Economy

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

Executive Summary Upgrade Global Duration Exposure To Neutral The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a stagflationary shock that comes at a difficult time for developed market central banks that have been laying the groundwork for a tightening cycle. We tactically upgraded our recommended duration exposure in the US to neutral last week, as the market was pricing in too much Fed tightening in 2022. We are doing similar upgrades in non-US government bonds this week for the same reason. We are maintaining our cyclical country allocations, however, as those remain in line with interest rate pricing beyond 2022. We are underweight markets where terminal rate expectations remain too low (the US, UK & Canada) and overweight countries where markets are discounting too many rate hikes in 2023/24 (Germany, Japan, Australia). In light of the instability caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we are reducing weightings in our model bond portfolio to credit sectors highly exposed to the war - European high-yield and emerging market hard currency debt. Bottom Line: The Ukraine war comes at a time when global growth momentum was already starting to roll over and with global inflation momentum set to peak soon. Upgrade duration exposure to neutral from underweight in global bond portfolios. Feature Among the tail risks that investors contemplated in their planning for 2022, World War III was likely not ranked too highly on the list. The horrific images of the Russian invasion of Ukraine – and the sharp response of the West to isolate Russia through unprecedented economic and financial sanctions - have shocked global financial markets that had been focused on relatively mundane concerns like the timing of interest rate hikes. BCA sent a short note to all clients late last week that discussed the investment implications of the invasion for several asset classes. In this report, we consider the bond market ramifications of war in Eastern Europe. Our main conclusion is that the Ukraine situation will produce a brief “stagflationary” shock that will boost global inflation and slow global growth, on the margin. High energy prices will be the main driver of that stagflation, given the uncertainties over the availability of Russian oil and natural gas supplies (Chart 1). Tighter financial conditions - beyond what has already occurred so far this year as global equity and credit markets have sold off (Chart 2) – will also contribute to the moderation of the pace of global growth. Chart 1A Mild Inflationary Shock From The Russian Invasion​​​​​​ Chart 2The Ukraine War Is Adding To 2022 Risk-Off Trends​​​​​​ The stagflation shock should be relatively short, perhaps 3-6 months. BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy service expects OPEC to eventually supply more oil to the global market – a move that was already likely before the Russian invasion – helping to reduce the Russian supply premium in oil prices. Putin will likely have to be satisfied with claiming eastern Ukraine rather than being stuck in a protracted battle with fierce Ukrainian resistance while Russia suffers under crippling sanctions. BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy service does not expect the conflict to spread beyond Ukraine’s borders, as neither Russia nor NATO have an interest in war with each other (despite the nuclear saber-rattling by Russian President Putin in response to Western sanctions). A mild bout of stagflation will only delay, and not derail, the cyclical move towards tighter global monetary policies in response to elevated inflation and tightening labor markets, particularly in the US. This will take some of the upward pressure off global bond yields as central banks will be less hawkish than expected in 2022, but does not change the outlook for higher bond yields in 2023 and 2024. In terms of changes to our fixed income investment recommendations, and the allocations to our Model Bond Portfolio, we come to the following three conclusions. Upgrade Tactical Non-US Duration Exposure To Neutral We recently upgraded our recommended tactical duration exposure in the US to neutral, with the Fed likely to deliver fewer rate hikes this year than what is discounted by markets. The Ukraine situation makes it even more likely that the Fed will underwhelm expectations. A 50bp rate hike at the March FOMC meeting is now off the table, as the equity and credit market selloffs in response to the conflict have tightened US (and global) financial conditions on the margin. However, the war is not enough of a negative shock to US growth to derail the Fed from starting a gradual tightening process this month with a 25bp hike. Our decision to change our US duration stance was largely predicated on a view that US inflation will soon peak and slow significantly over the rest of 2022. However, there is a strong case to increase non-US duration exposure, as well. Our Global Duration Indicator - comprised of leading cyclical growth indicators and which itself leads the year-over-year change in our “Major Countries” GDP-weighted aggregate of 10-year government bond yields by around six months - peaked back in February 2021 (Chart 3). The Global Duration Indicator is now at a “neutral” level consistent with more stable bond yield momentum. Declines in the ZEW economic expectations survey in the US and Europe, and in our global leading economic indicator, are the main culprits behind the fall in the