the coming year, we would be categorically bearish towards stocks as it would imply a substantially lower P/E ratio. That, however, is very unlikely to occur while the Fed and investors subscribe to the secular stagnation narrative. While R-star is probably higher than the Fed and investors think, we do not think that these expectations will change before the Fed begins to normalize monetary policy. As such, while equity multiples may fall over the coming year in response to somewhat higher bond yields, we expect the decline to be relatively modest. Putting this all together, given our base case view that the pandemic will recede in importance next year, we expect mid-to-high single-digit returns from US equities in 2022 – the net result of robust revenue growth and some return compression from profit margins and equity multiples. Mr. X: You showed the equity risk premium over the past 40 years, which was a period of rising financialization. Given the complacency that I see in markets, especially about the longer-term outlook, I strongly question the view that investors are demanding a normal premium as compensation for potential future volatility. Do your conclusions hold up if you use a much longer time horizon? BCA: They do. Chart 50 shows a long-history estimate of the US equity risk premium based on Robert Shiller’s Irrational Exuberance dataset. This indicates that the ERP today is in line with its long-term median. We do not use the cyclically-adjusted P/E ratio in this calculation; Chart 50 is simply calculated as the 12-month trailing reported earnings yield minus the real long-maturity bond yield. The chart shows that the ERP was quite low in the late-1990s, and above average for several years following the Global Financial Crisis. The conclusion is that while the US P/E ratio is extremely high today, it is so for a very different reason than what occurred in the late-1990s. At that time, the equity risk premium was extremely low, whereas today equity multiples are high because of very low interest rates. You asked about the longer-term outlook for stocks, and Chart 51 presents a range of possible 10-year total returns for US equities, based on a 100-200bps rise in real long-maturity bond yields and revenue growth on the order of 4-5% per year. These scenarios also assume flat profit margins, a constant 2% dividend yield, and a constant ERP. Chart 50The US Equity Risk Premium Is Normal Even Based On 150 Years Of History The US Equity Risk Premium Is Normal Even Based On 150 Years Of History The US Equity Risk Premium Is Normal Even Based On 150 Years Of History Chart 51 These returns projections, on the order of 2-5% per year, would beat the returns offered by bonds and thus argue that investors should still be structurally overweight equities versus fixed-income assets. But they would also fall short of the absolute return goals of many investors, and thus we agree that the longer-term outlook for stocks is poor – unless the ERP falls dramatically as real interest rates rise. That would be calling for a return to the ebullient conditions of the late-1990s, and we struggle to envision how this could occur given the myriad economic and geopolitical risks today that did not exist at that time. Ms. X: I want to address the two important global equity calls that did not pan out quite how you expected when we spoke last year: regional equity allocation and value versus growth. What is your view about these positions in 2022? BCA: Financials did modestly outperform broadly-defined technology stocks in 2021, so elements of the value versus growth trade did pan out. But using the MSCI value and growth indexes as benchmarks, value did underperform, and the relative performance of global value versus growth this year has been strongly linked to the 30-year Treasury yield. This has not always been the case in the past, but this year very long-maturity bond yields have done a very good job at explaining the relative performance of value (Chart 52). In addition, Chart 53 highlights the strong correlation between the relative performance of the US equity market and the relative performance of growth since the onset of the pandemic, which is explained by the US’s comparatively large weighting in broadly-defined technology stocks. Chart 52Global Value Versus Growth Is Strongly Correlated With Interest Rates Global Value Versus Growth Is Strongly Correlated With Interest Rates Global Value Versus Growth Is Strongly Correlated With Interest Rates Chart 53Growth / Value Is Impacting Regional Equity Performance Trends Growth / Value Is Impacting Regional Equity Performance Trends Growth / Value Is Impacting Regional Equity Performance Trends     Given our view that long-maturity bond yields are set to rise next year, we find it difficult to bet against value in 2022. At a minimum, a window exists for value’s outperformance, and we do recommend that investors overweight value versus growth next year. Considerable debate exists within BCA about the longer-term outlook for the trend in style, but for next year the majority of BCA strategists expect value to outperform at least for a time. Ms. X: And what about the performance of US stocks versus the rest of the world? BCA: The close link between growth / value and US / global ex-US stocks over the past two years suggests that the US will underperform at some point in 2022 relative to its global peers, although we acknowledge that this case is harder to make. The US did underperform global ex-US in the first quarter of 2021, and again from April to June, but the underperformance eventually gave way to substantial US outperformance. By contrast, the outperformance of global value vs. growth was more sustained in the first half of the year, and the reversal of that performance has been more closely aligned with the trend in bond yields. Our best answer as a firm is that investors should maintain a neutral allocation to the US versus global ex-US for now, with a bias towards increasing exposure to global ex-US at some point next year. Roughly 70% of global ex-US equity market cap is accounted for by DM economies, with the remaining 30% in emerging markets. Given our China economic view, it is difficult to make the case for EM stocks in the first half of 2022. We see more significant easing in China, potentially in Q2, is the most likely upgrade catalyst for EM. Within DM ex-US, the euro area is the most significant region by weight, and there are two arguments in favor of euro area outperformance at some point next year. First, Chart 54 highlights that euro area earnings have more post-pandemic catchup potential than US stocks, suggesting that the US may not fundamentally outperform other DM economies in 2022. Second, Chart 55 highlights that euro area stocks are the cheapest that they have been relative to the US since early-2009 and 2012. In both of these cases, the euro area subsequently outperformed US stocks. Chart 54Euro Area Earnings Have More Catch-Up Potential Euro Area Earnings Have More Catch-Up Potential Euro Area Earnings Have More Catch-Up Potential Chart 55Euro Area Stocks Are Extremely Cheap, And Have Rallied From Similar Valuation Levels Euro Area Stocks Are Extremely Cheap, And Have Rallied From Similar Valuation Levels Euro Area Stocks Are Extremely Cheap, And Have Rallied From Similar Valuation Levels     As an additional point about richly valued US equities, it has been argued that a premium is warranted for US stocks given their comparatively high return on equity. But Chart 56 illustrates that this is not the case. The chart shows the relative price-to-book ratio for the US versus developed markets ex-US compared with regression-based predicted values based on relative return on equity. The chart clearly highlights that the US price-to-book ratio is meaningfully higher than it should be relative to other developed markets, underscoring that US stocks are expensive above and beyond what fundamental performance appears to justify. That perspective is echoed in Chart 57, which highlights that the US 12-month forward P/E ratio is 50% above that for global ex-US stocks. Chart 56The Premium Paid For US Stocks Is Not Justified By Higher Return On Equity The Premium Paid For US Stocks Is Not Justified By Higher Return On Equity The Premium Paid For US Stocks Is Not Justified By Higher Return On Equity Chart 57US Stocks Are Extremely Expensive, No Matter How You Slice It US Stocks Are Extremely Expensive, No Matter How You Slice It US Stocks Are Extremely Expensive, No Matter How You Slice It Given the news about Omicron, and the recent spike in COVID cases and natural gas prices in the euro area, it may be too early to position in favor of DM ex-US stocks versus the US. But a shift from US to global ex-US stocks should be on investors’ watch list for 2022. Chart 58Industrials Are Likely To Outperform Next Year Industrials Are Likely To Outperform Next Year Industrials Are Likely To Outperform Next Year Mr. X: What about sector positioning, and small caps? BCA: Cyclical sectors have significantly outperformed defensives this year, and we expect further outperformance in 2022. Defensive sectors tend to underperform when bond yields are rising, and we expect that certain cyclical industries will continue to outperform next year. In particular, banks tend to outperform the broad market when interest rates are rising, pent-up demand will boost the consumer services and automobile industries within consumer discretionary, and industrials will continue to benefit from the surge in capital expenditures, as evidenced by the sharp increase in US core capital goods orders (Chart 58). Resource stocks, on the other hand, may not meaningfully outperform in 2022, at least not consistently. We will discuss our commodity views in a moment, but we expect flat oil prices next year, and our views on China imply that metals and mining stocks may at least passively underperform in the first half of the year. While we generally favor cyclical sectors next year, Chart 59 highlights that the trend in the performance of cyclicals versus defensives (shown in equally-weighted terms) has moved well past its pre-pandemic level, and is now challenging its early-2018 high. Cyclicals have further room to move higher when compared with the levels that prevailed in 2010-2011, but that period reflected resource price levels that we do not expect over the coming year. As such, the performance of cyclicals is getting somewhat late, and we expect to rotate away from cyclical sectors at some point over the coming year. In terms of capitalization, Chart 60 highlights that investors should favor small cap stocks versus large caps over the coming year. The chart highlights that the relative performance of global small caps had rebounded to its pre-trade war levels earlier this year, before falling anew in response to the economic consequences of the Delta wave of COVID-19 and the decline in government bond yields. Abstracting from longer-term trends, small cap stocks tend to outperform large caps over 1-year periods when bond yields are rising, and this has been especially true over the past decade (middle panel). Chart 59Cyclicals Have Some Room To Move Higher Versus Defensives, But Not Much Cyclicals Have Some Room To Move Higher Versus Defensives, But Not Much Cyclicals Have Some Room To Move Higher Versus Defensives, But Not Much Chart 60Favor Small Caps Over Large Caps In 2022 Favor Small Caps Over Large Caps In 2022 Favor Small Caps Over Large Caps In 2022   Our view that government bond yields are set to rise next year, in combination with very attractive relative valuation (bottom panel), makes an overweight small cap stance one of our highest conviction positions with an equity allocation. Currencies And Commodities Mr. X: You mentioned earlier that you expect oil prices to be essentially unchanged next year from the levels that prevailed prior to the discovery of the Omicron variant. I would appreciate it if you could provide the basis for that view, and also your perspective on natural gas prices given how significantly that market is affecting the European economy. Chart 61We Expect Oil To Trade At -81/Bbl Next Year, On Average We Expect Oil To Trade At $80-81/Bbl Next Year, On Average We Expect Oil To Trade At $80-81/Bbl Next Year, On Average BCA: Let’s deal first with crude oil prices. First, it should be noted that we will not have good information on Omicron’s impact on oil demand for a few more weeks, which makes it difficult to assess demand for next year as a whole. Prior to this news, our ensemble supply and demand estimates for crude oil projected an increase in supply from core OPEC 2.0 producers in 2022, on target to return to pre-pandemic levels around the middle of the year. Production from non-core OPEC producers will likely be flat to modestly down, consistent with the downward trend that has been in place over the past decade. On the demand side, our base case view suggests flat-to-modestly higher consumption growth in the DM world, and a pickup in non-OECD demand around the middle or back half of the year. Chart 61 highlights that the net result of these forecasts implies that brent oil prices will average around $80-81/bbl next year, essentially flat from pre-Omicron levels. Geopolitical tension with Iran will most likely persist next year, which contributes to upside risk to our forecast. Clearly, Omicron contributes to downside risk. The fact that spot oil prices are likely to be flat next year does not mean that investors cannot profit from energy-related positions. Chart 61 also highlighted that the oil market is currently backwardated, with a downward sloping forward curve that is below our projected spot price for most of 2022. This means that investors can still profit from the