Economy

Special Report

Executive Summary An inverted yield curve is a reliable recession indicator. Inversions of the 3-month/10-year Treasury slope and the 3-month/3-month, 18-months forward slope both provide more timely recession signals than inversion of the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope. An inverted yield curve is a reliable equity bear market indicator. Even when it’s not signaling a recession, the yield curve’s movements offer some insight into equity returns as stocks have consistently performed better while it is flattening than they have when it is steepening. The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope embeds useful information for corporate bond excess returns. Corporates perform best when the slope is very steep and worst when it is very flat and/or inverted. Treasury securities generally outperform cash when the yield curve is either very steep or inverted. The one exception is the early-1980s when the Fed continued to tighten aggressively even after an inversion of the yield curve. Different Slopes Are Sending Different Signals Bottom Line: The overall message from the yield curve is that, while the economic recovery is no longer in its early stages, it is premature to talk about a recession. On a 6-to-12 month investment horizon, investors should overweight equities in multi-asset portfolios. Within US bond portfolios, investors should maintain a neutral allocation to investment grade corporate bonds and keep portfolio duration close to benchmark. Feature It’s a well-known maxim in macro-finance that an inverted yield curve signals a recession. While that adage embeds a lot of truth, it is also sufficiently vague that it raises more questions than it answers. How far in advance does an inverted yield curve signal a recession? What specific yield curve segment sends the most helpful signal? And most importantly, does the yield curve tell us anything useful about the future performance of financial assets? These sorts of questions are particularly relevant today as we observe some sections of the yield curve approaching inversion while others make new highs (Chart 1). Chart 1Different Slopes Are Sending Different Signals This Special Report explains how to think about the slope of the US Treasury curve as an indicator for the economy and financial markets. We first examine the yield curve’s empirical track record as a recession indicator. We then consider what the slope of the yield curve tells us about future equity, corporate bond and Treasury returns. The analysis presented in this report focuses on three different measures of the yield curve slope: The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope, the 3-month/10-year Treasury slope and the spread between the 3-month T-bill rate and the 3-month T-bill rate, 18 months forward. That last spread measure is less commonly cited, but Fed research has shown it to be a reliable predictor of recession.1 It was also recently highlighted by Fed Chair Jerome Powell.2 In the remainder of this report we will refer to the 3-month/3-month, 18-month forward spread as the “Fed Slope”. The Yield Curve & Recession Recession forecasting is a tricky business. It is often not so much a question of identifying “good” and “bad” recession indicators, but a question of balancing lead time and reliability. Recession indicators derived from financial market prices tend to offer greater advance warning of recession but also provide more false signals. On the flipside, indicators derived from macroeconomic data tend to give less lead time but with fewer false signals. Typically, the most useful recession indicators involve some combination of financial market and economic data. For example, a 2018 report from our US Investment Strategy service showed that a useful recession indicator can be created by combining the 3-month/10-year Treasury slope and the Conference Board’s Leading Economic Indicator.3 The Treasury slope’s reputation as an excellent recession indicator is justified because, despite it being derived from volatile financial market data, an inversion of the yield curve provides a very reliable recession signal. The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope has inverted in advance of 7 of the past 8 recessions and has not sent a false signal.4  The 3-month/10-year Treasury slope has done even better, calling 8 out of the past 8 recessions without a false signal. The Fed Slope, meanwhile, has also called 8 out of the past 8 recessions, but it sent one false signal in September 1998. There is room to quibble about the usefulness of the yield curve as a recession indicator in terms of lead time. The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope has, on average, inverted 15.9 months before the start of the next recession (Table 1). This inversion has always occurred before the first Fed rate cut of the cycle, and in all but one instance (1973-75), before the peak in the S&P 500. Table 1Lead Times For Yield Curve Segments, Equity Bear Markets And Fed Rate Cuts But while some advance warning is good, the 2-year/10-year slope probably gives too much lead time. For example, the 2-year/10-year slope inverted a full 24 months before the 2007-09 recession, but it would have been unwise to act on that information since the S&P 500 didn’t peak for another 22 months! The historical record shows that the 3-month/10-year Treasury curve and the Fed Slope offer more useful signals than the 2-year/10-year curve. On average, these curves provide less lead time than the 2-year/10-year slope but still generally provide advance warning of recession and stock market peaks. The recession signal from the 3-month/10-year slope has only missed the peak in the S&P 500 twice. The signal from the Fed Slope has only missed the stock market’s peak once, but it also sent one false signal. Synthesizing