Geopolitics

Special Report

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

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

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

Special Report

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

Executive Summary Global Oil Price Pushes Up Inflation Expectations The US cut off of Russian energy exports has limited immediate impact because EU trade with Russia continues. Russia is unlikely to embargo the EU as it needs revenues to wage war. However, the EU will diversify away from Russia over time, which means that Russia will intensify its efforts to replace the government in Ukraine. The Biden administration began with an adversarial posture toward the energy sector, both US producers and Gulf Arab petro-states. Now it is adjusting its stance as prices surge. The OPEC states do not favor Biden but have an interest in calibrating production to avoid global recession and prolong their profit windfall. Even if the US restores the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, which we doubt, investors should fade the oil price implications and stay focused on OPEC. Recommendation (Tactical) Inception Level Inception Date Return Long DXY (Dollar Index) 96.19 Feb 23, 2022 2.9% Bottom Line: Stagflation is the likeliest economic outcome of today’s global supply constraints. Feature Biden’s Oil Policy: Implications Will the Ukraine crisis lead to a US recession? The probability of a recession is 7.7% today, according to the bond market, but the oil price shock suggests that the probability will only increase from here. Stagflation, at least, is now highly likely. Short-term interest rates are rising faster than long-term rates, causing the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope to slide toward inversion, though it is not there yet. That would be a telltale sign of a looming recession (Chart 1). The 3-mo/10-year Treasury yield slope is nowhere near inverting and has a better record of predicting recessions than the 2-year/10-year. The Federal Reserve’s interest rate hikes are expected to cause the 10-year yield to rise and the yield curve to steepen. But exogenous shocks may push short rates even higher. When the oil price doubles, a recession often ensues. Out of the past seven recessions, five of them witnessed an oil spike beforehand. True, not every spike causes a recession. But the causality is clear. Today’s spike is large enough to be recessionary (Chart 2). The critical question is where will the price settle? If it settles above $90-$100 per barrel then it will erode global demand. Chart 1An End-Of-Cycle Crisis? Chart 2Oil Price Often Doubles Before Recessions Most likely the price will settle at around $85 per barrel by the end of 2022, and average $85 in 2023, according to our Commodity & Energy Strategy. High prices will discourage consumption and incentivize new production, leading to a price drop and new equilibrium. The OPEC cartel will increase production because they want to prolong the business cycle. Non-OPEC producers like US shale oil companies will also increase production. It is not likely that the US will significantly lift sanctions on Iran and Venezuela, though that would free up 1.3 million barrels per day and 700,000 barrels per day respectively. More on this below. Even so, this year’s energy spike will feed into a larger bout of inflation that is eroding real incomes. Headline consumer price inflation is running at 7.9% as of February, the highest in four decades. Core inflation is running at 6.4%. The Ukraine war did not prevent the European Central Bank from delivering a hawkish surprise in its fight against inflation on March 10, so it is even less likely to prevent the Fed from delivering a hawkish surprise on March 16. The Fed has a history of hiking rates even during geopolitical crises (as during the Arab oil embargo of 1973), which implies that the war in Ukraine will not prevent the Fed from hiking rates four times or more this year. There is a close relationship between the global oil price and the financial market’s long-term inflation expectations (Chart 3). When the costs of production and transportation go up, investors start to expect higher prices. Expectations are already rising because of the global pandemic, stimulus, supply constraints, wage pressure, and tardy policy normalization. Gasoline prices at the pump will shape consumer expectations (Chart 4). Chart 3Global Oil Price Pushes Up Inflation Expectations Chart 4Geopolitics Compound Inflation Yet high commodity prices are not coinciding with strong global growth and a weak dollar, as one might suspect. Global growth is falling and the dollar is strengthening. The energy shock from Russia will rattle importing countries like Europe, China, and India and thus enhance the dollar’s rise (Chart 5). Investor sentiment will suffer as the war in Ukraine reinforces the secular rise in geopolitical risk. Global policy uncertainty is also rising sharply, which will reinforce the dollar, weighing on global economic activity. Chart 5Dollar Strengthens on Weak Global Growth Bottom Line: A stagflationary dynamic is taking shape. Moreover the risk of recession is underrated by the bond market’s measure of recession probability. Investors should maintain tactically bearish trades and cut losses on cyclically bullish trades that suffer from higher rates and persistent inflation. US Boycotts Russia And Begs OPEC The Biden administration’s decision to ban Russian oil exports – and to encourage private sector boycotts of the Russian energy trade – raises the potential for the Russian conflict to escalate beyond Ukraine’s borders. While a total boycott of Russian oil exports is unlikely, it would be one of the larger oil shocks in modern history (Chart 6). Unlike the Iranian attack on the Saudi oil refinery in 2019, the Russian shock would come amid an existing energy shortage. Chart 6Worst Case Oil Risk in Historical Context There are two critical questions about US policy at this stage: Will the US foist its energy boycott on Europe, triggering a Russian retaliation? This could plunge Europe into recession and further upset the global economy. Will the US convince the OPEC cartel to increase oil production? A production boost would reduce prices and help to rebalance the economy, salvaging the business cycle. The next two sections discuss these options. US Boycotts Russia The first question is how Russia will respond to the US boycott and whether the Biden administration will try to force Europe to adopt the boycott. The US is comfortable boycotting Russian energy because oil and gas imports only account for 0.6% of GDP and those from Russia only 0.04%. Europe cannot make the same decision. While O&G imports are only 2.21% of GDP, and Russian O&G imports at 0.4%, these numbers will spike to near 2008 levels as a result of the price shock (Charts 7A & 7B). Major European countries, notably Germany, have already rejected the US boycott, and any EU direct sanctions require unanimity. The EU