Global Duration Indicator (Chart 4). Chart 3Upgrade Global Duration Exposure To Neutral​​​​​​ Chart 4Growth Expectations Have Turned Less Bond Bearish ... For Now​​​​​ While the ZEW series have rebounded in the first two months of 2022, which could set the stage for a move back to higher yields later this year, the Ukraine situation will likely hurt economic expectations (particularly in Europe) in the near-term. We expect our Global Duration Indicator to continue signaling a more neutral backdrop for global bond yields over the next few months. In our Model Bond Portfolio on pages 13-14, we are expressing our view change by increasing the duration for all countries such that the overall duration of the portfolio is in line with the custom benchmark index (7.5 years). Importantly, we view this as only a tactical view change for the next few months, as developed economy interest rate markets are still discounting too few rate hikes – and in some countries like the UK and US, actual rate cuts – in 2023/24 (Chart 5). Chart 5Priced For Short, Shallow Hiking Cycles Maintain Cyclical Government Bond Country Allocations That Favor Lower Inflation Regions Chart 6Oil Is Inflationary Now, Will Be Disinflationary Later While we are neutralizing our global duration stance over a tactical time horizon (0-6 months), we are sticking with our current recommended cyclical (6-18 months) government bond country allocations. These are based on underlying inflation trends and the expected monetary policy response over the next couple of years. As noted earlier, BCA’s commodity strategists expect oil prices to fall from current war-elevated levels in response to increased supply from OPEC. The benchmark Brent oil price is forecasted to reach $88/bbl at the end of this year and $87/bbl and the end of 2023. The result will be a sharp decline in the year-over-year growth rate of oil prices that will help bring down headline inflation in all countries (Chart 6). Lower energy inflation, however, will not be the only factor reducing overall inflation across the developed world. Goods price inflation should also slow from current elevated levels over the next 6-12 months, as consumer spending patterns shift away from goods towards services with fewer pandemic-related restrictions on activity. Less goods spending will help ease some of the severe supply chain disruptions that have fueled the surge in global goods price inflation over the past year. That process has likely already begun – indices of global shipping costs have peaked and supplier delivery times have been shortening according to global manufacturing PMI surveys. The shift from less goods spending towards more services spending will lead to trends in overall inflation being determined more by services prices than goods prices. The central banks in countries that have higher underlying inflation, as evidenced by faster services inflation, will be under more pressure to tighten policy over the next couple of years. Therefore, our current cyclical recommended country allocations (and our Model Bond Portfolio weightings) within developed market government bonds reflect the relative trends in services inflation. We are currently recommending underweights in the US, UK and Canada where services inflation is currently close to 4%, well above the central bank 2% inflation targets (Chart 7). At the same time, we are recommending overweights in core Europe (Germany and France) and Australia, where services inflation is around 2.5%, and Japan where services prices are deflating (Chart 8). Chart 7Higher Underlying Inflation In Our Recommended Underweights​​​​​​ Chart 8Lower Underlying Inflation In Our Recommended Overweights​​​​​​ Chart 9Faster Wage Growth In Our Recommended Underweights The trends in services inflation are also reflected in wage growth in those same groups of countries – much higher in the US, UK and Canada compared to Australia, the euro area and Japan (Chart 9). We expect these relative trends to continue over the next 12-24 months, with higher underlying inflation pressures forcing the Fed, the Bank of England (BoE) and the Bank of Canada (BoC) to be much more hawkish, on a relative basis, than the European Central Bank (ECB), the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) and the Bank of Japan (BoJ). Our current bond allocations not only fit with underlying inflation trends, but also with market-based interest rate expectations. In Table 1, we show the pricing of interest rate expectations over the next few years, taken from Overnight Index Swap (OIS) forwards. We show the OIS projection for 1-month interest rates 12 months from now and 24 months from now. We also include 5-year/5-year forward OIS rates as a measure of market expectations of the terminal rate, a.k.a. the peak central bank policy rate over the next tightening cycle. In the table, we also added neutral policy rate estimates taken from central bank sources.1 Table 1Medium-Term Interest Rate Expectations Still Too Low In The US & UK In the US and UK, the OIS rate projections two years out, as well as the 5-year/5-year forward rate, are below the range of neutral rate estimates. This justifies an underweight stance on both US Treasuries and UK Gilts with both the Fed and BoE now in tightening cycles. In Japan and Australia, the OIS projections are already within the range of neutral rate estimates, but the RBA and, especially, the BoJ are not yet signaling a need to begin normalizing the level of policy rates. This justifies an overweight stance on