all this information, we conclude that the 3-month/10-year Treasury curve and the Fed Slope are both highly reliable recession indicators that typically provide more than enough advance warning for equity investors to adjust their positions. The main value of the 2-year/10-year Treasury curve is that its inversion warns that we may soon get a timelier signal from the 3-month/10-year Treasury slope and the Fed Slope. Looking at the present situation, the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope has flattened dramatically during the past few months, but at 18 bps it remains un-inverted. Meanwhile, the 3-month/10-year Treasury slope and the Fed Slope are both elevated at 195 bps and 255 bps, respectively. We can conclude from this that recession warnings are premature. We will become more concerned about an upcoming recession when the 3-month/10-year slope and the Fed Slope approach inversion. The Yield Curve & Equity Returns Identifying a recession and demarcating its beginning and ending dates may seem like a trivial exercise that has little practical import. Celebrated mutual fund manager Peter Lynch has repeatedly offered the opinion that any time an equity investor spends thinking about the economy is wasted time. We beg to differ. Equity bear markets reliably coincide with recessions (Chart 2) – since the late 1960s, only one recession has occurred without a bear market (the first leg of the Volcker double dip from January to July 1980) and only one bear market has occurred without a recession (October 1987’s Black Monday bear market) – and an asset allocator who reduced equity exposure upon receiving advance notice of recessions would have been in a position to generate significant alpha. Chart 2Recessions And Bear Markets Tend To Coincide The relationship between equity returns and the business cycle is not happenstance – variation in stock prices correlates closely with variation in corporate earnings and corporate earnings growth is a function of the business cycle. Equity prices, P, are simply the product of earnings per share, E, and the multiple investors are willing to pay for them, P/E: P = E x (P/E). If we hold somewhat fickle P/E multiples constant, stock prices will rise and fall with earnings. Given that earnings rarely decline outside of recessions (Chart 3), investors can expect equities to rise during expansions and decline during recessions. Chart 3Earnings Grow In Expansions And Fall In Recessions Earnings Declines Outside Of Recessions Are Rare Digging a little more deeply into the empirical record since consensus S&P 500 earnings estimates began to be compiled reinforces the earnings/returns link. With the exception of the first leg of the Volcker double dip recession in 1980, forward four-quarter earnings estimates have fallen in every recession and have contracted in the aggregate at an annualized 16% rate (Table 2). Multiples have expanded at a hearty 9% clip from the beginning to the end of recessions but have always declined, sometimes sharply, during them. Conversely, earnings estimates always grow heartily during expansions, while multiples tend to observe a fairly tight range. Multiples and stocks move ahead of the business cycle, consistently troughing before the end of a recession, but the 20-percentage-point expansion/recession disparity in annualized returns testifies to the yield curve’s utility as an investment leading indicator. Table 2When Earnings Fall, So Do Stocks The yield curve’s usefulness as a predictor of equity returns goes beyond recession signaling. Over the last half-century, the yield curve has tended to steepen and flatten in distinct phases. Defining a phase as a move of at least 200 basis points (bps) between the 3-month/10-year curve slope’s peak and trough, we count ten steepenings and nine flattenings since August 1969 (Chart 4). Chart 450 Years Of Steepening And Flattening After segmenting performance by slope increments in steepening (Table 3, top panel) and flattening (Table 3, middle panel) phases, we find a clear distinction. S&P 500 total returns tend to be much stronger when the yield curve is in a flattening phase than when it is steepening. In general, a steeper curve is better than a flatter (or inverted) one for equity returns but flattening dominates steepening in every segment but the current one (150-200 bps). The cheery news for investors concerned about an inverted yield curve’s effect on stocks is that the upcoming flattening increments between now and inversion have historically been favorable. Though we are tactically neutral equities, we recommend overweighting them in multi-asset portfolios over a cyclical 6-to-12 month timeframe. Table 3Stocks Like A Flattening Yield Curve The Yield Curve & Corporate Bond Returns This section of the report considers investment grade corporate bond returns in excess of a duration-matched position in US Treasuries and whether the slope of the Treasury curve can help us predict their magnitude. First, it’s important to point out that there is a lot of overlap between excess corporate bond returns and equity returns, but it is not complete (Chart 5). Corporates certainly tend to underperform duration-matched Treasuries during recessions and equity bear markets, but there have also been significant bouts of underperformance that fall outside of those periods. For example, corporate bond returns peaked well before equity returns in the late-1990s and corporates also underwent a severe selloff in 2014-15. Chart 5Investment Grade (IG) Corporate Bond Returns By Starting Slope Level And Trend That said, Table 4 shows that, as is the case with stocks, a strategy of reducing corporate bond exposure during recessions will profit over time. Corporate bonds have underperformed Treasuries by a cumulative 3.1% (annualized) during recessions since 1979 and have