Equities

Listen to a short summary of this report.       Executive Summary Tighter Financial Conditions May Affect Growth It is still possible that equities can outperform bonds over the next 12 months, but the risks to this are rising. Inflation may surprise further to the upside, amid rising commodity prices, pushing the Fed to tighten aggressively.  Tighter financial conditions augur badly for growth (see Chart).  We cut our recommendation for global equities to neutral and increase our allocation to cash. We continue to prefer the lower-beta US stock market over the euro zone and Emerging Markets. We are overweight defensive and structural growth sectors: Healthcare, Consumer Staples, IT and Industrials. Government bond yields have limited upside from here to year-end. We are neutral duration. US high-yield bonds are attractive: They are pricing in a big rise in defaults this year, which we see as unlikely. Recommendation Changes   Bottom Line: Rising uncertainty warrants a more defensive stance. Prudent investors should have only a benchmark weight in equities, and look for other hedges against downside risk. Overview Recommended Allocation Rather like Arnold Toynbee’s definition of history, markets in the past few months have been hit by “just one damned thing after another”. But, despite war in Ukraine, big upward surprises to inflation, and a swift aggressive turn by the Fed, global equities are only 6% off their all-time high. It is still possible that equities may outperform bonds over the next 12 months and that the global economy will avoid recession (Chart 1). But the risks to this are rising. We recommend, therefore, that prudent investors reduce their equity holdings to benchmark weight and generally have somewhat defensive portfolio positioning. We put the money raised from going neutral on equities into cash, not bonds. What are the risks? Inflation could surprise further to the upside. Inflation has spread beyond a few pandemic-related items to goods where prices are usually sticky (Chart 2). There are now clear signs that price rises are feeding through to wage increases in the US, UK and Canada – though not yet in the euro area, Japan or Australia (Chart 3). The supply response that we expected to see emerge later this year may be delayed because of Covid lockdowns in China and disruptions in supply from Russia and Ukraine (Chart 4). Consensus forecasts for US core PCE inflation see it coming down to 2.5% by next year. The risk is that it could exceed that. The Fed has got way behind the curve. In retrospect, it should have raised rates last summer – and it now understands its error. Its first hike this cycle came only when the economy had already overheated (Chart 5). The Fed may, therefore, be tempted to get rates up very quickly – something the futures market is now pricing in, since it implies that the year-end Fed Funds Rate will be 2.5%. An aggressive Fed cycle – propelled by inflation fears – is not a good environment for risk assets. Chart 1Can Stocks Keep On Outperforming Bonds? Chart 2Even Sticky Prices Are Now Rising Chart 3Price Rises Feeding Through To Wages In Some Regions Chart 4Supply Chains Remain Disrupted Financial conditions had already tightened before the Fed hiked because of higher long-term rates, widening credit spreads, and a strengthening dollar. The Goldman Sachs Financial Conditions Index points to the ISM Manufacturing Index falling below 50 later this year (Chart 6). That is the level that historically has been the dividing line between stocks outperforming bonds year-over-year (Chart 7). In particular, the sharp rise in long-term rates (the US 10-year Treasury yield has risen by 110 BPs, and the German yield by 93 BPs over the past seven months) could start to put some pressure on housing markets (Chart 8). Chart 5The Fed Hiked Too Late Chart 6Tighter Financial Conditions May Affect Growth Chart 7Will PMIs Fall Below 50? Chart 8Rising Rates Might Dampen The Housing Market The war in Ukraine is unlikely to be a risk in itself. BCA Research’s geopolitical strategists think it very improbable that the conflict will spill beyond the borders of Ukraine – though there remains tail risk of a mistake. But the war is having a big impact on energy prices, especially electricity prices in Europe (Chart 9). The oil price could remain high while Russian oil, which used to be consumed in Europe, is diverted elsewhere. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy service expects that increased supply from OPEC members will bring Brent crude down to around $90 a barrel by year-end. But, as our Client Question on page 14 details, that calculation relies on many assumptions, and the risk is that the oil price stays high. A doubling of the oil price year-on-year (which currently equates to $120/barrel) has historically often been followed by recession (Chart 10). Chart 9Europe's Electricity Prices Have Soared Chart 10Oil Price Is Close To The Risk Level China has been easing fiscal and monetary policy. But it is questionable how effective its stimulus will be this time. Confidence in the real estate market remains damaged. And the pick-up in credit growth has been limited to local government bond issuance; there is little sign that the private sector has appetite to borrow (Chart 11). Already some of these risks are affecting economic data. Consumer confidence has collapsed, presumably because of the rising cost of living (Chart 12). Although US activity indicators such as the manufacturing ISM remain elevated (see Chart 6 above), data in Europe is showing notable weakness (Chart 13).   