Australian government bonds and Japanese government bonds. In the euro area, OIS projections are below the range of neutral rate estimates, but the ECB is now signaling that any monetary tightening actions will need to be delayed because of the growth uncertainties stemming from the Ukraine conflict and high energy prices. Thus, an overweight stance on core European government debt is still warranted. In Canada, the OIS projections are within the range of neutral rate estimates, but the BoC has been preparing markets for a series of rate hikes. This makes our underweight stance on Canadian government bonds a more “mixed” call, although we remain confident that Canadian bonds will underperform in a global bond portfolio context versus European and Japanese government bonds. In sum, we see our recommended country allocations as the most efficient way to express our cyclical (medium-term) central bank views, given the strong link between forward interest rate expectations and longer-term bond yields (Chart 10). This is why we are not making changes to our country allocation recommendations alongside our move to tactically upgrade our global duration stance to neutral. Chart 10Too Much Tightening Priced Over The Next Year​​​​​ Chart 11Bond Markets Not Priced For A Relatively More Hawkish Fed​​​​​ Given our high-conviction view that markets are underestimating how high the Fed will need to lift interest rates in the upcoming tightening cycle – likely more than any other major developed economy central bank - positioning for US Treasury market underperformance on a 1-2 year horizon still looks like an attractive bet with forward rates priced for little change in US/non-US bond spreads (Chart 11). A wider US Treasury-German Bund spread remains our highest conviction cross-country spread recommendation. Reduce Spread Product Exposure In Europe & Emerging Markets Chart 12Cut EM & European High-Yield Exposure, But Stay O/W Italian BTPs The geopolitical uncertainty stemming from the Ukraine war and the stagflationary near-term impact of high energy prices are negatives for all risk assets, on the margin. That leads us to tactically reduce the allocation to spread product to neutral versus government debt in our Model Bond Portfolio. We are implementing this by cutting allocations to riskier fixed income sectors that are most impacted by the Russia/Ukraine conflict – European high-yield corporate debt and emerging market (EM) USD-denominated hard currency debt (Chart 12). We had already been cautious on EM debt before the Russian invasion, with an underweight allocation to both USD-denominated sovereigns and corporates, so the latest moves just increase the size of the underweight. European high-yield, on the other hand, had been one of our highest conviction overweight positions – particularly versus US high-yield - entering 2022. However the Ukraine war is likely to have a bigger negative impact on the European economy than the US economy, thus we are cutting our recommended exposure to European high-yield only. The uncertainty of a war on European soil, combined with the spike in energy prices (especially natural gas), is negative for European growth momentum, reducing 2022 euro area real GDP growth by as much as 0.4 percentage points according to ECB estimates. This raises the hurdle for any ECB monetary tightening this year. An early taper of bond buying in the ECB’s Asset Purchase Program, an outcome that ECB officials claim is a required precursor to rate hikes, is now highly unlikely. Fears of reduced ECB bond buying had weighed on the relative performance of Italian government bonds last month, but a more dovish ECB policy stance should lead to lower Italian yields and a narrowing of the BTP-Bund spread (bottom panel). We continue to recommend a cyclical overweight stance on Italian government debt. A Final Thought We need to reiterate that the recommended changes made in this report – increasing global duration exposure to neutral and cutting EM and European high-yield – are over a tactical time horizon, largely in response to the Ukraine conflict. This is more of a “risk management” exercise, rather than a change in our fundamental cyclical views. We still believe global growth will remain above trend in 2022 and likely 2023, which will prevent a complete unwind of last year’s inflation surge, particularly in the US. We expect global bond yields to begin climbing again later this year and into 2023, and we envision an eventual return to a below-benchmark duration stance.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      The sources of the neutral rate estimates are listed in the footnotes of Table 1. GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning     Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Tactical Overlay Trades