roll yield, and we are comfortable recommending the pursuit of a dynamic roll strategy focused on energy contracts (such as the COMT ETF). On the natural gas front, we expect that spot prices will remain elevated through the winter, especially in Europe. The US Climate Prediction Center maintains 90% odds that La Niña will continue through the winter in the Northern Hemisphere, implying a colder-than-normal winter and thus higher-than-normal natural gas demand. Russia’s restriction of supply for geopolitical advantage can continue well in 2022. Chart 62 highlights that European natural gas storage is well below that of previous years, which has contributed to the almost 400% rise in prices this year. European natural gas prices are rising in part due to competition from China because of its power shortage, and are likely to remain high through the winter. Aside from higher-than-average temperatures through the winter months, a reduction in US import demand is the most likely catalyst for lower natgas prices in Europe. The Nord Stream 2 pipeline is unlikely to begin operations early enough to provide relief in H1 2022, although it is possible. Ms. X: One question that I have about the commodity outlook pertains to China. We discussed earlier how China’s economy has slowed this year, and yet metals prices remain in an uptrend. That seems like an aberration, and we would appreciate your thoughts on what is driving the disconnect. BCA: The behavior of industrials metals prices has indeed been confusing for many investors given the slowdown in Chinese economic activity, as evidenced by Chart 63. The annual growth rate of the Bloomberg Industrial Metals Spot Index remains surprisingly elevated given slowing economic activity in China and a meaningful decline in China’s credit impulse. Chart 62 Chart 63Metals Prices Are Seemingly Too High Given A Slowing Chinese Economy Metals Prices Are Seemingly Too High Given A Slowing Chinese Economy Metals Prices Are Seemingly Too High Given A Slowing Chinese Economy   What is missing from this picture is the fact that base metals inventories are very low, due in part to reduced refining activity in China. Charts 64 and 65 present two perspectives on copper inventories: the difference between global production and consumption of refined copper, and the level of warehouse and stock inventories tied to commodity exchanges. Both charts show that inventories have been drawn down heavily this year. Chart 64Global Metals Inventories Have Been Drawing Heavily This Year… Global Metals Inventories Have Been Drawing Heavily This Year... Global Metals Inventories Have Been Drawing Heavily This Year... Chart 65…And Exchange Inventories Are Very Low ...And Exchange Inventories Are Very Low ...And Exchange Inventories Are Very Low     Our expectation that China is likely to slow further over the coming few months arrayed against low metals inventories suggests that the Q1 outlook for metals prices is murky. But as we noted earlier, we expect a reacceleration in Chinese economic activity in the back half of 2022, implying that base metals prices are likely to be higher in 2022 on average. Over a multi-year horizon, we are quite bullish towards base metals – copper in particular – given the critical role that these metals will play in the push to decarbonize the global economy.8 Base metals capex will have to increase at the mining and refining levels to meet renewables and EV demand, and policymakers will need to work towards diversifying metals' production and refining to reduce the concentration risks that currently exist. We strongly suspect that higher prices will have a role in incentivizing higher base metals production, meaning that longer-term investors should follow a “buy copper on dips” strategy. Mr. X: You noted at the outset that gold fell in nominal terms this year, which was surprising to me. My expectation is that gold would have performed better than it did during a year with the strongest inflation in three decades. You referenced the dollar and real interest rates as drivers of the price of gold; please elaborate on that if you can, and what you expect to see from gold in 2022. BCA: It is not particularly surprising to us that the price of gold has fallen this year in the face of surging inflation. We agree that precious metals are a good hedge against inflation over the very long term, but over the cyclical investment horizon the volatility of gold vastly exceeds that of consumer prices. On this point, a comparison to the stock market is apt. It is often the case that changes in P/E ratios are the dominant drivers of equity returns over 6-12 month periods, and in the case of gold it is almost always the case that the real price of gold determines cyclical returns – not changes in the price level. Chart 66Gold Prices Likely Already Reflect An Expectation Of Rising Real Bond Yields Gold Prices Likely Already Reflect An Expectation Of Rising Real Bond Yields Gold Prices Likely Already Reflect An Expectation Of Rising Real Bond Yields Chart 66 highlights that real gold prices have been explained over the past 15 years by changes in the US dollar and especially real 10-year Treasury yields. The chart shows that gold prices are modestly lower today than this historical relationship would imply, possibly reflecting investor unease about the potential for monetary policy tightening next year (above and beyond what is currently reflected by real 10-year yields). Our view that real 10-year yields are likely to rise next year is thus ostensibly bearish for gold, but Chart 66 suggests that some of this effect may already be reflected in prices. As such, we expect that gold prices will be flat-to-modestly down, with the caveat that we would be aggressive buyers on any signs that one or more of today’s major geopolitical risks is materializing (e.g., conflict in the Middle East, Russia’s periphery, or China’s periphery). Chart 67Real Gold Prices Are Extremely Elevated Relative To Their History Real Gold Prices Are Extremely Elevated Relative To Their History Real Gold Prices Are Extremely Elevated Relative To Their History Over the longer term, Chart 67 highlights that real gold prices are extremely elevated relative to their history. This largely reflects the fact that real interest rates are well below trend rates of economic growth. As such, we are bearish towards gold prices over the secular horizon, given our expectation that real interest rates are likely to move higher over the longer-term. Ms. X: What is your outlook for the US dollar next year? BCA: We recommend that investors stick with short US dollar positions for 2022. However, we acknowledge that the dollar may remain strong over the coming few months, which may persist as long as investors expect near-term economic weakness in the euro area. The Omicron variant impact on global travel, surging COVID cases, and European natural gas prices will likely cause negative near-term economic surprises, but we do not expect these conditions to last over the coming 12 months. Chart 68EUR-USD Is Pricing Too Much Of A Widening In Real Bond Yield Differentials EUR-USD Is Pricing Too Much Of A Widening In Real Bond Yield Differentials EUR-USD Is Pricing Too Much Of A Widening In Real Bond Yield Differentials Versus major currencies, the broad trend in the dollar tends to be dominated by the USD-EUR exchange rate, and the recent collapse in the euro has contributed to the broad-based rise in the dollar. Chart 68 highlights that the euro area / US real 10-year government bond yield differential has done a good job of predicting the EUR-USD exchange rate since the Global Financial Crisis, and the chart highlights that the euro has fallen 5% below what this relationship would imply. Using Chart 68 as a guide, current pricing of the euro suggests that investors expect a 40 bps decline in the real 10-year yield differential. We expect US long-maturity real yields to rise on the order of 60-70 bps over the coming year, but the recent behavior of the euro is only fair if euro area real yields are mostly unchanged next year. We would bet against such an outcome, as the economic conditions that will eventually cause the Fed to raise interest rates also imply better economic outcomes for the euro area. Chinese economic growth is likely to be better in the second half of next year, which will boost global growth, and euro area consumers also have ample savings at their disposable to support consumer spending. The fact that euro area stocks have more earnings upside relative to pre-pandemic levels also argues against the dollar from the perspective of equity portfolio flows. Chart 69US Dollar And Indicator The US Dollar Is Overbought US Dollar And Indicator The US Dollar Is Overbought US Dollar And Indicator The US Dollar Is Overbought Three additional factors support a bearish dollar view beyond a near-term period of temporary dollar strength. The first is that the Fed is likely to lag the Bank of England and Bank of Canada in terms of moving towards normalizing monetary policy, a bearish outlook for USD-GBP and USD-CAD. The second factor is that the US dollar is normally a counter-cyclical currency, and recent dollar strength is implying a degree of equity market weakness that we do not expect next year. Third, Chart 69 highlights that the US dollar is on the verge of entering extremely overbought territory, underscoring that euro bearishness is likely overdone. Mr. X: My daughter and I have been debating adding cryptocurrencies to our portfolio. As you might guess, she sees promise in cryptos, whereas I see them as a bubble waiting to burst. What are your thoughts? BCA: We have had a similar debate at BCA. There is little doubt that the blockchain technologies underpinning cryptocurrencies are here to stay. The only question is whether cryptocurrencies themselves are worth investing in. Bitcoin has doubled in price seven times since the start of 2016. If it were to double just one more time to $120,000, it would be worth $2.1 trillion, equal to the entire stock of US dollars in circulation. The easy profits in this sector have already been made. Then there is the issue of competition. Many new cryptocurrencies have emerged on the scene since Bitcoin was invented more than a decade ago. Ethereum is the best known, but others such as Solana, Cardano, XRP, and Polkadot are arguably technologically superior. If one invests in this space, at a minimum, one should buy a basket of cryptos, similar to what one would do if one were betting on a new technology but did not know which specific company would ultimately prevail. Mr. X: What about regulation? Is it not just a matter of time before the hammer comes down on the whole sector? BCA: China has banned cryptos, but they continue to thrive, so the sector has proven itself quite resilient to government scrutiny. In fact, regulation could help cryptocurrencies gain the air of respectability, while attracting more institutional investment in the sector. The bigger issue is again, competition, but this time from central banks. Most major central banks are working to develop their own digital currencies. Also keep in mind that governments derive a lot of revenue from “seigniorage” – the ability to create money out of thin air. They would not want to lose that revenue. Mr. X: I am all in favor of depriving governments of the ability to print as much money as they want. But if I wanted to hedge this risk, I would buy gold. BCA: We are inclined to agree, with the caveat that gold itself is already expensive insurance against monetary debasement. Geopolitics Ms. X: I am not sure that I find your arguments about cryptocurrencies to be compelling, but I sense that this is a topic upon which we will have to agree to disagree – at least for now. Perhaps we can close out our discussion with your geopolitical outlook, and what risks my father and I should be most attuned to. Chart 70 BCA: As an overall summary of our view, we contend that the international system will remain unstable in 2022. Global multipolarity – or the existence of multiple, competing poles of political power – is the chief destabilizing factor, and is the first of three geopolitical themes that will persist next year and beyond. Multipolarity – or great power struggle – 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 (Chart 70). China’s GDP has risen to the top in purchasing power terms and will do so in nominal terms in around five years. China’s potential growth is slowing and financial instability will be a recurring theme in 2022 and beyond. But that very fact is driving Beijing to try to convert the past 40 years of economic success into broader strategic security. Since China is ultimately capable of creating an alternative political order in Asia Pacific, the United States is belatedly reacting by penalizing China’s economy and seeking to refurbish alliances in pursuit of a containment policy. Russia and other nationalist powers are also drivers of multipolarity. Chart 71Hypo-Globalization, Our Second Geopolitical Theme Hypo-Globalization, Our Second Geopolitical Theme Hypo-Globalization, Our Second Geopolitical Theme The second geopolitical theme is “hypo-globalization,” in which globalization fails to live up to its potential. The trade intensity of global growth peaked with the Great Recession in 2008-10. The stimulus-fueled recovery in the wake of COVID-19 is seeing a trade rebound, which is positive for corporate earnings. But the upside will be limited by the negative geopolitical environment (Chart 71), which makes nations fearful of each other and hungry for self-sufficiency. The 2010s witnessed a retreat from globalization as developed economies saw private debt bubbles unwind, while emerging economies saw trade manufacturing unwind. Anti-globalization