is instead outlining a plan to diversify away from Russia more gradually. This is a medium-term threat to Russia and hence a major concern for global stability but it is not an instant cutoff, which would cause an immediate recession in Europe. Chart 7AThe US Is Energy Independent... Chart 7B...The EU Is Not The EU’s plan would theoretically reduce its dependency on Russian energy by 66% by the end of the year. But that is easier said than done. Also, Europe cannot simply swap the US for Russia. American exports to the rest of the world could be redirected to Europe, but the switch requires an overhaul of supply chains. A total switch of US exports to Europe is impracticable in the short run and would leave other US allies dependent on Russian exports (Charts 8A & 8B). Chart 8AUS Will Not Replace Russian Energy Anytime Soon Chart 8BUS Will Not Replace Russian Energy Anytime Soon US shale producers are only starting to increase production. With WTI crude oil at $100, and Henry Hub natural gas spot price at $4.6 per million BTU, American production will speed up. But US companies are more focused on profitability and returns to shareholders than they were at the beginning of the shale boom, which has restrained oil production (Charts 9A & (9B). Chart 9AUS Production And Exports Increase After Pandemic Lull Chart 9BUS Production And Exports Increase After Pandemic Lull   The Biden administration has not yet fully adopted the tactics necessary: promoting the domestic fossil fuel industry and coordinating it for purposes of national strategy. American oil executives complain that while the Biden administration courts foreign energy producers and contemplates arbitrarily lifting sanctions on Iran and Venezuela, it has not approached domestic producers about facilitating production.1 Meanwhile there is a risk that Russia will retaliate against western sanctions by cutting off natural gas to the EU, for instance via the Nord Stream I pipeline. This is a risk, rather than a base case, because Moscow would prefer to sell energy as long as Europe is buying – and even increase the amount it produces at today’s high prices. Russian energy exports to the EU account for 5% of Russian GDP and thus provide an important lifeline at a time when the country is suffering heavily under banking, technology, and trade sanctions (Chart 10). Russian natural resource exports on average provide 43% of government revenue, which is essential for Moscow to carry on its war effort (Chart 11). Chart 10Russia Will Not Punish EU For US Boycott Chart 11Russia Needs EU Energy Imports And yet Russians are now slapping an embargo on agricultural exports, constricting global food supply and pushing up food prices. The implication is that a reduction in energy exports to the EU is not out of the question, especially an incremental reduction aimed at increasing Russian diplomatic pressure on Europe. If the Russians cut off Europe, it will fall into a severe recession and the energy shock will risk a global recession. While US direct trade exposure to Europe is limited, at about 3.8% of GDP (Chart 12A), nevertheless the US would suffer from price pressures. The US is already seeing import prices rise toward 2008 levels (Chart 12B). Chart 12AUS Exposure To The EU Is Limited... Chart 12B...But Its Import Prices Will Rise Bottom Line: The US is boycotting Russian oil but not forcing the EU to join the boycott. Europe is pursuing gradual diversification but Russia is unlikely to cut off Europe’s supply. However, this dynamic is showing signs of faltering, which means investors are justified in taking further risk off the table. US Begs OPEC The Biden administration started off on the wrong foot with the Gulf Arab states by criticizing them for autocratic government and human rights abuses, threatening to withhold arms sales, and trying to restore the 2015 nuclear deal and détente with Iran. Now, with a global energy shock unfolding, Biden is going back to Saudi Arabia and the UAE and imploring them to increase oil production and ease the supply pressure. The Arab states are reportedly giving him the cold shoulder, ignoring his phone calls while answering Russian President Vladimir Putin’s calls.2 These states never have an interest in producing oil at any US president’s beck and call. The US and Iran have also reached a critical stage in nuclear negotiations. So it is only fitting that the Arab states play hard to get. While the UAE ambassador to the US suggested that his country supporting increasing production on March 9, the country’s energy minister said the opposite. However, the core OPEC states are even less likely to do Russia’s bidding. Moscow propped up the Syrian regime, arms and subsidizes Iran, and aspires to gain ever greater control over Middle East exports to Europe. The Gulf states also know that the Russians will produce as much energy as they can since they need the revenues to sustain their war (Chart 13). Chart 13Core OPEC Countries Have An Interest In Increasing Oil Supply The Gulf states rely on the US military for national security, they fear that US-Iran détente will lead to US abandonment and Iranian regional ascendancy, and they seek to sustain their centrality to the global oil market. They want to prolong their export revenues in the context of a growing global economy for the sake of their own delicate internal stability and reforms. They do not aim to incentivize non-OPEC oil production and renewable energy transition with excessive prices, or to trigger a global recession (Chart 14). Hence the Saudi and UAE strategy will be to lower the oil price closer to their fiscal breakeven rate of $82.3 and $62.8 (oil price consistent with a balanced budget) and prolong the business cycle (Chart 15). Chart 14Core OPEC Does Not Want To Threaten Their Fiscal Future Chart 15Current Oil Price Comfortably Supports Fiscal Spending In OPEC The critical factor in the negotiation with the Biden administration will be Iran, their chief rival. Biden is trying to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal, which would require removing sanctions in exchange for Iran’s halting its nuclear progress. A deal would bring 1.3 million barrels per day online, at least for the next two years or so. It could also prompt the Saudis or others to increase production to prevent Iran from stealing market share, as occurred in 2014 (Chart 16). Any deal would reduce the risk of military conflict in the short term and as such would remove some risk premium from oil prices. If Biden agrees to walk away from the Iran deal, then perhaps the Saudis and UAE will oblige him with a larger and quicker production boost. They know the Democratic Party is doomed in this year’s midterm elections anyway. Sanctions are not preventing the Iranians from exporting oil today and there is very little chance that they will truly abandon their quest for nuclear weapons (Chart 17). Chart 16Production Ramped Up Ahead Of The Iran Deal In 2015 Chart 17Production May Ramp Up Again As Iran Managed To Evade Sanction Either way