Executive Summary Chinese Onshore Stocks Are Less Impacted By External Factors We are upgrading Chinese onshore stocks from underweight to neutral relative to global stocks. At the same time, we are closing our tactical trade of long Chinese investable stocks/short global stocks. In the near term, Russia’s armed invasion of Ukraine will spark a further selloff in global risk assets. Volatility in Chinese onshore stock prices will remain high; A-share prices in absolute terms may also drop but should fall by less than their peers in European and emerging markets. On the other hand, Chinese offshore stocks are more vulnerable to geopolitical risks compared with their onshore counterparts. There are tentative signs that home prices may be stabilizing, although demand for housing remains in deep contraction. Chinese policymakers remain vigilant in preventing the property market from overheating and credit creation from overshooting. However, the ongoing Russia/Ukraine incursion has the potential to catalyze a larger stimulus package in China. If the escalating geopolitical crisis threatens the global economy, China’s authorities will likely strengthen policy supports at home to buttress the country’s domestic political, economic and financial conditions. Bottom Line: Chinese onshore stocks will weather the ongoing geopolitical storm better than their offshore and global peers. China’s economy is also less negatively impacted by the Russia/Ukraine hostilities. If the crisis deepens, China’s leadership will likely step up measures to support its economy and ensure stable domestic financial and political dynamics. Feature The conflict between Russia and Ukraine unnerved global financial markets in the past few weeks. Chinese offshore stocks were not insulated from the geopolitical event; the MSCI China Index declined by about 4% in February, in-line with the selloff in global stocks. Chart 1Chinese Onshore Financial Markets Held Up Relatively Well Last Month The current global geopolitical environment, however, has turned us a bit more positive on Chinese onshore stocks in relative terms. In the near term, the onshore market should hold up better than its offshore and European counterparts. China’s closed capital market prevents panic capital outflows and its large current account surplus as well as favorable real interest rate differentials help to maintain strength in the RMB (Chart 1). On a cyclical basis, China’s domestic economic fundamentals will continue to drive prices in the A-share market. China’s aggregate economy is less affected by the Russia/Ukraine conflict than Europe. Energy supplies from Russia to China will likely continue and may even accelerate, mitigating the risks of energy shock-induced inflation spikes. As such, we are upgrading Chinese onshore stocks from underweight to neutral in a global portfolio, both in tactical and cyclical time horizons. We remain cautious about the size of Chinese stimulus for the year and, therefore, are neutral in our cyclical view on Chinese onshore stocks relative to global equities. Despite some nascent signs of reflation and an easing of housing policy in a few Chinese cities, aggregate property demand remains weak and overall policy easing in the sector has been marginal. Nonetheless, the situation surrounding Ukraine and the global sanctions against Russia are highly fluid and may provide some ground for Chinese policymakers to ramp up stimulus at home. If the conflict intensifies and derails the European/global economy, Beijing will be more inclined to adopt measures to ensure the stability of its domestic economy, financial markets and political dynamics. Meanwhile, we are closing our long MSCI China/short MSCI global tactical trade. Chinese offshore stocks are more vulnerable to geopolitical tensions and risk-off sentiment among global investors. The Russia Incursion Has Limited Direct Impact On China’s Economy Chinese stocks were not immune last week to the global financial market’s gyrations triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. While Russia’s attack on its neighbor will create short-term disruptions on the prices of global commodities and China’s A-shares, the cyclical performance of Chinese onshore stocks is tied to the country’s domestic economic fundamentals. The military conflict between Russia and Ukraine should have a limited knock-on effect on China’s business cycle dynamics for the following reasons: Russia and Ukraine together account for less than 3% of Chinese total exports as of 2021, limiting the negative impact from reduced demand in the region on China’s current account balance.  Chart 2Ukraine: China’s Major Source Of Agricultural Commodity Supplies Russia’s incursion of Ukraine may have consequences on China’s food prices. Ukraine is a major agricultural commodity exporter to China, hence a prolonged military conflict may disrupt agricultural supplies and push up imported food prices in China (Chart 2). In this scenario, we expect that Beijing will provide subsidies to ease pressures on domestic food prices due to supply shocks, rather than tighten monetary policy to reduce demand. China is unlikely to experience shocks linked to possible energy disruptions. Russia is a core exporter of energy to China and supplies of crude oil, natural gas and coal have increased in recent years (Chart 3). We do not expect that Russia’s energy supply to China will be disrupted. Indeed, following the 2014 Russia’s invasion of Crimea, Russia’s crude oil exports to China increased by 40% (Chart 3, top panel). We anticipate that oil prices will fall from the current level in the second half of the year, limiting the upshot from higher oil prices on Chinese inflation. So far, the US and EU have announced tough sanctions on Russia’s non-energy sectors, but they have avoided halting Russia’s energy exports. ​​​​​​​In the unlikely scenario that energy flows from Russia to Europe are disrupted in any meaningful and long-lasting way, either through European sanctions or a Russian embargo, Russia would probably turn to China to absorb its energy exports. Given that Russia cannot easily replace Europe with any other alternative market, particularly natural gas, China would gain an upper hand in price negotiations