movements entered mainstream politics, in both democratic and authoritarian countries, from the East to the West. Today governments are not behaving as if they will engender a new era of ever-freer movement and ever-deepening international linkages. For example, the trade war between the US and China has morphed into a broader competition that limits cooperation to a few select areas, despite a leadership change in the United States. The further consolidation of central government power in China will exacerbate distrust. Chart 72The Risk Of Populism, Our Third Geopolitical Theme, Is Significant In Emerging Markets The Risk Of Populism, Our Third Geopolitical Theme, Is Significant In Emerging Markets The Risk Of Populism, Our Third Geopolitical Theme, Is Significant In Emerging Markets A third theme is populism, or anti-establishment political sentiment, which we discussed at length last year and is likely to escalate in 2022. Even as unemployment declines, the rise in food and fuel inflation will make it difficult for low wage earners to make ends meet. Most of the developed markets have elected new governments since the pandemic, allowing voters to vent some frustration. But many of the emerging economies are either facing elections or have non-responsive political systems. Either way they may fail to address household grievances. This will be a source of social instability and economic uncertainty in the coming years. The “misery index,” which combines unemployment and inflation, spiked during the pandemic and stands at 15% on average for the major emerging markets, up from around 13% in 2016. The same countries have stimulated their economies, feeding inflationary pressures (Chart 72). Just as the “Arab Spring” unrest destabilized the Middle East and North Africa in the years after the Great Recession, so will new movements destabilize this region or other regions in the wake of COVID-19. Regime failures lead to wars and waves of immigration, which in turn create larger policy changes that can impact markets. Ms. X: What are the investment implications of your geopolitical views? BCA: These three themes – great power struggle, hypo-globalization, and populism – 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 leads 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 inflation expectations, which is also possible. For example, China’s historic confluence of internal and external political risks has already led to growth disappointments and financial instability. A conflict over the Taiwan Strait, which cannot be ruled out, could begin with deflation and end in inflation, as wars often do. Chart 73 In this respect two geopolitical risks are worthy of repeating: Russia and Iran. Energy producers gain leverage as global energy supplies grow tight. That is why global conflicts, especially those involving petro-states, tend to rise and fall in line with oil prices (Chart 73). This will most likely be the case in 2022. Both of these states 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. If these conflicts explode, they can lead to energy price shortages or shocks, which would clearly raise the odds of the stagflation-lite scenario that we described earlier. Conclusions Mr. X: Thank you very much for another interesting and thorough discussion of the outlook. Our discussion has not swayed me from my deep-seated concern that inflation over the medium-term will be much higher than investors think, and that there are likely to be enormous consequences from this for financial markets. You also acknowledged the long-term risk from a future rise in real interest rates – I suppose I simply see this risk materializing sooner than you do. Ms. X: Even if inflation is only moderately higher over the coming decade, say around 3% on average, that would still seem to have important implications for real portfolio returns. The main purpose of our meeting has been to discuss what will occur in 2022, but last year you provided us with long-term return projections across several asset classes compared with realized historical returns. An update to that would be very much appreciated. BCA: Table 4 presents an update of our long-term return projections based on a 3% inflation scenario, incorporating an allocation to alternative assets. As you highlighted, the projected real portfolio return is just 1% per year over the coming decade, compared with a 6.3% annualized historical real return. The table highlights an important dilemma for investors, which is that government bonds will offer very poor real returns over the coming decade if inflation is higher on average than it has been. Government bonds have traditionally been the core safe-haven assets in investor portfolios, underscoring that global investors may have to accept more volatility to achieve their desired return goals. In our view, this should come in the form of a reduced strategic allocation to US stocks within an equity portfolio, and an increased allocation to alternative assets such as real estate and alternative investments. Table 4Long-Term Return Scenarios In A World With 3% Inflation OUTLOOK 2022: Peak Inflation – Or Just Getting Started? OUTLOOK 2022: Peak Inflation – Or Just Getting Started? Ms. X: Thank you. In conclusion, could you summarize your main economic and investment views for 2022? BCA: It would be our pleasure. Our main points are as follows: The COVID-19 pandemic is likely to recede in importance next year. The effect of the recently discovered Omicron variant remains unknown, but we expect any negative economic impact that occurs to be limited to the first half of the year. The existence of effective anti-viral treatments, that are not affected by the virus’s mutation, should help limit the impact of Omicron on the medical system. A receding pandemic will lay the groundwork for a more normal labor market, prices, and the supply of both goods and services. Investors are overestimating the magnitude of inflation over the coming 12 months, and we expect actual inflation will come in lower next year than what short-maturity inflation expectations are currently suggesting. Economic growth in advanced economies will be above-trend for the year on average, and we expect the US and euro area output gaps to close in 2022. Any economic activity disrupted by Omicron in the first half of 2022 will likely shift into the second half of the year. Above-trend growth will be supported by easy monetary policy, a shift in spending from goods to services, and a sizeable amount of excess savings that will support overall consumer spending. A reacceleration in Chinese economic activity is more likely in the back half of next year than over the coming 6 months. China is currently a “one-legged” economy that is supported by external demand, and a shift in advanced economy consumer spending from goods to services may be the catalyst for more aggressive easing from policymakers. Stocks will outperform bonds in 2022, but equity market returns will be in single-digit territory – the net result of robust revenue growth and some return compression from profit margins and equity multiples. Equity market volatility may rise in the lead-up to US monetary policy tightening at the end of the year, but we expect only a moderate rise in long-maturity bond yields – which will not threaten economic activity or cause a major decline in equity multiples. Fixed-income investors should maintain a short duration stance, and position for lower inflation expectations and higher real rates (especially at the short end of the curve). We recommend selling short-maturity inflation protection. Within a government bond portfolio, overweight Europe (core and periphery), Japan, and Australia. Underweight the US, UK, Canada, and New Zealand. Within a credit portfolio, favor speculative-grade over investment-grade corporate bonds, and European Ba-rated European junk bonds over similarly rated US credits. Equity investors should favor small cap over large cap stocks in 2022. Small cap stocks tend to outperform large caps over 1-year periods when bond yields are rising, and relative valuation levels are attractive. We generally favor cyclical sectors next year, but stretched relative performance versus defensives means that we expect to rotate away from cyclical sectors at some point over the coming year. A window exists for value’s outperformance versus growth in 2022 in response to higher long-maturity government bond yields, and we do recommend the former over the latter. Investors should maintain a neutral allocation to the US versus global ex-US for now, with a bias towards increasing exposure to global ex-US at some point next year. An underweight stance towards EM stocks in 1H 2022 is appropriate until clearer signs of Chinese policy easing emerge. Within DM ex-US, we expect euro area outperformance at some point next year: euro area earnings have more post-pandemic catchup potential than US stocks, and relative valuation argues for a euro area bounce. Aside from the potential for Omicron-related near-term economic weakness, a shift in investor expectations for the terminal Fed funds rate is a risk that investors should monitor. Our judgement is that this will probably not occur before the Fed begins to normalize monetary policy. Brent oil prices will average around $80-81/bbl next year, essentially flat from pre-Omicron levels. The oil market is currently backwardated, meaning that investors should pursue a dynamic roll strategy focused on energy contracts. European natural gas prices are likely to remain high through the winter. Aside from higher-than-average temperatures through the winter months, a reduction in US import demand is the most likely catalyst for lower natgas prices in Europe. The outlook for base metals in the first half of 2022 is murky. Metals inventories are low, but China is likely to slow further over the coming few months. Our expectation of a reacceleration in Chinese economic activity in the back half of 2022 means that, on average, base metals prices will be higher in 2022. We expect that gold prices will be flat-to-modestly down next year, although we would be aggressive buyers on any signs that one or more of today’s major geopolitical risks is materializing (e.g., conflict in the Middle East, Russia’s periphery, or China’s periphery). The US dollar may remain strong over the coming few months, depending on the extent of the economic impact from the Omicron variant. Beyond that, the dollar’s countercyclical nature, above-trend global growth, and overbought conditions suggest that investors should bet on a lower dollar. The international system will remain unstable in 2022. Multipolarity, “hypo-globalization”, and populism will remain important geopolitical themes next year (and beyond). The Editors December 1, 2021   Footnotes 1   “South African doctor who raised alarm about omicron variant says symptoms are ‘unusual but mild,” The Telegraph, November 27, 2021. 2   Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "In COVID’s Wake: Government Debt And The Path Of Interest Rates," dated April 29, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "Work From Home “Stickiness” And The Outlook For Monetary Policy," dated June 24, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4  June 2021, “Global Economic Impact Trends 2021”, World Travel & Tourism Council 5  What Has Driven the Recent Increase in Retirements? by Jun Nie and Shu-Kuei X. Yang, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Economic Bulletin, August 11, 2021. 6  Please see Global Investment Strategy "Revisiting The Neutral Rate Of Interest: A Contrarian View In A Time Of Crisis," dated March 20, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 7   Please see US Equity Strategy "Marginally Worse," dated October 11, 2021, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 8  Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy "COP26 Meets During Policy-Induced Crisis," dated October 28, 2021, available at ces.