Chart 11China's Stimulus Not Helping The Private Sector Chart 12Consumer Confidence Has Been Hit The yield curve is also getting close to signaling recession. There has been much debate of late about which yield curve to use, with Fed Chair Jerome Powell arguing for the 3-month/3-month 18-month forward curve, rather than the more usual 2/10 year or 3 month/10 year curves (Chart 14). The 2/10 is close to inverting, while the others are still a long way away. All measures of the yield curve have historically given reliable recession signals; the difference is simply a matter of timing, with the 2/10 giving the longest lead time.1 If the Fed ends up tightening as much as it intends, all the yield curves will likely invert within the next year or so. Chart 13European Data Starting To Weaken Chart 14It Depends On Which Yield Curve You Look At And, despite all these warning signals, forecasts for economic and earnings growth have not been revised down much.  Economists still expect 3.4-3.5% real GDP growth in the US and euro zone this year, well above trend (Chart 15). And, despite the drop in GDP forecasts, earnings forecasts have actually been revised up since the start of the year, with analysts now expecting 9.6% EPS growth in the US and 8.2% in the euro zone (Chart 16). Chart 15GDP Growth Is Still Expected To Be Above Trend... Chart 16...And Earnings Have Not Been Revised Down At All This all seems too much uncertainty for most asset allocators to want to stay fully risk-on. There are valid arguments that equities and other risk assets can continue to perform (which we outline in the following section, Risks To Our View). But the risks have shifted enough since the start of the year that a more defensive stance is now warranted. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com   Risks To Our View Chart 17Fed Feedback Loop Back In Action? Since our main scenario is somewhat cautious – and sentiment towards risk assets pretty pessimistic – we need to consider what could cause upside surprises to the economy and market. The most likely would be if the Fed were to turn more dovish. But the main trigger for this would be if the stock market fell sharply or growth showed clear signs of slowing – which would obviously be negative for stocks first. This scenario could produce the sort of Fed feedback loop we saw in 2015-17, when tightening financial conditions caused the Fed to ease back on rate hikes (Chart 17). More benign would be a gradual easing of inflation over the summer which would mean that the Fed could eventually hike a little less than the market currently expects. The economy may also not be as vulnerable to higher energy prices and higher rates as we fear. Food and energy are now a much smaller part of the consumption basket than they were in the 1970s (Chart 18). Rates may have a limited impact on the housing market, given the low inventory of new houses, strong household formation, and the fact that, in the US at least, some 90% of mortgages are 30-year fixed rate. Consumers continue to hold large amounts of excess savings – more than $2 trillion in the US alone. This should keep retail sales growth strong, though there might be some shift from spending on goods to spending on services as Covid fears recede (Chart 19). Chart 18Consumers Are Less Sensitive To Food And Energy Prices... Chart 19...And So May Keep On Spending Other upside risks include: A ceasefire and settlement in Ukraine (unlikely soon, since Russia will not withdraw without taking over Crimea and the Donbass, something Ukraine could not accept); more aggressive stimulus in China (possible, but only if Chinese growth weakened much further); and a sharp fall in the oil price caused by new supply coming onto the market from Saudi Arabia and North American shale fields, and possibly also Iran and Venezuela. What Our Clients Are Asking What Is The Risk Of Stagflation? Chart 20The Combination Of High Inflation And High Unemployment Was The Key Problem In The 1970s Several clients have asked about the risk of stagflation, and how the current episode compares to the 1970s. We can begin by dispelling some myths about the 1970s. There is a notion that this was a decade of poor growth for the US. That is simply not true. Real GDP grew by a solid 3.3% annual rate during the 1970s, higher than in any post-WW2 decade other than the 1990s and the 1960s (Chart 20, panel 1). The underlying problem during the 1970s was the combination