the core OPEC members need to adjust the oil supply to maintain market share and prolong the business cycle. Taking it all together, investors should expect oil prices to remain volatile and for oil supply risks to remain elevated, meaning that oil prices will likely resume their rise after the expected OPEC intervention. Biden is also tinkering with the idea of easing sanctions on Venezuela. This would take a long time and require regime change to come to fruition. Venezuela produces about 700,000 barrels per day at present, down from about 2 million bpd in 2017.Given the lack of capital, investment, and engineering expertise, the Venezuelans probably cannot increase production beyond 1 million bpd over the next year or so. Of that, maybe 600,000 barrels could be sent to export markets, according to our Commodity & Energy Strategist Bob Ryan. The US cannot remove all sanctions from Venezuela as it does not recognize the legitimacy of President Nicolas Maduro’s regime. The Department of Justice indicted Maduro in 2020. Accommodating Maduro will create even more bad blood between the Democrats and the Cuban-American voters in electorally critical Florida. US companies will be reluctant to get involved in oil production in Venezuela on such a flimsy basis, as they will fear future sanctions if Republicans win in 2024. So investment in Venezuela, and hence oil production, will remain limited even if Biden waives some sanctions. Bottom Line: Biden’s attempts to ease sanctions on Iran and Venezuela are unlikely to have a lasting impact on oil prices. But it is possible that he will convince the OPEC states to increase production, as their own interests support such a move. Investment Takeaways Comparing Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine to the original invasion in 2014, the major trends are parallel: stocks are falling relative to bonds, cyclical sectors are underperforming defensives, and small caps are outperforming large caps (Chart 18A). Chart 18AMarket Response 2022 Versus 2014 Chart 18BMarket Response 2022 Versus 2014 If Russia imposes an energy embargo or OPEC refuses to increase production, then there will be an even larger global energy shock and a European recession that will weigh on global growth. The dollar will stay well bid in the near term. Value stocks are far outpacing growth stocks in the 2022 crisis, in keeping with high inflation and rising bond yields (Chart 18B). While we favor value over growth on a structural basis, we took the opposite stance as a tactical trade at the beginning of this year in expectation of falling bond yields, which has backfired. We are closing this trade for a loss of 7.7%.   Matt Gertken Senior Vice President Chief US Political Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1     See Shannon Pettypiece, “White House, oil industry spar anew over drilling as gas prices surge”, NBC News, March 12, nbcnews.com. 2     See Holman Jenkins, “The Putin Endgame,” The Wall Street Journal, March 1, 2022, wsj.com   Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Table A2Political Risk Matrix Table A3US Political Capital Index Chart A1Presidential Election Model Chart A2Senate Election Model Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets

Executive Summary Winners And Losers Combining Russia and Ukraine: Taken together, Russia and Ukraine account for a small fraction of global trade. However, Russia is a key player in the global energy and metals markets, providing rare materials like palladium. Ukraine is a sizable agricultural producer, as well as an exporter of specialized products such as neon. Effects on global trade: Shortages of metals and agricultural goods will reverberate across the global economy, exacerbating shortages and supply disruptions. Manufacturer anxiety about the availability of raw input materials catalyzed an explosive rally in the commodity universe.  Effect on the US companies: Most US equity sectors have limited direct sales exposure to Russia. However, self-sanctioning will have an adverse immediate effect on many multinationals, while indirect effects of the war will be even more impactful. Winners and losers: At the margin, the escalation in Ukraine is a net positive for Energy, Big Tech, and Metals & Mining, while Travel, Consumer Staples, Semiconductors Manufacturers, and Automakers will be hit by shortages and surging input costs. Bottom Line:The war in Ukraine has wreaked havoc in the US equity market, even though US trade with Russia and Ukraine is insignificant and is mostly limited to energy, palladium, and other rare metals. However, US companies are affected by the scarcity of selected metals and materials, soaring prices, and supply chain disruptions. Feature Introduction The war in Ukraine has become the proverbial black swan that has blindsided even the most cautious investors. The world simply did not expect Russia to wage such a bloody, and all-out war. As such, tragically, small Ukraine has come out of obscurity, and became a focal point of the world’s attention, mostly for humanitarian reasons. While our heart goes out to the people living under fire, it is our job as investment strategists to conduct a detailed economic analysis of the effect of the war in Ukraine and sanctions on Russia’s goods and services on US equities. To do so, we will first investigate trade links between Ukraine, Russia, and the US. And then look at the indirect effects of the war on US equity sectors. Russia And Ukraine Effect On Global Trade Taken together, Russia and Ukraine account for about 3.5% of global GDP in PPP terms and only 1.9% in dollar terms. Even a deep recession in each of these economies is unlikely to cause a dent in global growth, at least not directly. Unfortunately, the indirect effects of this war are substantial. What Is Russia Producing? In 2019, Russia exported $407B in goods, which made it the 13th largest exporter in the world. It is the second-largest commodities exporter (after the US) and the second-largest oil producer, accounting for 12% of annual global output. Energy: Russia’s crude oil exports account for 8.4% of global crude consumption, while natural gas exports account for 5.9% of global consumption, and 3.4% for coal (Table 1). These energy products constitute roughly 60% of Russia’s exports. Its exports of natural gas represent close to half of all European gas imports. Table 1Russia’s Global Share In Various Commodities Nickel: Russia is also one of the top metal producers. It is the third largest producer of nickel, accounting for 4.4.