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Few emerging market peers have a track record of democracy like India does. Russia and others have long histories of political instability and one-man rule. Several large EMs have experienced stints of military rule in the post-WWII era. While India’s democratic credentials are real, these should not be exaggerated. India’s political system suffers from some structural and cyclical vulnerabilities. These imperfections deserve attention today, more than ever, given that India trades at a record premium to peers. From a strategic perspective, we remain Buyers of India. India’s democratic traditions will lend political stability as the country’s economic heft grows. However, on a time horizon, we recommend paring exposure to Indian assets. A loaded state election calendar awaits in 2022, which will be followed by crucial state elections in 2023 and general elections in 2024. While we expect the incumbent political party to retain power in 2024, history suggests that the road to general elections is paved with policy risks. Policymakers tend to shift attention from market friendly-reform to voter-friendly policies as these key state elections approach. Additionally, geopolitical risks for India are ascendant as dangerous transitions are underway to India’s west and east too. Feature Chart 1 Investors regard India as being exceptionally well-off on political parameters. It is viewed by many as the blue-eyed boy of emerging market democracies. And for good reason. Despite its massive population and very low per capita incomes, India has remained a functional democracy for over seventy years. Democratic political regimes are a relatively new trend. The number of democracies began exceeding the number autocracies in the world only very recently in 2002 (Chart 1). India was one of the earliest adopters of this trend compared to emerging market peers. Its democratic traditions are so well-entrenched now that they are comparable to those of some of the most developed economies of the world (Chart 2). To add to these democratic credentials, every government at the national level in India has completed its full five-year term since 1999, thereby offering stability. Investors greatly value the political stability that India offers. While political stability is only one factor that investors consider, India has traded at a 28% premium relative to democracies and a 67% premium to non-democracies like Russia and China over the last decade (Chart 3). Chart 2 ​​​​ Chart 3 ​​​​​​ In this report we highlight that while India’s democratic credentials are real, these should not be exaggerated. The political system in India is solid but far from perfect. It suffers from both structural and cyclical vulnerabilities. These imperfections deserve attention today more than ever, given that India trades at a record premium to peers (Chart 3). Also, a closer look at India’s political system is warranted given that both geopolitical and macroeconomic risks for India are ascendant. With India, the devil always lies in the details. India is the largest democracy of the world but is also one of the few large democracies that follows a first-past-the-post (FPTP) method of determining election winners and has no effective limit on the number of political parties that can contest elections. Most democracies, either combine an FPTP system with natural or legislative limit on the number of competing political parties (such as in the case of UK and US) or rely on a non-FPTP system, with specific vote thresholds to enter Parliament. The combination of an FPTP system along with a system that allows multiple small political parties to exist entails challenges and makes the system vulnerable to some structural policy problems that are often overlooked. These include: A Tendency To Go All-In: An FPTP system means that at an election, the contestant with the highest number of votes is declared the winner even if the victory margin is very low. For instance, the narrowest victory margin recorded at an Indian constituency-level election is a mere 9 votes! Such a system where the winner takes all, irrespective of the victory margin, creates perverse incentives for contesting candidates to go all-in on populism ahead of elections. Indian elections have thus seen candidates offer everything from food and free laptops, to free alcohol and hard cash, in a bid to woo voters in the run up to elections. Too Many Players Can Spoil The Election: An FPTP system alongside a multi-party system can lead to very high degrees of political competition. While competition is usually a virtue, very high levels of political competition tend to fragment the electorate. Owing to these reasons, political competition in India tends to be very high in general. For instance, the last two general elections in India saw 15 candidates contest from each constituency on average. This compares to an average number of contestants from each constituency being 5 for UK or 6 for Canada. The problem with this fragmentation is that the victorious politician may lack a strong popular mandate. Smaller Indian states bear the brunt of this problem. The smaller the state, the cost of the pre-election campaign is lower, so the number of contestants shoots up in smaller regions (Chart 4). Chart 4 Rent-Seeking Becomes A Necessity: Such a system which combines FPTP and no major entry barriers for contestants arguably encourages rent-seeking behavior, which election winners frequently display. Populist spending promised by candidates to lure voters ahead of elections can be very high, especially when political competition is stiff. Winners then are keen to recover this “sunk cost” and to create a war chest for the next election. This prompts the rent-seeking that often becomes a necessity for candidates who run expensive election campaigns. To conclude, few emerging market peers have a sustained track record of democracy like India does. Russia and others have long histories of both political instability and one-man rule. Brazil, Turkey, Thailand, South Korea, Taiwan, and Indonesia have all experienced stints of military rule and revolutions in the post-WWII era. Whilst India’s political stability credentials are solid, the existence of high degrees of political competition alongside high degrees of social complexity will spawn both structural and cyclical policy risks in India. Navigating India’s Political Peculiarities It is heuristically convenient to assume that policy risks in India are uniform across time. However, in this report, we highlight that policy risks for India hardly tend to be the same through the five-year term of a political party in charge at the national level. The five-year term of any central government in India is paved with cyclical policy risks. The good news is that there is a method to the madness. We present a simple method to identify a “pattern” to the cyclical policy risks: We break down India’s general election cycle into a five-year sequence. Year 1 is defined as the year after a general election takes place (such as 2020) and Year 5 is defined as the year in which a general election takes place (such as 2019 or 2024). (See the Appendix for a quick overview of India’s political system.) Given that India has 28 states and a state government’s term lasts five years, about six state elections are held each year. After identifying this five-year sequence, we then identify specific states that become due for state elections during this five-year period. Such a characterization of India’s election cycle shows how the five-year period from one election to the other is hardly the same. In fact, it becomes clear how policy risks tend to be definitively elevated in the years leading up to a general election. Year 3 in such a framework sees elections in some of India’s largest states (size), India’s politically most sensitive states (sensitivity), and India’s socially most complex states (complexity). 2022 will mark the beginning of Year 3 of the current five-year cycle and will see: Size: The most loaded state election schedule which will affect more than a quarter of India’s population (Chart 5). Sensitivity: Elections take place in most of India’s northern region (Chart 6), which is a key constituency for the ruling Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP). Chart 5 ​​​​​​ Chart 6 ​​​​​​ Complexity: Elections take place in some of the most socially conflict-prone states such as say Manipur (Chart 7). Year 3 of India’s cycle is also worth bracing for as it typically sees the policy machinery’s attention shift away from big-ticket reform to populism. This is probably because Year 4 sees some of the poorest states in India undergo elections (Chart 8) and then Year 5 sees a general election. Chart 7 ​​​​​​ Chart 8 ​​​​​​ What becomes clear now is that India is set to enter the business-end of its five-year election cycle in 2022. So, what specific policy changes should investors expect? The Road To Elections … Is Paved With Policy Risks Irrespective of the political party in power at the centre, populism as a theme tends to become more defined in the two years leading to a general election in India. For instance, history suggests that government spending in the two years leading up to a general election tends to be higher than in the previous three years (Chart 9). The last time this theme did not play out was in the run up to the elections of 2014 when in fact the incumbent i.e., the Indian National Congress (INC) lost elections to the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP). Distinct from the fiscal support to the economy that tends to rise in the run up to elections, it is notable that even money supply growth, inflation to an extent and even the pace of Rupee depreciation tends to be faster in India in the years leading up to a general election (Chart 10). Chart 9 ​​​​​​ Chart 10 The run up to Year 3 and Year 4 of India’s election cycle also tends to see the announcement of voter-friendly policies that may not necessarily be market-friendly. Examples of this phenomenon include: Record Increase In Revenue Spends Ahead Of 1999 General Elections: In 1998 the-then Finance Minister oversaw a whopping 20% year-on-year increase in revenue expenditure. This is almost double the average growth rate of 13% seen in this metric over the last 25 years. Farm-loan Waiver Ahead of 2009 General Elections: In 2008 i.e., the year before the general elections of 2009, the Indian National Congress (INC)-led central government announced its decision to write off farm loans of about $15 billion (in inflation-adjusted terms today). Demonetization Decision Ahead Of 2017 Uttar Pradesh State Elections: The BJP-led central government announced its decision to demonetize 86% of currency in circulation in November 2016 in a bid to prove the government’s commitment to crackdown on black money. GST Rate Cuts Ahead Of 2017 Gujarat State Elections: The Goods and Services Tax (GST) council announced a cut in the GST rate for over 150 items in November 2017. This was ahead of Gujarat state elections that were due in December 2017. Such decisions are known to work with voters. The incumbent political party that announced these policy decisions, in each of the three cases cited above, won the elections that they subsequently contested. Just last week, the Indian Government decided to repeal farm sector reform related laws which it had announced a year ago. It is not entirely coincidental that this pro-voter decision has been announced just a few months ahead of critical state elections due in 2022. Key State Elections To Watch In 2022 Chart 11 State elections are due in seven states in India in 2022. State elections due in 2022 will have an indelible impact on India’s policy outlook for 2022 because the BJP is the incumbent party in most of these states and BJP’s popularity has suffered because of the pandemic (Chart 11). The government’s decision last week to roll back farm sector reform is a great example of this phenomenon. Of all the state elections due in 2022, the two key elections that will have the biggest bearing on the 2024 general elections will be the elections in Uttar Pradesh in February 2022 and in Gujarat in December 2022. BJP’s popularity in these states should be closely watched to get a better sense of the 2024 general election outcome. The BJP won about 80% of the cumulative seats these two states offer at the 2019 general elections. At the last state elections held in Uttar Pradesh in 2017, the BJP stormed into power in the state, winning 77% of seats. BJP’s entry into power there was symbolic as the road to New Delhi is said to pass through this state (Chart 12). Gujarat on the other hand has been a BJP stronghold and PM Modi began his political innings as the chief minister of this state. Despite being in power in Gujarat for over two decades, the BJP managed to retain power in this state at the last elections held in 2017 (Chart 13). Chart 12 ​​​​​​ Chart 13 ​​​​​​ Accurate pre-poll data for these states will be available only closer to election day. Our early on-ground checks suggest that the BJP is set to almost certainly retain power in Uttar Pradesh in 2022. However, the BJP runs the risk of losing some vote share in Gujarat owing to the anti-incumbency effect it faces and owing to the rise of parties like the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in the state of Gujarat. Another tool that can be used to estimate the likely result of these two key state elections is the economic growth momentum in these states. State election results from 2021 suggest that this macro variable matters a great deal. While it is not the only variable that matters, the incumbent lost elections in large states in 2021 when growth decelerated excessively (Chart 14). For instance, in 2021, Tamil Nadu saw its GDP growth decelerate significantly but West Bengal saw its GDP growth decelerate by a lesser extent. Notably, the incumbent was displaced out of power in Tamil Nadu but managed to retain power in West Bengal possibly because of several factors including a lesser slowdown in economic growth (Chart 14). If GDP growth were to affect election outcomes in 2022 as well then, the incumbent i.e., the BJP, will comfortably retain power in Uttar Pradesh but may have to deal with the risk of losing some vote share in Gujarat. This is because economic growth accelerated in Uttar Pradesh over the last five years before the pandemic. GDP growth rates remained high in Gujarat but the pace of acceleration was weaker (Chart 15). Chart 14 ​​​​​​ Chart 15 ​​​​​​ However, from the perspective of the general elections of 2024, BJP’s position in these two states remains fairly strong, and this is true even if it experiences minor setbacks in the upcoming state elections. National parties like the BJP tend to enjoy greater fervor amongst voters in general elections as opposed to state elections. It hence would take an earthquake defeat in these state elections to alter this assumption – an outcome which appears unlikely at this stage. The takeaway from the above is that investors must brace for the BJP pursuing populist policies over the next two years. In fact, we are increasingly convinced that the BJP government’s budget for FY23 (due to be announced on 1 February 2022) will see a marked increase in transfer payments for farmers in specific or low-income groups in general. The announcement of a brand-new program aimed at lifting incomes of India’s lowest economic strata cannot be ruled out. But from the perspective of