with the Russians (Chart 4). Thus, a steady supply of cheap natural gas and other forms of energy would be a net positive for China’s economy. Chart 4Russia Cannot Easily Replace Europe With Any Alternative Consumer Other Than China Chart 3Russia's Ties With China On Energy Supplies Will Likely Strengthen Meanwhile, oil’s current price spike may widen the gap in profits between China’s upstream and downstream industrial enterprises (Chart 5). However, the effect from higher oil prices on Chinese downstream manufacturers should be temporary. Our Commodity and Energy Strategists believe that the Russian invasion will prompt increased production from core OPEC producers. These production increases would reduce prices from last week’s $105 per barrel level to $85 per barrel by the second half of 2022 and keep it at that level throughout 2023 (Chart 6). Chart 6Crude Oil Price Risk Premium Will Abate But Not Disappear Chart 5Rising Oil Prices May Temporarily Widen Profit Gaps Between China's Up- And Downstream Industries Bottom Line: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine should have a limited direct impact on China’s domestic economy, inflation and monetary policy. Tentative Signs Of Home Price Stabilization Although the property market is showing some signs of improvement, the aggregate demand for homes remains very sluggish. Recently released housing data in China show some slight progress, as fewer cities reported a month-on-month drop in new home prices in January (Chart 7). The monthly average new home prices among China’s 70 cities were broadly flat last month following four consecutive months of falling prices. Tier 1 and Tier 2 cities had the largest increases in home prices, whereas prices in other regions continued to contract through January, albeit to a lesser degree (Chart 7, bottom panel). The minor improvement in home prices reflects recently implemented measures to help shore up the flagging market. Last month, the PBoC cut the policy rate by 10 bps and reduced the one- and five-year loan prime rates by 10 bps and 5 bps, respectively. Moreover, last week several regional banks lowered the down payments on mortgages for homebuyers. Chart 8...Demand For Housing Remains In Deep Contraction Chart 7Although There Are Some Early Signs Of Stabilization In Home Prices... Nonetheless, the aggregate demand for housing remains weak. China’s 100 largest developers experienced a roughly 40% year-on-year plunge in total sales in January, indicating that recent easing measures failed to revive the downbeat sentiment among homebuyers (Chart 8). Bottom Line: Policymakers will remain vigilant in not inducing another surge in house prices and will continue to target steady home prices. As such, it is too early to upgrade our cyclical view on China’s property market, stimulus and economic recovery. Investment Conclusions We are upgrading Chinese onshore stocks to neutral relative to global equities (both tactically and in the next 6 to 12 months), while closing our tactical trade of long MSCI China/short MSCI global index. Chart 9Chinese Onshore Stock Prices Are Largely Driven By Domestic Rather Than External Factors... Given the limited impact of the Russia/Ukraine conflict on China’s domestic economy and the low correlation to the global equity index, Chinese onshore stock prices may also fall in absolute terms in the coming weeks, but not by as much as their offshore and European counterparts (Chart 9). Furthermore, while we maintain a cautious cyclical outlook for China’s stimulus, the ongoing geopolitical crisis has the potential to provide a catalyst for Chinese policymakers to stimulate the domestic economy more forcefully. If the clash evolves into a real risk to the European economy and global financial markets, odds are high that Chinese policymakers will step up stimulus measures to ensure domestic stability. In this scenario, Chinese onshore stocks will likely outperform global equities. In the past, Chinese authorities refrained from a credit overshoot when the business cycle slowed in an orderly manner, but they stimulated substantially following an exogenous shock. For example, China rolled out massive stimulus packages after the 2008 Global Financial and the 2011/12 European credit crises. Beijing did not directly respond to Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea with additional monetary support to China’s domestic economy. However, the Chinese authorities started to aggressively stimulate when a collapse in domestic demand coincided with a global manufacturing recession in 2015. Chart 10...Whereas Chinese Offshore Stocks Are More Vulnerable To Global Risk-Off Sentiment The PBoC’s outsized liquidity injection in the interbank system last Friday is also a sign that Beijing is willing to accelerate policy easing if the geopolitical backdrop meaningfully worsens.  Regarding Chinese investable stocks, we maintain our cyclical underweight stance relative to global equities. In the near term, risk-off sentiment among global investors will undermine the performance of Chinese offshore stocks in both absolute and relative terms (Chart 10). Over a longer time horizon (6 to 12 months), growth stocks will likely underperform value stocks when global stocks recover. Thus, the tech-heavy MSCI China Index is less attractive to investors compared with other emerging and developed market equities that are more value-centric. Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Strategic Themes Cyclical Recommendations Tactical Recommendations