% of global output. The recent surge in nickel prices reflects manufacturers’ anxiety about the potential shortages of this metal.1 Elon Musk has said that a shortage of nickel is the “biggest challenge” in “producing high-volume, long-range batteries”. Palladium: In addition, to nickel, Russia accounts for 35.6% of global palladium output. Palladium is widely used in catalytic converters, electrodes, and other types of electronics.2 Palladium prices are up 46% since the start of the year. Chart 1War Wreaked Havoc In Commodities Market Fertilizers: Together, Russia and Belarus account for about 40% of global potash production, a key ingredient in potassium-based fertilizers. Russia also produces two-thirds of all ammonium nitrate, the main source of nitrogen-rich fertilizers. Wheat and lumber: Russia produces 10% of the global supply of wheat and lumber. While Russia’s trading network is wide, the most common destinations for its exports are China (14%), Netherlands (10%), Belarus (5%), and Germany (4.6%), making its direct effect on global trade limited. What Is Ukraine Producing? Ukraine’s effect on global trade is less significant: In 2019 it exported only $49.5B, with exports dominated by agricultural products and metals (Chart 2). Food: Ukraine’s production is dominated by foodstuffs such as corn, wheat, and seed oils. Russia and Ukraine together account for 25% of global wheat exports, much of which is going to the developing nations of Africa and Asia (Chart 3). Russia and Ukraine are also significant producers of potatoes, sunflowers, and sugar beets. Chart 2Ukraine Exports Metals And Food Chart 3Wheat Is Exported To North Africa And Asia With war and sanctions, most of this output will be lost or kept for domestic consumption, accelerating food inflation, which is already rampant. Of course, the rest of the world could try to compensate for lost agricultural output, but there is a major snag: Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus are significant producers of fertilizer. Metals: Ukraine produces significant amounts of steel. ArcelorMittal and Metinvest suspended production at their Ukrainian plants last week. Auto Components: In addition, Ukraine is a major producer of automotive wire harnesses. Volkswagen, BMW, and Porsche have all had to curtail auto production due to war-related shortages. Neon: Then there are the more esoteric commodities. The bulk of semiconductor-grade neon, used in high-precision lasers, comes from Ukraine. A dearth of this critical gas could exacerbate the semiconductor shortage. While Ukraine trades predominately with its European neighbors, such as Russia, Germany, Poland, and Italy, shortages of agricultural products, semiconductors, and automotive components are likely to reverberate across the globe. The US Is An Island… Almost According to the OEC,3 in 2019 the US was the number two economy in terms of total exports ($1.51T), and the number one economy in total imports ($2.38T). Russia barely registers as the US trading partner, with only $14.B or 0.61% of total imports coming from Russia. Ukraine is even less significant for the US: Its exports constitute only $1.23B. US exports to Ukraine and Russia constitute less than 1% of its total exports. However, to uncover the potential effects of the possible halting of Russian trade on the US economy, let’s look at what goods the US is buying. The reality on the ground may be complex. Petrochemicals Refined and crude petroleum constitute about half of all Russian imports to the US and account for roughly $7 billion (Chart 4). The US sanctioning of Russian oil is unlikely to have a significant effect on the US economy: It constitutes only about 5.7% of all the US oil imports, both crude and refined, which in 2019 were about $123B. As a result, the recent US embargo of Russian oil is unlikely to have much impact. Platinum, Titanium, And Other Rare and Precious Metals US imports roughly $7B worth of platinum, over one-fifth of which is sourced from Russia. Russia also provides about 21.5% of all titanium and 23% of radioactive chemicals that the US imports. Chart 4US Imports Fuels And Rare Metals From Russia Palladium The situation with palladium is even more strained: Russia produces 42% of the palladium imported by the US while South Africa supplies another 30%. All other exports of palladium are fragmented, and producers are unlikely to be able to ramp up production fast enough. Nickel US imports only $1.4B worth of nickel per year, 11% of which is coming from Russia. Australia and Canada are the only other large producers of this metal, and it is not clear if they will be able to step in and fill in the void left by Russia. How Much Production From Russia Will Be Curtailed? The West’s official sanctions affect Russian exports of certain commodities but there is also a reluctance on the part of private companies to buy or ship Russian exports. This latter factor makes it nearly impossible to gauge just how much supply of each individual commodity will be curtailed. In addition, Putin has announced his decision to suspend some commodity exports at least until 2023. Assuming in the near term that a considerable share of Russia’s commodity exports will be blocked from global markets, the largest impact will be on oil, palladium, copper, nickel, fertilizer, and grains. The Stock Market Is Not The Economy US Companies Most Exposed To Russian Trade Most US multinational companies have limited direct sales exposure to Russia. Among those that do have some exposure (Table 2), Philip Morris comes on top of the list at 8% of sales, PepsiCo 4.3%, Mondelez 3.1%, and McDonald’s 4.5%. Apple has generated only 1.3% of its sales in Russia. Overall, the Consumer Staples sector has the highest exposure to Russia. Exodus The majority of US multinationals have announced their exit from the Russian market in protest at the war. The exodus affects wide swaths of the Russian economy, including joint ventures in energy, auto manufacturing, finance, retail, entertainment, and fast food (See Appendix for the list). The war affects US sectors in many different way, and there are winners and losers (Chart 5). Table 2US Multinationals With The Highest Exposure To Russia Chart 5Winners And Losers Investment Implications Energy Sector – Positive The US embargo of Russian oil does not have a pronounced immediate and direct effect on the US energy sector as US imports from Russia are minor. Exxon’s exit from Russia is not going to have any noticeable short-term effect on the US energy sector. On the contrary, elevated oil and gas prices create an impetus for the US shale producers to ramp up output. Oil Equipment and Services companies will be the key beneficiaries of the new energy Capex cycle. While we closed our overweight in E&P companies with a view that OPEC will open oil spigots and cure high prices, locking in a gain of 60%, we remain overweight E&S Energy industry. Consumer Staples – Negative Companies such as Mondelez, Philip Morris, and PepsiCo are most exposed to the Russian market. All three have announced that they are discontinuing or curtailing Russian operations, taking a direct hit on earnings. However, disruptions in agricultural exports from Russia and Ukraine, and accompanying soaring food prices (Chart 6), are likely to have a broad negative effect on the sector, increasing input prices while sector margins are already razor-thin. So far, the sector had been able to pass on costs to customers, but its pricing power may be limited going forward (Chart 7). Chart 