of high inflation and a poor labor market. Despite solid growth, the unemployment rate kept grinding higher as inflation was increasing, never dropping below 4.5% even at the peaks of the expansions (Chart 20, panel 2). This situation went against the commonly held belief that it was not possible for both these variables to remain high at the same time for an extended period. With the economy plagued by both high inflation and high unemployment, the Fed faced a difficult dilemma: Keep interest rates too high and the already weak labor market would worsen; keep interest rates too low and inflation would spiral out of control. Throughout the decade, the Fed chose the latter option, causing inflation expectations to become unmoored. Chart 21Demographic Shocks And The Structure Of The Labor Force Led To A Weak Labor Market Why was there so much slack in the labor market? Demographics were one of the main culprits. The entrance of baby boomers into the workforce dramatically increased the pool of workers. At the same time, prime-age female participation rose at the fastest pace on record, adding additional supply to the labor force (Chart 21, panel 1). The structure of the labor market also played a key role. Almost a third of employees belonged to a union and most of their salaries were indexed to inflation (Chart 21, panels 2 & 3). This made for a rigid labor market where neither employment nor wages could adjust properly to the economic cycle. True, the oil shocks of 1974 and 1979 exacerbated inflationary pressures. But what made inflation truly pernicious during the 1970s was the inability of the Fed to fight it without compromising its employment mandate. Today the economic picture is very different. Union membership stands at only 10% and cost of living adjustments have essentially disappeared. There is also no labor supply shock on the horizon comparable to the baby boomers or women entering the labor force. This makes the calculus for the Fed easy. With its employment mandate already met, it will simply keep raising rates until inflation is back under control. As a result, the risk that it keeps policy too easy and unleashes further inflationary pressures is relatively low over the next 12 months.     How Will The War In Ukraine Affect The World Economy? Chart 22The Ukrainian War Has Impacted The Global Economy Global growth, monetary policy, and employment were projected to return to pre-pandemic trends in 2023. In January, the IMF projected global growth of 4.4% in 2022, but now it is poised to cut its forecast due to the war in Ukraine. According to OECD estimates, global economic growth could be 1% lower than what was previously predicted (Chart 22, panel 1). The conflict is putting fresh strain on overstretched global supply chains, causing the price of many commodities to surge. Russia and Ukraine are relatively small in terms of economic output (together they comprise only 1.9% of global GDP in US dollar terms). But they are very big producers and exporters of energy, metals, and key food items. Russia, for example, produces 12% of global oil, one-third of palladium, and (with Belarus) 40% of potash (used in fertilizers). Ukraine is also a major producer of auto parts, such as wire harnesses. Some European car manufacturers have had to idle factories due to a lack of components.  Global central banks have been increasing interest rates to battle inflation. But higher energy and food prices will require additional rate hikes to ensure price stability. The war in Ukraine could push up world inflation by around 2.5% this year, according to the OECD. Developing economies are in a particularly tight spot, being hit with high inflation in food and basic commodities. Their consumer price indices are very sensitive to these items. Russia and Ukraine are the main global exporters of several agricultural items (for example, they together account for a quarter of global wheat exports) which could cause global food insecurity to increase (Chart 22, panel 2). International sanctions on Russia create a risk for foreign companies with operations there. Withdrawal could have a meaningful effect on earnings. Most multinationals have only limited exposure to Russia, but a small number of prominent names make more than 5% of global revenues from the country (Chart 22, panel 3).   