the 2024 elections, the BJP appears well-placed to retain power. Investors will face negative policy turbulence in the short run but should maintain a base case of policy continuity over the long run. Investment Conclusions If You Are Playing A Long Game, Then Hold: From a strategic perspective, we remain Buyers of India. India’s democratic traditions will lend political stability as the country’s economic heft grows. Its democratic credentials will also yield geopolitical advantages as America aims to create an axis of democracies to contain autocratic regimes. It is notable that the US’s most recent alliance-formation efforts - such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue or the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal - involve some of the oldest democracies of the world. As India sheds its historical stance of neutrality, in favor of closer alignment with the US against China, its democratic credentials will help India deepen its engagement with geopolitically powerful democracies. If You Are Playing A Short Game, Then Fold: The Indian market appears priced for perfection today. We recommend paring exposure to Indian assets on a tactical time horizon. Historically India’s premium relative to emerging markets has shown some correlation with the BJP’s popularity (Chart 16). However, India’s premium relative to EMs has shot through the roof over the last year and hence even if BJP wins the Uttar Pradesh elections (our base case), then it is unclear if that victory will drive another bout of price-to-earnings re-rating for India. Moreover, as outlined, the road to state elections in 2022 will be paved with policy risks as the government prioritizes populism ahead of pro-market reform. Chart 16 The BJP has managed to expand its influence in India over the last decade (Chart 17). But a unique problem now confronts Indian policymakers: while stock markets in India have risen almost vertically, wage inflation has collapsed (Chart 18). Additionally, India has administered a weak post-pandemic fiscal stimulus (Chart 19). We reckon that this fiscal restraint will be tested in the run up to key elections in 2022-23. Chart 17 ​​​​​​ Chart 18 ​​​​​​ Chart 19 Unlike in developed economies, where fiscal stimulus is seen as pro-market because it suggests policymaking is improving and deflationary risks will be dispelled, fiscal stimulus can be market-negative in the context of an EM like India. Increases in populist spending can end up adding to existent inflationary pressures and hence can drive bond yields higher. Stock market earnings too may not end up getting a major boost on the back of increase in transfer payments to low-income groups. This is because the share of market cap accounted for by sectors which directly benefit from pro-poor spending, like Consumer Staples, has been drifting lower on Indian bourses from 10.8% in 2013 to 8.9% today. As we have been highlighting, distinct from policy risks that confront India on a tactical horizon, geopolitical risks confronting India are elevated too. Dangerous transitions are underway to India’s west (involving Pakistan and Afghanistan) as well as east (involving China). While China’s woes drive EM investors to India, any clashes with neighbors will create much better entry points into Indian stocks.   Ritika Mankar, CFA Editor/Strategist ritika.mankar@bcaresearch.com Appendix: An Overview Of India’s Political System India follows a parliamentary model of democracy with a federal structure where the government at the centre as well as state level is elected for a period of five years. The central government of India is formed through general elections that are held every five years. Power is held by a political party (or a coalition of parties) that can secure and maintain a simple majority in the Lower House (or Lok Sabha) through this five-year term. India also constitutes 28 states, each with its own legislative assembly. Each state government is formed through a state election held every five years. Much like at the centre, power is held by a political party that can maintain a simple majority at the legislative assembly for this five-year term.  

Highlights Remain neutral on the US dollar. A breakout of the dollar would cause a shift in strategy. Russia’s conflict with the West is heating up now that Germany has delayed the certification of the Nord Stream II pipeline. As long as the focus remains on the pipeline, the crisis will dissipate sometime in the middle of next year. But there is an equal chance of a massive escalation of strategic tensions. Our GeoRisk Indicators will keep rising in Europe, negatively affecting investor risk appetite. Stick with DM Europe over EM Europe stocks. If the dollar does not break out, South Korea and Australia offer cyclical opportunities. Turkish and Brazilian equities will not be able to bounce back sustainably in the midst of chaotic election cycles and deep structural problems. Rallies are to be faded.  Feature We were struck this week by JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon’s claim that his business will “not swayed by geopolitical winds.”1  If he had said “political winds” we might have agreed. It is often the case that business executives need to turn up their collars against the ever-changing, noisy, and acrimonious political environment. However, we take issue with his specific formulation. Geopolitical winds cannot shrugged off so easily – or they are not truly geopolitical. Geopolitics is not primarily about individual world leaders or topical issues. It is primarily about things that are very hard and slow to change: geography, demography, economic structure, military and technological capabilities, and national interests. This is the importance of having a geopolitically informed approach to macroeconomics and financial markets: investment is about preserving and growing wealth over the long run despite the whirlwind of changes affecting politicians, parties, and local political tactics.  In this month’s GeoRisk Update we update our market-based, quantitative geopolitical risk indicators with a special focus on how financial markets are responding to the interplay of near-term and cyclical political risks with structural and tectonic pressures underlying a select group of economies and political systems. Is King Dollar Breaking Out? Chart 1King Dollar Breaking Out? King Dollar Breaking Out? King Dollar Breaking Out? Our first observation is that the US dollar is on the verge of breaking out and rallying (Chart 1). This potential rally is observable in trade-weighted terms and especially relative to the euro, which has slumped sharply since November 5th. Our view on the dollar remains neutral but we are watching this rally closely. This year was supposed to be a year in which global growth recovered from the pandemic on the back of vaccination campaigns, leading the counter-cyclical dollar to drop off. The DXY bounce early in the year peaked on April 2nd but then began anew after hitting a major resistance level at 90. The United States is still the preponderant power within the international system. The USD remains the world’s leading currency by transactions and reserves. The pandemic, social unrest, and contested election of 2020 served as a “stress test” that the American system survived, whether judging by the innovation of vaccines, the restoration of order, or the preservation of the constitutional transfer of power. Meanwhile Europe faces several new hurdles that have weighed on the euro. These include the negative ramifications of the slowdown in Asia, energy supply shortages, a new wave of COVID-19 cases, and the partial reimposition of social restrictions. Moreover the Federal Reserve is likely to hike interest rates faster and higher than the European Central Bank over the coming years. Potential growth is higher in the US than Europe and the US growth is supercharged by fiscal stimulus whereas Europe’s stimulus is more limited. Of course, the US’s orgy of monetary and fiscal stimulus and ballooning trade deficits raise risks for the dollar. Global growth is expected to rotate to other parts of the world over the coming 12 months as vaccination spreads. There is still a chance that the dollar’s bounce is a counter-trend bounce and that the dollar will relapse next year. Hence our neutral view. Yet from a geopolitical perspective, the US population and economy are larger, more dynamic, more innovative, safer, and more secure than those of the European Union. The US still exhibits an ability to avoid the reckoning that is overdue from a macroeconomic perspective.  Russia-West Conflict Resumes In our third quarter outlook we argued that European geopolitical risk had hit a bottom, after coming off the sovereign debt crisis of 2010-15, and that geopolitical risk would begin to rise over the long term for this region. Our reasoning was that the markets had fully priced the Europeans’ decision to band together in the face of risks to the EU’s and EMU’s integrity. What markets would need to price going forward would be greater risks to Europe’s stability from a chaotic external environment that Europe lacked the willingness or ability to control: conflict with Russia, immigration, terrorism, and the slowdown in Asia. In particular we argued that Russia’s secular conflict with the West would resume. US-Russia relations would not improve despite presidential summits. The Nord Stream II pipeline would become a lightning rod for conflict, as its operation was more likely to be halted than the consensus held. (German regulators paused the approval process this week, raising the potential for certification to be delayed past the expected March-May months of 2022.) Most importantly we argued that the Russian strategy of political and military aggression in its near-abroad would continue since Russia would continue to feel threatened by domestic instability at home and Western attempts to improve economic integration and security coordination with former Soviet Union countries.  Chart 2Putin Showdown With West To Escalate Further Putin Showdown With West To Escalate Further Putin Showdown With West To Escalate Further For this reason we recommended that investors eschew Russian equities despite a major rally in commodity prices. Any rally would be undercut by the slowing economy in Asia or geopolitical conflicts that frightened investors away from Russian companies, or both. Today the market is in the process of pricing the impact on Russian equities from commodity prices coming off the boil. But politics may also have something to do with the selloff in Russian equities (Chart 2). The selloff can continue given still-negative hard economic data from Asia and the escalation of tensions around Russia’s strategically sensitive borders: Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, Lithuania, Moldova, and the Black Sea. The equity risk premium will remain elevated for eastern European markets as a result of the latest materialization of country risk and geopolitical risk – the long running trend of outperformance by developed Europe has been confirmed on a technical resistance level (Chart 3). Our mistake was closing our recommendation to buy European natural gas prices too early this year. Chart 3Favor DM Europe Amid Russia Showdown Favor DM Europe Amid Russia Showdown Favor DM Europe Amid Russia Showdown In early 2021, our market-based geopolitical risk indicator for Russia slumped, implying that global investors expected a positive diplomatic “reset” between the US and Russia. We advised clients to ignore this signal and argued that Russian geopolitical risk would take back off again. We said the same thing when the indicator slumped again in the second half of the year and now it is clear the indicator will move sharply higher (Chart 4). The point is that geopolitics keeps interfering with investors’ desire to resuscitate Russian equities based on macro and fundamental factors: cheap valuations, commodity price rises, some local improvements in competitiveness, and the search for yield.   Chart 4Russian GeoRisk Indicator - Risks Not Yet Priced Russian GeoRisk Indicator - Risks Not Yet Priced Russian GeoRisk Indicator - Risks Not Yet Priced Russia may or may not stage a new military incursion into Ukraine – the odds are 50/50, given that Russia has invaded already and has the raw capability in place on Ukraine’s borders. The intention of an incursion would be to push Russian control across the entire southern border of Ukraine to Odessa, bringing a larger swathe of the Black Sea coast under Moscow’s control in pursuit of Russia’s historic quest for warm water ports. The limitations on Russia are obvious. It would undertake new military and fiscal burdens of occupation, push the US and EU closer together, provoke a stronger NATO defense alliance, and invite further economic sanctions. Yet similar tradeoffs did not prevent Russia from taking surprise military action in Georgia in 2008 or Ukraine in 2014. After the past 13 years the US and EU are still uncoordinated and indecisive. The US is still internally divided. With energy prices high, domestic political support low, and Russia’s long-term strategic situation bleak, Moscow may believe that the time is right to expand its buffer territory further into Ukraine. We cannot rule out such an outcome, now or over the next few years. If Russia attacks, global risk assets will suffer a meaningful pullback. It will not be a bear market unless the conflict spills out beyond Ukraine to affect major economies. We have not taken a second Ukraine invasion as our base case because Russia is focused primarily on getting the Nord Stream pipeline certified. A broader war would prevent that from happening. Military threats after Nord Stream is certified will be more worrisome.  