6Food Price Surge Is Parabolic Chart 7Consumer Staples Have Been Able To Pass Costs On To Customers We are overweight Consumer Staples thanks to its defensive attributes in the face of overall market volatility. However, we will be monitoring this position closely. Semiconductors - Neutral Disruptions in supplies of neon, palladium, and nickel, which are essential components of the manufacturing of semiconductors, will exacerbate global chip shortages, and hit profits of semiconductor manufacturers, mostly in Asia. However, the majority of the large US semiconductor companies are chip designers and are unlikely to be affected. The only exception is Intel, which is an integrated semiconductor company. Intel has also announced that it is exiting Russia, which may have an adverse effect on its profitability. Auto Manufacturers - Negative Overall, US car manufacturers have limited direct exposure to Russia. Ford has recently closed its joint venture with a Russian car manufacturer. GM does not have a significant presence in Russia, selling only 3,000 cars a year there, of the six million it sells worldwide. Tesla’s presence in Russia is also insignificant – there are only 700 Teslas registered there. However, there are supply problems. Shortages of metals, such as palladium and nickel, widely used in catalytic converters and electrodes, will compound shortages in tight auto component markets. Travel Complex: Hotels, Restaurants, and Airlines Hilton, Marriott, and Hyatt have announced that they are halting development and new investments in Russia. While these actions on the margin will have a long-lasting negative effect on their business, a more immediate concern is that a war in Europe will suppress travel, which only recently started rebounding after COVID-19 country closures. US airlines will suffer from a double whammy of rising fuel costs, and consumer reluctance for international travel in the light of hostilities in the heart of Europe. International and business travel are the most lucrative segments of their business, the rebound of which is needed for these companies to restore profitability. We were positive on airlines in light of the reopening of international travel as the Omicron wave was receding, but now have to reconsider our optimistic stance if oil prices don’t normalize soon. Fast-food restaurant closures in Russia (Burger King, McDonald’s, Starbucks, etc.) will result in a significant hit to their bottom line. To put these actions in perspective, McDonald’s announced that temporary closures of its 750 restaurants in Russia and 180 in Ukraine will make it lose $50 million a month, resulting in a 9% hit to its revenue. In addition, these businesses are already reeling from rising food prices and consumers shifting their goods and services away from discretionary spending to necessities because of negative wage growth. We are overweight the Travel complex but are likely to downgrade it in the coming days. Big Tech – Positive According to a recent report by the IDC, the global impact of a steep decline in Information and Communications Technology (ICT) spending in Russia and Ukraine will be somewhat limited. Combined, the two countries only account for 5.5% of all ICT spending in Europe and 1% worldwide.4 Meanwhile, tech spending among Western European countries may increase in part due to expanded defense and security allocations. We believe that dislocation also creates an opportunity for US technology companies, especially in the software and cybersecurity space. Exiting the Russian market is likely to have a limited negative effect on US technology companies’ revenue, as most of them derive only a very small proportion of it from Russia. We are overweight the Software and Cybersecurity industries. Metals and Mining - Positive Disruption of the supply of metals from Russia and Ukraine creates an opportunity for US metals and mining companies, with soaring pricing promising a profits windfall. Unlike with oil and gas, an increase of supply in metals not only takes substantial investment but also takes years to bring to production. As a result, there is no respite in sight. As such, we will consider adding to our existing position, bringing allocation to an overweight. Stay tuned. Bottom Line The war in Ukraine has wreaked havoc in the US equity market, even though US trade with Russia and Ukraine is insignificant and is mostly limited to energy, palladium, and other rare metals. However, the US economy is affected by the scarcity of selected metals and materials, soaring prices, and supply chain disruptions. As is often the case, there are winners and losers: Energy, and Metals & Mining are mostly immune to the crisis and are likely to benefit by picking up slack in supply. The Technology sector, especially Software and Cybersecurity, will benefit from the disruption of the war. Consumer Staples, Travel, Auto Manufacturers, and Semiconductor Manufacturers are likely to take a hit because of shortages and soaring input prices.   Irene Tunkel Chief Strategist, US Equity Strategy irene.tunkel@bcaresearch.com     Appendix: Companies’ Self-Sanctions In Russia5 Airlines American Airlines, Delta, and United cut ticket sales partnerships with Russian airlines. All three have stopped flying over Russia. Banks Goldman Sachs became the first American bank to announce that it is exiting Russia. Citigroup also indicated that it is curtailing operations in Russia. Technology Accenture is discontinuing its operations in Russia. Airbnb (ABNB) announced that the company is suspending all operations in Russia and Belarus. Amazon (AMZN)’s cloud division, Amazon Web Services (AWS), said it would halt new sign-ups for the service in Russia and Belarus. AWS indicated that it has no data centers in Russia and, as a matter of policy, it does not do business with the Russian government. It stated that while it had Russian customers, they are all headquartered outside of Russia. Apple (AAPL) has stopped selling its products in Russia, and limited access to digital services, such as Apple Pay, inside Russia. Google confirmed that it is no longer accepting new Google Cloud customers in Russia. It has also halted its advertisement operations in the country. IBM (IBM) has suspended all business in Russia. Intel (INTC) has stopped all shipments to Russia and Belarus, the company announced. Microsoft (MSFT) is suspending all new sales of its products and services in Russia. Microsoft (MSFT) also said it will continue aiding in Ukrainian cybersecurity. Netflix (NFLX) said it will be suspending its streaming service in Russia. Spotify (SPOT) said it has closed its office in Russia “indefinitely” and restricted shows “owned and operated by Russian state-affiliated media.” Adobe stopped all new sales in Russia Uber is divesting from internet company Yandex Paypal suspended all services in Russia Big Four Accounting Firms Ernst & Young, Deloitte, KPMG, and PwC are pulling out of the country. Energy Exxon pledged to leave its last remaining oil and gas project in Russia and