outperformed by 1.2% (annualized) in non-recessionary periods. Table 4Corporate Bond Performance In And Out Of Recessions The results in Table 4 suggest that investors should remain overweight corporate bonds versus Treasuries at least until the 3-month/10-year Treasury slope inverts. However, we think investors can perform even better if they pay attention to early warning signs from the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope. Table 5 shows historic 12-month corporate bond excess returns given different starting points for the 2-year/10-year slope. The starting points are also split depending on whether the 2-year/10-year slope was in a steepening or flattening trend at the time. Table 512-Month Investment Grade (IG) Corporate Bond Returns By Starting Slope Level And Trend The results presented in Table 5 show that the level of the slope matters much more than whether the curve is in a steepening or flattening trend. They also show that, in general, excess returns tend to be much higher when the slope is steep than when it is flat. We also see that the odds of corporate bonds outperforming duration-matched Treasuries on a 12-month horizon decline markedly for periods when the 2-year/10-year slope starts below 25 bps. At present, the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope is 18 bps, just below the 25-bps cutoff. Though we take this negative signal from the yield curve seriously, we also anticipate that peaking inflation will prevent the Fed from raising rates by 245 bps during the next 12 months, the pace that is currently discounted in the yield curve. If this view pans out it will likely lead to some modest 2/10 curve steepening and a relief rally in corporate spreads. To square the difference between the current negative message from the yield curve and our more optimistic macro view, we recommend a neutral allocation to investment grade corporate bonds within US fixed income portfolios. Though we will likely downgrade our recommended allocation if the 2-year/10-year slope continues to flatten and approaches inversion. The Yield Curve & Treasury Returns This section of the report considers US Treasury index returns in excess of a position in cash, a metric designed to proxy for the returns earned by varying a US bond portfolio’s average duration. Treasury outperformance of cash indicates that long duration positions are profiting while Treasury underperformance of cash indicates that short duration positions are in the green. The historical relationship between Treasury returns and the slope of the yield curve is heavily influenced by the early-1980s period when the Fed plunged the economy into a double-dip recession to contain spiraling inflation. Chart 6 shows that this early-1980s episode is the only one where Treasuries sold off steeply even after all three of our yield curves had inverted. Chart 6A Repeat Of The Early 1980s Episode Remains Unlikely In fact, if we look at the history of 12-month Treasury returns going back to 1973 split by the starting point for the slope (Tables 6A, 6B & 6C), we see that returns are worst after the curve is inverted and best when the curve is very steep. Table 6A12-Month Treasury Excess Returns* Given Different Starting Points For 2-Year / 10-Year Slope Since 1973 Table 6B12-Month Treasury Excess Returns* Given Different Starting Points For 3-Month / 10-Year Slope Since 1973 Table 6C12-Month Treasury Excess Returns* Given Different Starting Points For the Fed Slope** Since 1973 However, that picture changes if we start our historical sample in 1985 to exclude the early-1980s episode. Now, we see that Treasury returns tend to be high when the yield curve is very steep and when it is inverted (Tables 7A, 7B & 7C). The worst 12-month periods for Treasury returns are when the 2-year/10-year slope is between 75 bps and 100 bps, when the 3-month/10-year slope is between 50 bps and 75 bps and when the Fed Curve is between 0 bps and 25 bps. If we apply today’s situation to the post-1985 results shown in Tables 7A, 7B & 7C, we would conclude that the outlook for Treasury returns is very positive. The 3-month/10-year slope and Fed Curve are very steep, and the 2-year/10-year slope is in the 0 bps to 25 bps range. Of course, that message from the 2-year/10-year slope flips if viewed in the context of the post-1973 data shown in Table 6A. Table 7A12-Month Treasury Excess Returns* Given Different Starting Points For 2-Year / 10-Year Slope Since 1985 Table 7B12-Month Treasury Excess Returns* Given Different Starting Points For 3-Month / 10-Year Slope Since 1985 Table 7C12-Month Treasury Excess Returns* Given Different Starting Points For the Fed Slope** Since 1985 Our assessment is that the risk of a repeat of the early-1980s episode is still relatively small. Yes, inflation is extremely high, but it is likely to moderate naturally as we gain more distance from the pandemic. In that environment, the Fed will not feel the need to continue tightening aggressively even after all three segments of the yield curve have inverted. As such, we are inclined to view the message from the yield curve as positive for Treasury returns on a 12-month horizon, and we continue to advocate keeping average bond portfolio duration “at benchmark”.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/dont-fear-the-yield-curve-20180628.htm 2 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-21/powell-says-look-at-short-term-yield-curve-for-recession-risk?sref=Ij5V3tFi 3 Please see US Investment Strategy Special Report, “How Much Longer Can The Bull Market Last?”, dated August 13, 2018. 4 We define an instance of “inversion” as a yield curve slope below zero for two consecutive months. Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns

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

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