A less belligerent but still aggressive move would be for Russia to militarize the Belarussian border amid the conflict with the EU over Belarus’s funneling of Middle Eastern migrants into the EU via Poland and Lithuania. A closer integration of Russia’s and Belarus’s economies and militaries would fit with Russia’s grand strategy, improve Russia’s military posture in eastern Europe, and escalate fears of eventual war in Poland and the Baltic states. The West would wring its hands and announce more sanctions but may not have a higher caliber response as such a move would not involve hostilities or the violation of mutual defense treaties. This outcome would be negative but also digested fairly quickly by financial markets. Our European GeoRisk Indicators (see Appendix) are likely to respond to the new Russia crisis, in keeping with our view that European geopolitical risk will rise in the 2020s: German risk has dropped off since the election but will now revive at least until Nord Stream II is certified. If Russia re-invades Ukraine it will rise, as it did in 2014.  French risk was already heating up due to the presidential election beginning April 10 (first round) but now may heat up more. Not that Russia poses a direct threat to France but more that broader regional insecurities would hurt sentiment. The election itself is not a major risk to investors, though terrorist attacks could tick up. President Macron has an incentive to be hawkish on a range of issues over the next half year. The UK is in the midst of the Russia conflict. Its defense cooperation with Ukraine and naval activity in the Black Sea, such as port calls in Georgia, have prompted Russia’s military threats – including a threat to bomb a Royal Navy vessel earlier this year. Not to mention ongoing complications around Brexit. The Russian situation is by far the most significant factor. Spain is at a further remove from Russia but its risks are rising due to domestic political polarization and the rising likelihood of a breakdown in the ruling government. Bottom Line: We still favor these countries’ equities to those of eastern Europe but our risk indicators will rise, suggesting that geopolitical incidents could cause a setback for some or all of these markets in absolute terms. A pickup in Asian growth would be beneficial for developed European assets so we are cyclically constructive. We remain neutral on the USD-EUR though a buying opportunity may present itself if and when the Nord Stream II pipeline is certified.  Korea: Nobody’s Heard From Kim In A While Chart 5Korea GeoRisk Indicator Still Elevated Korea GeoRisk Indicator Still Elevated Korea GeoRisk Indicator Still Elevated Geopolitical risk has risen in South Korea due to COVID-19 and its aftershocks, including supply kinks, shortages, and policy tightening by the giant to the West (Chart 5). South Korea’s geopolitical risk indicator is still very high but not because of North Korea. Our Dear Leader Kim Jong Un has not been overly provocative, although he has restarted the cycle of provocations during the Biden administration. Yet South Korean geopolitical risk has skyrocketed. The problem is that investors have lost a lot of appetite for South Korea in a global environment in which demographics are languishing, globalization is retreating, a regional cold war is developing, and debt levels are high. Domestic politics have become more redistributive without accompanying reforms to improve competitiveness or reform corporate conglomerates. The revival of the South Korean conservatives ahead of elections in 2022 suggests political risk will remain elevated. Of course, North Korea could still move the dial. A massive provocation, say something on the scale of the surprise naval attack on the Chonan in the wake of the global financial crisis in spring of 2010, could push up the risk indicator higher and increase volatility for the Korean won and equities. Kim could take such an action to insist that President Biden pay heed to him, like President Trump did, or at least not ignore him, in a context in which Biden is doing just that due to far more pressing concerns. Biden would be forced to reestablish a credible threat.  Still, North Korea is not the major factor today. Not compared to the economic and financial instability in the region. At the same time, if global growth surprises pick up and the dollar does not break out, Korea will be a beneficiary. We have taken a constructive cyclical view, although our specific long Korea trade has not worked out this year. Korean equities depreciated by 11.2% in USD terms year-to-date, compared to 0.3% for the rest of EM. Structurally, Korea cannot overcome the negative demographic and economic factors mentioned above. Geopolitically it remains a “shrimp between two whales” and will fail to reconcile its economic interests with its defense alliance with the United States.   Australia: Wait On The Dollar Chart 6Australian GeoRisk Indicator Still Elevated Australian GeoRisk Indicator Still Elevated Australian GeoRisk Indicator Still Elevated Australian geopolitical risk has not fallen back much from this year’s highs, according to our quant indicator (Chart 6). Global shortages and a miniature trade war were the culprits of this year’s spike. The advantage for Australia is that commodity prices and metals look to remain in high demand as the world economy fully mends. Various nations are implementing large public investment programs, especially re-gearing their energy sectors to focus more on renewables. The reassertion of the US security alliance is positive for Australia but geopolitical risk is rising on a secular basis regardless.   Cyclically we would look positively toward Australian stocks. Yet they have risen by 4.3% in common currency terms this year so far, compared to the developed market-ex-US average of 11.0%. Moreover the Aussie’s latest moves confirm that the US dollar is on the verge of breaking out which would be negative for this bourse. Structurally Australia will go through a painful economic transition but it will be motivated to do so by the new regional cold war and threats to national security. The US alliance is a geopolitical positive.   Turkey And Brazil The greenback’s rally could be sustainable not only because of the divergence of US from Asian and global growth but also because of the humiliating domestic political environment of most prominent emerging markets. Chart 7Emerging Market Bull Trap Emerging Market Bull Trap Emerging Market Bull Trap We booked gains our “short” trade of the currencies of EM “strongmen,” such as Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro and Turkey’s Recep Erdogan, earlier this year. But we noted that we still hold a negative view on these economies and currencies. This is especially true today as contentious elections approach in both countries in 2022 and 2023 respectively (Chart 7). Turkey is trapped into an inflation spiral of its own design, which enervates the economy, as our Emerging Markets Strategy has shown. It is also trapped in a geopolitical stance in which it has repeatedly raised the stakes in simultaneous clashes with Russia, the US, Europe, Israel, the Arab states, Libya, and Iran. Russia’s maneuvers in the Black Sea are fundamentally threatening to Turkey, so while Erdogan has maintained a balance with Russia for several years, Russian aggression could upset that balance. Turkey has backed off from some recent confrontations with the West lately but there is not yet a trend of improvement. The COVID-19 crisis gave Erdogan a badly needed bump in polls, unlike other EM peers. But this simply reinforces the market’s overrating of his odds of being re-elected. In reality the odds of a contested election or an election upset are fairly high. New lows in the lira show that the market is reacting to the whole negative complex of issues around Turkey. But the full weight of the government’s mismanaging of economic policy to stay in power and stay geopolitically relevant has not yet been felt. The election is still 19 months away. A narrow outcome, for or against Erdogan and his party, would make things worse, not better. Brazil’s domestic political and geopolitical risks are more manageable than Turkey’s. But it faces a tumultuous election in which institutional flaws and failures will be on full display. Investors will try to front-run the election believing that former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva will restore the good old days. But we discourage that approach. We see at least two massive hurdles for the market: first, Brazil has to pass its constitutional stress test; second, the next administration needs to be forced into difficult decisions to preserve growth and debt management. These will come at the expense of either growth or the currency, according to our Emerging Markets Strategy. We still prefer Mexican stocks. Geopolitically, Turkey will struggle with Russia’s insecurity and aggression, Europe’s use of economic coercion, and Middle Eastern instability. Brazil does not have these external problems, although social stability will always be fragile. Investment Takeaways The dollar is acting as if it may break out in a major rally. Our view has been neutral but our generally reflationary perspective on the global economy is being challenged. Russia’s conflict with the West will escalate, not de-escalate, in the wake of Germany’s decision to delay the certification of the Nord Stream II pipeline. Russia has greater leverage now than usual because of energy shortages. A re-invasion of Ukraine cannot be ruled out. But the pipeline is Russia’s immediate focus. Investors have seen conflict in Ukraine so they will be desensitized quickly unless the conflict spreads into new geographies or spills out to affect major economies. The same goes for trouble on Belarus’s borders. Stick with long DM Europe / short EM Europe. Opportunities may emerge to become more bullish on the euro and European equities if and when the Nord Stream II situation looks to be resolved and Asian risks to global growth are allayed. If the dollar does not break out, South Korea and Australia are cyclical beneficiaries. Whereas “strongman” regimes will remain volatile and the source of bull traps, especially Turkey.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  “JP Morgan chief becomes first Wall Street boss to visit during pandemic,” Financial Times, November 15, 2021, ft.com. Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Open Trades & Positions Image Section II: Appendix: GeoRisk Indicator Russia Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator United Kingdom UK: GeoRisk Indicator UK: GeoRisk Indicator Germany Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator France France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator Italy Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Canada Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Spain Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Korea Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Australia Australia: GeoRisk Indicator Australia: GeoRisk Indicator South Africa South Africa: GeoRisk Indicator South Africa: GeoRisk Indicator Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Geopolitical conflicts point to energy price spikes and could add to inflation surprises in the near term. However, US fiscal drag and China’s economic slowdown are both disinflationary risks to be aware of.  Specifically, energy-producers like Russia and Iran gain greater leverage amid energy shortages. Europe’s natural gas prices could spike again. Conflict in the Middle East could disrupt oil flows.    President Biden’s $1.75 trillion social spending bill is a litmus test for fiscal fatigue in developed markets. It could fail, and even assuming it passes it will not prevent overall fiscal drag in 2022-23. However, it is inflationary over the long run. China’s slowdown poses the chief disinflationary risk. But we still think policy will ease to avoid an economic crash ahead of the fall 2022 national party congress.  We are closing this year’s long value / short growth trade for a loss of 3.75%. Cyclical sectors ended up being a better way to play the reopening trade. Feature Equity markets rallied in recent weeks despite sharp upward moves in core inflation across the world (Chart 1). Inflation is fast becoming a popular concern and we see geopolitical risks that could drive headline inflation still higher in the short run. We also see underrated disinflationary factors, namely China’s property sector distress and economic slowdown.     Several major developments have occurred in recent weeks that we will cover in this report. Our conclusions: Biden’s domestic agenda will pass but risks are high and macro impact is limited. Congress passed Biden’s infrastructure deal and will probably still pass his signature social spending bill, although inflation is creating pushback. Together these bills have little impact on the budget deficit outlook but they will add to inflationary pressures.  