not to invest in new developments in the country. Credit Card Providers All three American credit card giants, Mastercard (MA), Visa (V), and American Express (Amex), have suspended all their network operations in Russia. Credit cards issued by Russian banks will not work in other countries, and cards issued elsewhere will not work for purchases in Russia. Hotels Hyatt (H), Hilton (HLT), and Marriott (MAR) are halting development and new investments in Russia. Hilton and Marriott are closing their corporate offices. Hilton is keeping its existing 26 hotels open (a fraction of the company’s 6,800 properties worldwide). Marriott hotels are franchised and the company is evaluating the ability to keep these hotels open. Industrials 3 has halted operations in Russia. Dow (DOW) has suspended all purchases of feedstocks and energy from Russia. It has also stopped all investments in the region and is supplying only limited essential goods in Russia. General Electric (GE) suspended most of its operations in Russia, with the exception of “providing essential medical equipment and supporting existing power services.” John Deere (DE) has halted shipments of its products to Russia. Caterpillar (CAT) is suspending operations at its Russian manufacturing facilities. Boeing (BA) said it would suspend support for Russian airlines. Automakers Ford (F) announced it was suspending its operations in Russia. The American automaker has a 50% stake in Ford (F) Sollers, a joint venture that employs at least 4,000 workers. GM does not have much of a presence in Russia. Entertainment Disney (DIS) is also suspending the release of its theatrical films in Russia, citing “the unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.” WarnerMedia said on February 28 that it would pause the release of “The Batman” in Russia. The company is also pausing all new business in Russia, ceasing broadcast of its channels, halting all new content licensing with Russian entities, and pausing planned theatrical and games releases. Retail Estée Lauder Companies will suspend all commercial activity in Russia, including closing every store and brand site and halting shipments to any of our retailers in Russia. The company had also already suspended business investments and initiatives in Russia. TJX has promised to divest its equity ownership in Familia, an off-price retailer with more than 400 stores in Russia. Consumer Staples Mondelez (MDLZ) said it would scale back all non-essential activities in Russia “while helping maintain continuity of the food supply.” The company said it would focus on “basic offerings,” and discontinue all new capital investments and suspend advertising spending in the country. Procter & Gamble (PG) has discontinued all new capital investments in Russia and is suspending all media, advertising, and promotional activity. The company will continue to provide basic health, hygiene, and personal care items. Philip Morris suspended planned investments and will reduce manufacturing in Russia. PepsiCo will stop selling soda in Russia but will continue to produce dairy and baby food. Restaurants Yum Brands (YUM) is closing 70 company-owned KFC restaurants and 50 Pizza Hut franchises in Russia. It will also suspend all investment and restaurant development in the country. McDonald’s (MCD) is closing some 750 restaurants in Russia. Russia’s restaurants along with another 108 in Ukraine, accounted for 9% of the company’s revenue in 2021. The company said that halting Russian operations will cost it $50 million a month. Restaurant Brands International (owner of Burger King) will end corporate support for 800 locations in Russia and will not approve any additional investment or expansion. Starbucks is closing all of its locations in Russia. Transportation UPS, DHL, and FedEx have suspended operations in Russia and Belarus.       Footnotes 1     The nickel price increase was compounded by a margin call on a major Chinese nickel producer that had accumulated a large short position through forward contracts in order to lock in a price for future delivery. 2     Palladium - Wikipedia 3    United States (USA) Exports, Imports, and Trade Partners | OEC - The Observatory of Economic Complexity 4    A New Report from IDC Looks at the Initial Impact of the Russia-Ukraine War on Global ICT Markets. 5    Which Companies Have Pulled Out of Russia? Here’s a List. - The New York Times (nytimes.com) and https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/02/business/companies-pulling-back-russia-ukraine-war-intl-hnk/index.html Recommended Allocation

Special Report

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

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

Executive Summary US Equity Drawdowns During Geopolitical Crises/Commodity Shocks​​​​​​ The most recent examples of geopolitical and commodity price shocks similar the current one include the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, the oil embargo of 1973 in response to the Yom Kippur War as well as the Gulf War of 1990. The magnitude of the S&P 500 selloff was 28% in 1962, 23% in 1973 and 20% in 1990 (Chart of the week). Neither of our capitulation indicators for the S&P 500 or for EM stocks have reached their previous lows. As for commodity prices, the only thing that is certain in the next couple of months is that volatility will remain very elevated. Having incurred considerable costs, Russia will push to maximize its gains and secure a new, more favorable agreement with NATO. This will keep geopolitical tension elevated.   Bottom Line: The drawdown in global and EM stocks in not over yet. The US dollar has more upside in the near term. This is consistent with the S&P500 outperforming and EM stocks underperforming. A rising US dollar bodes ill for EM fixed-income markets. Feature Chart 1US Equity Drawdowns During Geopolitical Crises/Commodity Shocks The world is experiencing geopolitical and commodity price shocks that have not been seen in over a generation. The most recent examples of this kind of shock include the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, the oil embargo of 1973 in response to the Yom Kippur War as well as the Gulf War of 1990. Chart 1 illustrates the current trajectory of the S&P 500 with selloffs that occurred during those three episodes. The magnitude of the S&P 500 selloff was 28% in 1962, 23% in 1973 and 20% in 1990. The S&P 500 is down only 11% from its peak. Based on the above three profiles, the current selloff in US stocks has further to go. This also means that non-US equities, including EM, will continue to suffer. What are the conditions needed for global stocks to bottom? In our opinion, a durable bottom in share prices will occur when measures of capitulation in equity markets reach their previous lows, commodity prices (particularly crude prices) decline and geopolitical tensions peak. We elaborate on each below. Equity Capitulation Neither of our capitulation indicators for the S&P 500 or for EM stocks have reached their previous lows. Chart 2 displays our capitulation indicator for US equities. Its construction is based on four equal-weighted components: the composite momentum indicator, the US equity sentiment indicator, industry group breadth and the advance-decline line (shown individually in Chart 7-8 below). Chart 2US Stocks Have Not Reached Their Selling Climax This indicator has not reached its lows of 2010, 2011, 2018 and 2020. In 2011 and 2018, the S&P500 selloffs were 19.5% and 19.8%, respectively. Hence, our best guess for the magnitude of an equity drawdown in this selloff is about 20%. This puts the potential S&P500 low at 3600-3700. The latter is consistent with the technical support (3-year moving average) that held up in 2011, 2016 and 2018 (Chart 2, top panel).  