Chart 23AOPEC Is Able To Cover Supply Shortages... Chart 23B...Unlike Other Countries...Chart 23CTo Restore A Balanced But Tight Market What Is The Risk That The Oil Price Stays High? Our Commodity & Energy strategists see 1.3mm b/d of supply from OPEC coming onto the market beginning in May. Because of this, they expect the price of Brent crude to fall back, to average $93 per barrel this year and next. OPEC core producers fear that low inventories and an oil price above $100 per barrel will lead to demand destruction. They will therefore aim to bring prices down. They have enough spare capacity (approximately 3.2mm b/d) to cover physical deficits in global markets (Chart 23A). However, the risk to this view is tilted to the upside. The key question is whether OPEC producers will in fact ramp up production. The OPEC meeting held on March 2, 2022 noted that current market volaility is a function of geopolitical developments and does not reflect changes in market fundamentals: This could imply a reluctance to increase production as quickly as we expect. Saudi Arabia’s interest in exploiting yuan-settled oil trades with China adds an element of uncertainty. With OPEC’s intention to increase production in question, and Russian oil sanctioned and unlikely to be rerouted easily and quickly, there remains little alternative supply: Countries such as Iraq and Venezuela are unlikely to make up for supply deficits (Chart 23B). The US-Iran talks also add downside uncertainty to our price outlook. Our commodity strategists have recently ended their forecast of a return of 1-1.3mm b/d of Iranian oil (Chart 23C). A no-deal scenario is likely to lead to an escalation in tensions and volatility, warranting higher oil prices in the short term. Nevertheless, there remains the possibility that the US administration will be keen on striking a deal with Iran to reduce the risk of a global oil supply shock. This would, in turn, reduce the risk of military conflict, at least in the short-term, and remove some risk premium from oil prices. It might also lead to further increases in production from the Gulf states to prevent Iran from stealing market share, putting further downward pressure on the oil price.   Chart 24Is It Time To Favor EMU Equities? When Will Euro Area Stocks Rebound?  Chinese policy makers have sounded more aggressive of late in terms of supporting the Chinese economy and stock market, especially property and tech shares. This is a positive development for euro area equities given the region’s strong reliance on the Chinese economy (Chart 24, panel 1).  Euro area equities have been in a structural downtrend relative to US equities, but have historically staged occasional counter-trend rallies (Chart 24, panel 2). It’s possible that stocks in this region may stage another short-term rebound at some point because they are technically oversold, and valuation is extremely cheap (Chart 24, panel 3).  Investors with a longer-term investment horizon, however, should remain underweight euro area stocks until there are more signs that the region is out of its stagflation state. As we argue in the Global Equities section on page 18, the key factor to watch over the next 9-12 months is profitability. Global earnings growth will slow significantly this year in response to higher input costs and lower revenue growth.  As a net importer of energy and industrial metals, euro area earnings growth will continue to slow more than in the US (Chart 24, panel 4). In addition, in times of high uncertainty, we prefer to shelter in less volatile markets. The euro area has a much higher beta than the US (Chart 24, panel 5). Bottom Line: While there could be an opportunity to overweight euro area stocks versus the US tactically, long-term investors should continue to favor the US.   Global Economy Chart 25Global Growth Remains Robust... Overview: Global growth has been strong. But this has triggered a surge in inflation, which is pushing central banks to tighten policy more quickly than was expected even three months ago. At the same time, higher prices – and falling real wages – have started to hurt consumer confidence. This raises the risk of stagflation, particularly if disruptions caused by the war in Ukraine push commodity prices up further. A recession is still unlikely over the next 12-18 months, but the risk of one has clearly risen. US economic growth has remained robust, led by consumption and capex. GDP growth in Q4 was 5.6% QoQ annualized. The ISMs remain strong, with manufacturing at 58.5 and services 58.9 (Chart 25, panel 2). However, there are some early signs of slowdown. The Atlanta Fed Nowcast points to only 0.9% annualized growth in Q1. The effect of higher inflation (with headline CPI at 7.9% YoY) might hurt consumer confidence, since average hourly earnings growth lags behind inflation at only 5.1%. Higher rates could also dampen the housing market. With the average mortgage rate rising to 4.5%, from 3.3% at the end of last year, there are signs of a slowdown in house sales (which fell 9.5% YoY in January). Euro Area: Growth remains decent, with Q4 GDP 4.6% QoQ annualized, and robust PMIs (manufacturing at 57.0 and services at 54.8). However, wage growth lags that in the US (negotiated wages rose only 1.5% YoY in Q4), and the impact of a sharp jump in energy prices (exacerbated by the war in Ukraine) could dent consumption. Recent data have deteriorated noticeably: Consumer confidence collapsed to -18.7 in March, and the March ZEW survey (Chart 26, panel 1) fell to -38.7 (from +48.6 in February). With weak underlying growth, and core CPI inflation a relatively modest 2.7%, the ECB will not need to rush to raise rates. Chart 26...But Higher Inflation Is Starting