Energy shortages embolden Russia and Iran. Winter weather is unpredictable, the energy crisis may not be over. But investors are underrating Russia’s aggressive posture toward the West. Any conflict with Iran could also cause oil disruptions in the near future. US-China relations may improve but not for long. A bilateral summit between Presidents Joe Biden and Xi Jinping will not reduce tensions for very long, if at all. Climate change cooperation is an insufficient basis to reverse the cold war-style confrontation over the long run. Chart 1Inflation Rattles Policymakers Inflation Rattles Policymakers Inflation Rattles Policymakers The investment takeaway is that geopolitical tensions could push energy prices still higher in the short term. Iran and Russia need to be monitored. However, China’s economic slowdown will weigh on growth. China poses an underrated disinflationary risk to our views. US Congress: Bellwether For Fiscal Fatigue While inflation is starting to trouble households and voters, investors should bear in mind that the current set of politicians have long aimed to generate an inflation overshoot. They spent the previous decade in fear of deflation, since it generated anti-establishment or populist parties that threatened to disrupt the political system. They quietly built up an institutional consensus around more robust fiscal policy and monetary-fiscal coordination. Now they are seeing that agenda succeed but are facing the first major hurdle in the form of higher prices. They will not simply cut and run. Inflation is accompanied by rising wages, which today’s leaders want to see – almost all of them have promised households a greater share of the fruits of their labor, in keeping with the new, pro-worker, populist zeitgeist. Real wages are growing at 1.1% in the US and 0.9% across the G7 (Chart 2). Even more than central bankers, political leaders are focused on jobs and employment, i.e. voters. Yet the labor market still has considerable slack (Chart 3). Almost all of the major western governments have been politically recapitalized since the pandemic, either through elections or new coalitions. Almost all of them were elected on promises of robust public investment programs to “build back better,” i.e. create jobs, build infrastructure, revitalize industry, and decarbonize the energy economy. Thus while they are concerned about inflation, they will leave that to central banks, as they will be loathe to abandon their grand investment plans.  Chart 2Higher Wages: Real Or Nominal? Higher Wages: Real Or Nominal? Higher Wages: Real Or Nominal? Still, there will be a breaking point at which inflation forces governments to put their spending plans on hold. The US Congress is the immediate test of whether today’s inflation will trigger fiscal fatigue and force a course correction.      Chart 3Policymakers Fear Populism, Focus On Employment Policymakers Fear Populism, Focus On Employment Policymakers Fear Populism, Focus On Employment President Biden’s $550 billion infrastructure bill passed Congress last week and will be signed into law around November 15. Now he is worried that his signature $1.75 trillion social spending bill will falter due to inflation fears. He cannot spare a single vote in the Senate (and only three votes in the House of Representatives). Odds that the bill fails are about 35%. Democratic Party leaders will not abandon the cause due to recent inflation prints. They see a once-in-a-generation opportunity to expand the role of government, the social safety net, and the interests of their constituents. If they miss this chance due to inflation that ends up being transitory then they will lose the enthusiastic left wing of the party and suffer a devastating loss in next year’s midterm elections, in which they are already at a disadvantage.   Biden’s social bill is also likely to pass because the budget reconciliation process necessary to pass the bill is the same process needed to raise the national debt limit by December 3. A linkage of the two by party leaders would ensure that both pass … and otherwise Democrats risk self-inflicting a national debt default. The reconciliation bill is more about long-term than short-term inflation risk. The bill does not look to have a substantial impact on the budget outlook: the new spending is partially offset by new taxes and spread out over ten years. The various legislative scenarios look virtually the same in our back-of-the-envelope budget projections (Chart 4). Chart 4 However, given that the output gap is virtually closed, this bill combined with the infrastructure bill will add to inflationary pressures. The fiscal drag will diminish by 2024, not coincidentally the presidential election year 2024, not coincidentally the presidential election year. The deficit is not expected to increase or decrease substantially between 2023 and 2024. From then onward the budget deficit will expand. The increased government demand for goods and services and the increased disposable income for low-earning families will add to inflationary pressures. Other developed markets face a similar situation: inflation is picking up, but big spending has been promised and normalizing budgets will marginally weigh on growth in the next few years (Chart 5). True, growth should hold up since the private economy is rebounding in the wake of the pandemic. But politicians will not be inclined to renege on campaign promises of liberal spending in the face of fiscal drag. The current crop of leaders is primed to make major public investments. This is true of Germany, Japan, Canada, and Italy as well as the United States. It is partly true in France, where fiscal retrenchment has been put on hold given the presidential election in the spring. The effect will be inflationary, especially for the US where populist spending is more extravagant than elsewhere. Chart 5 The long run will depend on structural factors and how much the new investments improve productivity. Bottom Line: A single vote in the US Senate could derail the president’s social spending bill, so the US is now the bellwether for fiscal fatigue in the developed world. Biden is likely to pass the bill, as global fiscal drag is disinflationary over the next 12 months. Yet inflation could stay elevated for other reasons. And this fiscal drag will dissipate later in the business cycle. Russia And Iran Gain Leverage Amid Energy Crunch The global energy price spike arose from a combination of structural factors – namely the pandemic and stimulus. It has abated in recent weeks but will remain a latent problem through the winter season, especially if La Niña makes temperatures unusually cold as expected. Rising energy prices feed into general producer prices, which are being passed onto consumers (Chart 6). They look to be moderating but the weather is unpredictable.   There is another reason that near-term energy prices could spike or stay elevated: geopolitics. Tight global energy supply-demand balances mean that there is little margin of safety if unexpected supply disruptions occur. This gives greater leverage to energy producers, two of which are especially relevant at the moment: Russia and Iran.      Russia’s long-running conflict with the West is heating up on several fronts, as expected. Russia may not have caused the European energy crisis but it is exacerbating shortages by restricting flows of natural gas for political reasons, as it is wont to do (Chart 7). Moscow always maintains plausible deniability but it is currently flexing its energy muscles in several areas: Chart 6Energy Price Depends On Winter ... And Russia/Iran! Energy Price Depends On Winter ... And Russia/Iran! Energy Price Depends On Winter ... And Russia/Iran! Ukraine: Russia has avoided filling up and fully utilizing pipelines and storage facilities in Ukraine, where the US is now warning that Russia could stage a large military action in retaliation for Ukrainian drone strikes in the still-simmering Russia-Ukraine war.    Belarus: Russia says it will not increase the gas flow through the major Yamal-Europe natural gas pipeline in 2022 even as Belarus threatens to halt the pipeline’s operation entirely. Belarus, backed by Russia, is locked in a conflict with Poland and the EU over Belarus’s funneling of migrants into their territory (Chart 8). The conflict could lead not only to energy supply disruptions but also to a broader closure of trade and a military standoff.1 Russia has flown two Tu-160 nuclear-armed bombers over Belarus and the border area in a sign of support. Moldova: Russia is withholding natural gas to pressure the new, pro-EU Moldovan government. Chart 7 Chart 8 Russia’s main motive is obvious: it wants Germany and the EU to approve and certify the new Nord Stream II pipeline. Nord Stream II enables Germany and Russia to bypass Ukraine, where pipeline politics raise the risk of shortages and wars. Lame duck German Chancellor Angela Merkel worked with Russia to complete this pipeline before the end of her term, convincing the Biden administration to issue a waiver on congressional sanctions that could have halted its construction. However, two of the parties in the incoming German government, the Greens and the Free Democrats, oppose the pipeline. While these parties may not have been able to stop the pipeline from operating, Russia does not want to take any chances and is trying to force Germany’s and the EU’s hand. The energy crisis makes it more likely that the pipeline will be approved, since the European Commission will have to make its decision during a period when cold weather and shortages will make it politically acceptable to certify the pipeline.2 The decision will further drive a wedge between Germany and eastern EU members, which is what Russia wants. EU natural gas prices will likely subside sometime next year and will probably not derail the economic recovery, according to both our commodity and Europe strategists. A bigger and longer-lasting Russian energy squeeze would emerge if the Nord Stream II pipeline is not certified. This is a low risk at this point but the next six months could bring surprises. More broadly, the West’s conflict with Russia can easily escalate from here. First, President Vladimir Putin faces economic challenges and weak political support. He frequently diverts popular attention by staging aggressive moves abroad. There is no reason to believe his post-2004 strategy of restoring Russia’s sphere of influence in the former Soviet space has changed. High energy prices give him greater leverage even aside from pipeline coercion – so it is not surprising that Russia is moving troops to the Ukraine border again. Growing military support for Belarus, or an expanded conflict in Ukraine, are likely to create a crisis now or later.   Second, the US-Germany agreement to allow Nord Stream II explicitly states that Russia must not weaponize natural gas supply. This statement has had zero effect so far. But when the energy shortage subsides, the EU could pursue retaliatory measures along with the United States. Of course, Russia has been able to weather sanctions. But tensions are already escalating significantly.  After Russia, Iran also gains leverage during times of tight energy supplies. With global oil inventories drawing down, Iran is in the position to inflict “maximum pressure” on the US and its allies, a role reversal from the 2017-20 period in which large inventories enabled the US to impose crippling sanctions on Iran after pulling out of the 2015 nuclear deal (Chart 9). Iran is rapidly advancing on its nuclear program and a new round of diplomatic negotiations may only serve to buy time before it crosses the “breakout” threshold of uranium enrichment capability as early as this month or next. In a recent special report we argued that there is a 40% chance of a crisis over Iran in the Middle East. Such a crisis could ultimately lead to an oil shock in the Persian Gulf or Strait of Hormuz.  Chart 9Now Iran Can Use 'Maximum Pressure' Now Iran Can Use 'Maximum Pressure' Now Iran Can Use 'Maximum Pressure' Bottom Line: Russia’s natural gas coercion of Europe could keep European energy prices high through March or May. More broadly Russia’s renewed tensions with the West confirm our view that oil producers gain geopolitical leverage amid the current supply shortages. Iran also gains leverage and its conflict with the US could lead to global oil supply disruptions anytime over the next 12 months. Until Nord Stream II is certified and a new Iranian nuclear agreement is signed, there are two clear sources of potential energy shocks. Moreover in today’s inflationary context there is limited margin of safety for unexpected supply disruptions regardless of source. Xi’s Historical Rewrite China continues to be a major source of risk for the global economy and financial markets in the lead-up to the twentieth national party congress in fall 2022. While Chinese assets have sold off this year, global risk assets are still vulnerable to negative surprises from China.  The five-year political reshuffle in 2022 is more important than usual since President Xi Jinping was originally supposed to step down but will instead stick around as leader for life, like China’s previous strongmen Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping.3 Xi’s rejection of term limits became clear in 2017 and is not really news. But Xi will fortify himself and his faction in 2022 against any opposition whatsoever. He is extremely vigilant about any threats that could disrupt this process, whether at home or abroad.  