Chart 3 illustrates our EM equity capitulation indicator. Its four equal-weighted components are the composite momentum indicator, EM equity sentiment, industry group breadth and net EPS revisions (shown individually in Chart 9-10 below). We believe that EM share prices will drop until this capitulation indicator comes to the levels reached in the 2011, 2013 and 2018 selloffs. Chart 3The EM Equity Capitulation Has Further To Run Concerning the magnitude of further EM equity selloff, the next technical defense line for the MSCI EM stock index in USD is 10%, or in the worst-case scenario, 25% below current levels (Chart 3, top panel). The Commodity Shock Global share prices have become negatively correlated with commodity (primarily oil) prices and such an inverse relationship will likely persist for now. In fact, an important signal of the bottom in the S&P 500 during the 1990 oil spike was the peak in crude prices (the latter is shown inverted in Chart 4). In the case of the oil embargo of 1973-74, the oil market was not developed, and US share prices were negatively correlated with US 10-year Treasury yields (Chart 5). Chart 4The 1990 Oil Shock Chart 5The 1973 Oil Shock   Presently, given that US stocks were reacting negatively to rising US bond yields prior to the Ukraine crisis, it is reasonable to expect American share prices to bottom only when two conditions are satisfied: (1) oil prices start falling on a sustainable basis and (2) US bond yields do not rise much. How much will oil and other commodity prices rise? It is hard to know because multiple forces are in play. First, Russia is the second largest commodity exporter in the world (after the US). Russia’s crude oil exports account for 8.4% of global crude consumption, natural gas exports for 5.9% of global consumption and 3.4% for coal (Table 1). Across metals, Russia is a large producer too – 35.6% for palladium, 4.4% for nickel and 4.2% for copper (Table 1).  In turn, Russia and Ukraine production together accounts for 14% of global wheat consumption. Table 1Russia’s Global Share In Various Commodities The West’s official sanctions affect Russian exports of certain commodities but there is also a reluctance on the part of private companies to buy or ship Russian exports. This latter factor makes it nearly impossible to gauge just how much supply of each individual commodity will be curtailed. Assuming in the near term that a considerable share of Russia’s commodity exports will be blocked from global markets, the largest impact will be on oil, palladium, copper, nickel and fertilizer. While ratcheting sales of resources to China is a saving grace for Russia, it might take some time until shipments can be rerouted and reorganized. Second, the US is pressuring allied nations in the Gulf as well as other countries like Venezuela to produce and bring more oil to the market. Finally, the surge in commodity prices is probably already destroying demand. Oil and wheat prices have risen to record highs in many EM currencies (Chart 36 and 37 below). This will push inflation higher and herald more rate hikes from central banks. High interest rates along with tight fiscal policy and eroding discretionary spending (due to high energy and food prices) entail weak demand in developing economies. Bottom Line: In the very short run, risks to many commodity prices are skewed to the upside due to supply constraints. Yet, enormous uncertainty over factors driving their demand and supply makes prices over the next three months impossible to forecast. During this period, individual commodity prices might be driven by idiosyncratic factors. The only thing that is certain in the next couple of months is that volatility in commodity prices will remain very elevated. Price surges might be followed by large drawdowns and vice versa. Geopolitical Tensions The Kremlin will continue its military assault until it establishes firm control over Kyiv and the Black Sea coast, including the city of Odessa. As we wrote in our March 2 report, Putin’s objective is to install a very loyal government in Kyiv and to control the territory east of the Dniepr river. It is not clear to us whether the Kremlin has the appetite to control the Ukraine territory west of the Dniepr river. Western Ukraine has always been very anti-Russian and Putin might realize that it will be too costly to capture and control it. We do not think Putin has ambitions to go beyond Ukraine (Moldova being an exception). That said, there is no doubt that the Kremlin will be presenting more demands to NATO and threatening if those demands are not met. Having incurred considerable costs, Russia will push to maximize its gains and secure a new, more favorable agreement with NATO. It is not clear how many geopolitical concessions or what security guarantees the US is willing to provide to Russia. On the whole, geopolitical tensions between Russia and NATO/the US will continue until there is a new deal between the parties. Investment Strategy Chart 6No Trend Change In EM And US Relative Equity Performance The drawdown in global and EM stocks in not over yet. Within a global equity portfolio, we continue to recommend underweighting EM and Europe and overweighting the US. Interestingly, the EM relative equity performance versus the global stock index has rolled over at its 200-day moving average, while the US’s relative performance has found a support at its 200-day moving average (Chart 6). Such a technical configuration suggests that EM stocks will continue underperforming for now while US equities will have another upleg in relative terms. The US dollar has more upside in the near term. This is consistent with the S&P500 outperforming and EM stocks underperforming. A rising US dollar bodes ill for EM fixed-income markets. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Components Of Our US Equity Capitulation Indicator Not all components of our US Equity Capitulation Indicator have reached their previous lows. Given the backdrop of still expensive US equity valuations, heightened geopolitical risks, very elevated inflation and high inflation expectations as well as the little maneuvering room that the Fed has, odds are that US share prices will drop further. Chart 7Components Of Our US Equity Capitulation Indicator Chart 8Components Of Our US Equity Capitulation Indicator Components Of Our EM Equity Capitulation Indicator Not all components of our EM Equity Capitulation Indicator have reached their previous lows either. The share of industry groups above their 200-day moving average, analysts’ net EPS revisions as well as the momentum and equity sentiment indicators remain above their lows. Further downside in EM share prices is likely. Chart 9Components Of Our EM Equity Capitulation Indicator Chart 10Components Of Our EM Equity Capitulation Indicator US Stocks Have Not Yet Reached Their Selling Climax The NYSE’s advance/decline line has broken down and is dropping, signifying a broadening equity rout. Yet, we doubt the US equity indexes will bottom when 35% of NYSE listed stocks are above their 200-day moving average. Finally, the US median stock has broken below its 200-day moving average. Given the fundamental backdrop, all of these technical signposts point to a larger than 10% correction in the S&P 500. Chart 11US Stocks Have Not Yet Reached Their Selling Climax Chart 12US Stocks Have Not Yet Reached Their Selling Climax Chart 13US Stocks Have Not Yet Reached Their Selling Climax Chart 14US Stocks Have Not Yet Reached Their Selling Climax Global Overall And Global ex-US Equities Although Global ex-US stocks are much more oversold than US stocks, their growth and profit backdrops are worse. As we argued in the front section of this report (Chart 6 above), odds are that US stocks will continue outperforming non-US stocks in the near term. Despite crashing, European stocks might not have found a support yet. Chart 15Global Overall And Global ex-US Equities Chart 16Global Overall And Global ex-US Equities Chart 17Global Overall And Global ex-US Equities Chart 18Global Overall And Global ex-US Equities European Stocks: Is A Support At Hand? Investor sentiment on European stocks has become depressed. Yet, European economies will decelerate due to the energy shock (natural gas prices have shot up two-fold since October 1) as well as falling consumer and business confidence. A bottom for euro area stocks might be lower than current prices. Chart 19European Stocks: Is A Support At Hand? Chart 20European Stocks: Is A Support At Hand? Chart 21European Stocks: Is A Support At Hand? EM Equities: Cheap But Mind The Profit Outlook According to our cyclically adjusted P/E ratio, EM stocks are slightly cheap in absolute terms and are very attractive versus US equities. However, this valuation indicator should be used by long-term investors. In the short run and even from a cyclical perspective, this valuation indicator is not very useful. Besides, investor sentiment on EM equities was neutral in the middle of February. It might take more weakness before bad news get priced in EM share prices. Chart 22EM Equities: Cheap But Mind The Profit Outlook Chart 23EM Equities: Cheap But Mind The Profit Outlook Chart 24EM Equities: Cheap But Mind The Profit Outlook EM Profits In A Soft Spot As projected by our EM narrow money (M1) aggregate, EM corporate earnings will continue to disappoint. This is the key risk to EM share prices. In fact, EM EPS has been broadly flat over the past 15 years. That is why EM stocks appear cheap. Plus, EM ex-TMT stocks have not yet fallen much and downside risks remain. Chart 25EM Profits In A Soft Spot Chart 26EM Profits In A Soft Spot Chart 27EM Profits In A Soft Spot Chinese Investable Stocks Are At Their March 2020 Lows Offshore and onshore Chinese shares prices have been falling hard. Not only have Chinese corporate profit expectations been downshifting but also Chinese Investable stocks have been derating (their multiples have been compressing). This has been due to foreign investors projecting/extrapolating the US-Russia confrontation to a possible future US-China geopolitical standoff, and therefore possible sanctions the West can impose on China. Chart 28Chinese Investable Stocks Are At Their March 2020 Lows Chart 29Chinese Investable Stocks Are At Their March 2020 Lows Chart 30Chinese Investable Stocks Are At Their March 2020 Lows Chart 31Chinese Investable Stocks Are At Their March 2020 Lows China: No "All-In" Stimulus Yet The improvement in China’s total social financing has been entirely due to local government bond issuance. Corporate and household credit have not improved at all. Consistently, traditional infrastructure investment has probably bottomed. Yet, outside this sector the outlook is uninspiring. Property construction remains at risk, consumer spending is very sluggish and private business sentiment is downbeat. Chart 32China: No "All-In" Stimulus Yet Chart 33China: No "All-In" Stimulus Yet Chart 34China: No "All-In" Stimulus Yet Chart 35China: No "All-In" Stimulus Yet EM Woes: Energy And Food Prices Many low-income developing countries will be suffering from elevated food and energy prices. Oil and wheat prices in EM currencies have surged to all-time highs. This will lift headline inflation in many emerging economies, lead to monetary tightening and reduce household income available for discretionary spending. All of these and the lack of fiscal easing in many developing countries entail growth disappointments this year. Chart 36EM Woes: Energy And Food Prices Chart 37EM Woes: Energy And Food Prices Chart 38EM Woes: Energy And Food Prices Chart 39EM Woes: Energy And Food Prices EM Credit Spreads Are Widening Rapidly EM sovereign and corporate spreads have broken out. Such spread widening is not simply due to Russian credit. The pace of spread widening differs among countries. However, directionally, credit spreads seem to have embarked on a widening path. In a nutshell, Chinese USD corporate in general and property bond prices in particular are tanking (see below). This foreshadows the poor outlook for Chinese housing. Chart 40EM Credit Spreads Are Widening Rapidly Chart 41EM Credit Spreads Are Widening Rapidly Chart 42EM Credit Spreads Are Widening Rapidly Chart 43EM Credit Spreads Are Widening Rapidly EM Credit Markets And EM Equities Historically, rising EM corporate USD bond yields led to a selloff in EM share prices. This is the cost of capital that matters for EM equities. Unless EM sovereign and corporate bonds yields start falling on a sustainable basis, EM equities will continue to struggle. Chart 44EM Credit Markets And EM Equities Chart 45EM Credit Markets And EM Equities Chart 46EM Credit Markets And EM Equities Global Resource Stocks The relative performance of global energy and basic materials versus the global equity index has bottomed. In the medium term, odds are that TMT stocks will underperform while resource companies outperform. Yet, the outlook for energy stocks and basic materials in absolute terms is complicated (in line with the elevated volatility in commodity prices we discussed in the front section). Notably, even though commodity prices have skyrocketed, basic materials and energy share prices have not yet broken out. It seems the market is doubting the sustainability of high commodity prices. Chart 47Global Resource Stocks Footnotes