The Communist Party’s sixth plenary session this week highlights both Xi’s success within the Communist Party and the sensitivity of the period. Xi produced a new “historical resolution,” or interpretation of the party’s history, which is only the third such resolution. A few remarks on this historical resolution are pertinent: Mao’s resolution: Chairman Mao wrote the first such resolution in 1945 to lay down his version of the party’s history and solidify his personal control. It is naturally a revolutionary leftist document. Deng’s revision of Mao: General Deng Xiaoping then produced a major revision in 1981, shortly after initiating China’s economic opening and reform. Deng’s interpretation aimed to hold Mao accountable for “gross mistakes” during the Cultural Revolution and yet to recognize the Communist Party’s positive achievements in founding the People’s Republic. His version gave credit to the party and collective leadership rather than Mao’s personal rule. Two 30-year periods: The implication was that the party’s history should be divided into two thirty-year periods: the period of foundations and conflict with Mao as the party’s core and the period of improvement and prosperity with Deng as the core. Jiang’s support of Deng: Deng’s telling came under scrutiny from new leftists in the wake of Tiananmen Square incident in 1989. But General Secretary Jiang Zemin largely held to Deng’s version of the story that the days of reform and opening were a far better example of the party’s leadership because they were so much more stable and prosperous.4 Xi’s reaction to Jiang and Deng: Since coming to power in 2012, Xi Jinping has shown an interest in revising the party’s official interpretation of its own history. The central claim of the revisionists is that China could never have achieved its economic success if not for Mao’s strongman rule. Mao’s rule and the Communist Party’s central control thus regain their centrality to modern China’s story. China’s prosperity owes its existence to these primary political conditions. The two periods cannot be separated.  Xi’s synthesis of Deng and Mao: Now Xi has written himself into that history above all other figures – indeed the communique from the Sixth Plenum mentions Xi more often than Marx, Mao, or Deng (Chart 10). The implication is that Xi is the synthesis of Mao and Deng, as we argued back in 2017 at the end of the nineteenth national party congress. The synthesis consists of a strongman who nevertheless maintains a vibrant economy for strategic ends. Chart 10 What are the practical policy implications of this history lesson? Higher Country Risk: China’s revival of personal rule, as opposed to consensus rule, marks a permanent increase in “country risk” and political risk for investors. Autocratic governments lack institutional guardrails (checks and balances) that prevent drastic policy mistakes. When Xi tries to step down there will probably be a succession crisis. Higher Macroeconomic Risk: China is more likely to get stuck in the “middle-income trap.” Liberal or pro-market economic reform is de-emphasized both in the new historical resolution and in the Xi administration’s broader program. Centralization is already suppressing animal spirits, entrepreneurship, and the private sector.  Higher Geopolitical Risk: The return to autocracy and the withdrawal from economic liberalism also entail a conflict with the United States, which is still the world’s largest economy and most powerful military. The US is not what it once was but it will put pressure on China’s economy and build alliances aimed at strategic containment. Bottom Line: China is trying to escape the middle-income trap, like Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea, but it is trying to do so by means of autocracy, import substitution, and conflict with the United States. These other Asian economies improved productivity by democratizing, embracing globalization, and maintaining a special relationship with the United States. China’s odds of succeeding are low. China will focus on power consolidation through fall 2022 and this will lead to negative surprises for financial markets.    China Slowdown: The Disinflationary Risk While it is very unlikely that Xi will face serious challenges to his rule, strange things can happen at critical junctures. Therefore the regime will be extremely alert for any threats, foreign or domestic, and will ultimately prioritize politics above all other things, which means investors will suffer negative surprises. The lingering pandemic still poses an inflationary risk for the rest of the world while the other main risk is disinflationary:    Inflationary Risk – Zero COVID: The “Covid Zero” policy of attempting to stamp out any trace of the virus will still be relevant at least over the next 12 months (Chart 11). Clampdowns serve a dual purpose since the Xi administration wants to minimize foreign interference and domestic dissent before the party congress. Hence the global economy can suffer more negative supply shocks if ports or factories are closed.  Inflationary Risk – Energy Closures: The government is rationing electricity amid energy shortages to prioritize household heating and essential services. This could hurt factory output over the winter if the weather is bad. Disinflationary Risk – Property Bust: The country is still flirting with overtightening monetary, fiscal, and regulatory policies. Throughout the year we have argued that authorities would avoid overtightening. But China is still very much in a danger zone in which policy mistakes could be made. Recent rumors suggest the government is trying to “correct the overcorrection” of regulatory policy. The government is reportedly mulling measures to relax the curbs on the property sector. We are inclined to agree but there is no sign yet that markets are responding, judging by corporate defaults and the crunch in financial conditions (Chart 12). Chart 11 Chart 12China Has Not Contained Property Turmoil China Has Not Contained Property Turmoil China Has Not Contained Property Turmoil Evergrande, the world’s most indebted property developer, is still hobbling along, but its troubles are not over. There are signs of contagion among other developers, including state-owned enterprises, that cannot meet the government’s “three red lines.” 5 Credit growth has now broken beneath the government’s target range of 12%, though money growth has bounced off the lower 8% limit set for this year (Chart 13). China is dangerously close to overtightening.   China’s economic slowdown has not yet been fully felt in the global economy based on China’s import volumes, which are tightly linked to the combined credit-and-fiscal-spending impulse (Chart 14). The implication is that recent pullbacks in industrial metal prices and commodity indexes will continue. Chart 13China Tries To Avoid Over-Tightening China Tries To Avoid Over-Tightening China Tries To Avoid Over-Tightening Chart 14China Slowdown Not Yet Fully Felt China Slowdown Not Yet Fully Felt China Slowdown Not Yet Fully Felt ​​​​​​​Until China eases policy more substantially, it poses a disinflationary risk and a strong point in favor of the transitory view of global inflation.    It is difficult for China to ease policy – let alone stimulate – when producer prices are so high (see Chart 6 above). The result is a dangerous quandary in which the government’s regulatory crackdowns are triggering a property bust yet the government is prevented from providing the usual policy support as the going gets tough. Asset prices and broader risk sentiment could go into free fall. However, the party has a powerful incentive to prevent a generalized crisis ahead of the party congress. So we are inclined to accept signs that property curbs and other policies will be eased. Bottom Line: The full disinflationary impact of China’s financial turmoil and economic slowdown has yet to be felt globally.     Biden-Xi Summit Not A Game Changer As long as inflation prevents robust monetary and fiscal easing, Beijing is incentivized to improve sentiment in other ways. One way is to back away from the regulatory crackdown in other sectors, such as Big Tech. The other is to improve relations with the United States. A stabilization of US ties would be useful before the party congress since President Xi would prefer not to have the US interfering in China’s internal affairs during such a critical hour. No surprise that China is showing signs of trying to stabilize the relationship.   The US is apparently reciprocating. Presidents Biden and Xi also agreed to hold a virtual bilateral summit next week, which could lead to a new series of talks. The US Trade Representative also plans to restart trade negotiations. The plan is to enforce the Phase One trade deal, issue waivers for tariffs that hurt US companies, and pursue new talks over outstanding structural disputes. The Phase One trade deal has fallen far short of its goals in general but on the energy front it is doing well. China will continue importing US commodities amid global shortages (Chart 15). Chart 15 Chart 15 The summit alone will have a limited impact. Biden had a summit with Putin earlier this year but relations could deteriorate tomorrow over cyber-attacks, Ukraine, or Belarus. However, there is some basis for the US and China to cooperate next year: Iran. Xi is consolidating power at home in 2022 and probably wants to use negotiations to keep the Americans at bay. Biden is pivoting to foreign policy in 2022, since Congress will not get anything done, and will primarily focus on halting Iran’s nuclear program. If China assists the US with Iran, then there is a basis for a reduction in tensions. The problem is not only Iran itself but also that China will not jump to enforce sanctions on Iran amid energy shortages. And China is not about to make sweeping structural economic concessions to the US as the Xi administration doubles down on state-guided industrial policy. Meanwhile the US is pursuing a long-term policy of strategic containment and Biden will not want to be seen as appeasing China ahead of midterm elections, especially given Xi’s reversion to autocracy. What about cooperation on climate change? The US and China also delivered a surprise joint statement at the United Nations climate change conference in Scotland (COP26), confirming the widely held expectation that climate policy is an area of engagement. These powers and Europe have a strategic interest in reducing dependency on Middle Eastern oil (Chart 16). Climate talks will begin in the first half of next year. However, climate cooperation is not significant enough alone to outweigh the deeper conflicts between the US and China. Moreover climate policy itself is somewhat antagonistic, as the EU and US are looking at applying “carbon adjustment fees” to carbon-intensive imports, e.g. iron and steel exports from China and other high-polluting producers (Chart 17). While the EU and US are not on the same page yet, and these carbon tariffs are far from implementation, the emergence of green protectionism does not bode well for US-China relations even aside from their fundamental political and military disputes. Chart 16 Bottom Line: Some short-term stabilization of US-China relations is possible but not guaranteed. Markets will cheer if it happens but the effect will be fleeting. Chinese assets are still extremely vulnerable to political and geopolitical risks.   Chart 17 Investment Takeaways Gold can still go higher. Financial markets are pricing higher inflation and weak real rates. Gold has been our chief trade to prepare both for higher inflation and geopolitical risk. We are closing our long value / growth equity trade for a loss of 3.75%. We are maintaining our long DM Europe / short EM Europe trade. This trade has performed poorly due to the rally in energy prices and hence Russian equities. But while energy prices may overshoot in the near term, investors will flee Russian equities as geopolitical risks materialize. We are maintaining our long Korea / short Taiwan trade despite its being deeply in the red. This trade is valid over a strategic or long-term time horizon, in which a major geopolitical crisis and/or war is likely. Our expectation that China will ease policy to stabilize the economy ahead of fall 2022 should support Korean equities.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com       Footnotes 1     Over the past year President Alexander Lukashenko’s repression of domestic unrest prompted the EU to impose sanctions. Lukashenko responded by organizing an immigration scheme in which Middle Eastern migrants are flown into Belarus and funneled into the EU via Poland. The EU is threatening to expand sanctions while Belarus is threatening to cut off the Yamal-Europe pipeline amid Europe’s energy crisis. See Pavel Felgenhauer, “Belarus as Latest Front in Acute East-West Standoff,” Jamestown Foundation, November 11, 2021, Jamestown.org. 2     Both Germany and the EU must approve of Nord Stream II for it to enter into operation. The German Federal Network Agency has until January 8, 2022 to certify the project. The Economy Ministry has already given the green light. Then the European Commission has two-to-four months to respond. The EU is supposed to consider whether the pipeline meets the EU’s requirement that gas transport be “unbundled” or separated from gas production and sales. This is a higher hurdle but Germany’s clout will be felt. Hence final approval could come by March 8 or May 8, 2022. The energy crisis will put pressure for an early certification but the EU Commission may take the full time to pretend that it is not being blackmailed. See Joseph Nasr and Christoph Steitz, “Certifying Nord Stream 2 poses no threat to gas supply to EU – Germany,” Reuters, October 26, 2021, reuters.com. 3    Xi is not serving for an “unprecedented third term,” as the mainstream media keeps reporting. China’s top office is not constant nor were term limits ever firmly established. Each leader’s reign should be measured by their effective control rather than technical terms in office. Mao reigned for 27 years (1949-76), Deng for 14 years or more (1978-92), Jiang Zemin for 10 years (1992-2002), and Hu Jintao for 10 years (2002-2012).  4    See Joseph Fewsmith, “Mao’s Shadow” Hoover Institution, China Leadership Monitor 43 (2014), and “The 19th Party Congress: Ringing In Xi Jinping’s New Age,” Hoover Institution, China Leadership Monitor 55 (2018), hoover.org.  5    Liability-to-asset ratios less than 70%, debt-to-equity less than 100%, and cash-to-short-term-debt ratios of more than 1.0x.   Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Open Trades & Positions  Image