To Damage Confidence Japan: Economic growth remains rather anemic. Manufacturing is supported by exports (which rose by 19.1% YoY in January), helping the manufacturing PMI to stay in positive territory at 53.2. But wage growth remains stagnant (0.9% YoY) and the rise in oil prices has pushed up headline inflation to 0.9%, leading to a weakening of consumer sentiment. The services PMI is a weak 48.7. There are hopes that this year’s shunto wage round will lead to strong wage rises (the government is lobbying businesses to raise wages by 3%) but this seems unlikely. With inflation ex food and energy languishing at -1.9% (even if that is distorted by cuts in mobile phone charges), there seems little need for the Bank of Japan to tighten policy. Emerging Markets: Chinese economic indicators remain depressed (Chart 26, panel 3), even though global demand for manufactured goods means exports are rising 16.4% YoY. The authorities have been easing policy, which has led to a mild uptick in credit growth. But there are questions on how effective stimulus will be, since the housing market has been damaged by the problems at Evergrande and other developers, and because China seems to be sticking to its zero-Covid policy. Some other EMs will be helped by the rise in commodity prices: South Africa, for example, saw 4.9% annualized GDP growth in Q4. But many developed countries were forced to raise rates sharply last year because of inflation and this may slow growth in 2022. Brazil’s policy rate, for example, has risen to 11.75% from 2% last April, and that has dampened activity: Brazilian industrial production is falling 7.2% YoY, and retail sales are -1.9% YoY. Interest Rates: Recorded inflation and inflation expectations (Chart 26, panel 4) have risen sharply everywhere. Slowing demand for manufactured goods and a supply-side response should allow monthly inflation to peak over the next few months – although the risks remain to the upside if commodity prices continue to rise. The surge in inflation has pushed up long-term rates, with the US 10-year Treasury yield rising by 82 BPs year-to-date and that in Germany by 73 BPs. However, the market is now pricing in very aggressive tightening by central banks through year-end: 214 BPs of further hikes by the Fed, and even 75 BPs by the ECB. The probability is that neither will do quite that much, and therefore the upside for long-term government bond yields is probably capped around its current level for the next 6-9 months.   Global Equities Chart 27Watch Earnings Revisions Closely Watch Earnings Closely: Global equities suffered a loss of 4% in Q1/2022 despite strong earnings growth. Except for the Utilities sector, all other sectors have positive 12-month trailing and forward earnings growth. Consequently, overall equity valuation, based on forward PE, is no longer stretched (Chart 27). Going forward, however, the macro backdrop of rising inflation and a slowing economy does not bode well for earnings growth, with the profit margin in developed markets already at a historical high. Rising input costs from both materials and wages will put downward pressure on profit margins while revenue growth slows. BCA Research’s global earnings model suggests that earnings growth will slow significantly this year. As such, we downgrade equities to neutral from overweight at the asset class level (see Overview section on page 2). Within equities, we maintain our already cautious country allocation, which served us well in both 2021 and Q1/22. The out-of-consensus overweight on the US and underweight on the euro area panned out well in Q1 2022, as the US outperformed the euro area by 5.9%. After the more defensive adjustment between the UK and Canada in the March Monthly Update, our country allocation portfolio has been well positioned, with overweights in the US and UK, underweights in the euro area, Canada and emerging markets excluding China, while neutral Australia, Japan, and China. In line with the shift of our structural view on industrial commodities, we upgrade the Materials sector to neutral from underweight at the expense of Real Estate and Communication Services. After these adjustments and the added defensive tilt that we took in the February Monthly Update, our global sector portfolio has a tilt towards defensive and structural growth by being overweight Tech, Industrials, Healthcare and Consumer Staples, underweight Consumer Discretionary, Utilities, and Communication Services, while neutral Materials, Financials, Energy and Real Estate. Chart 28Sector Adjustments Sector Allocation: Upgrade Materials To Neutral, Downgrade Real Estate to Neutral, Downgrade Communication Services to Underweight. Russia’s war on Ukraine is a watershed moment for industrial metals. It has altered the dynamics of the metals market which used to be dominated by Chinese demand. We had a structural underweight in the Materials sector because China was undergoing a deleveraging process. Now the Russian-Ukrainian war has demonstrated how dangerous it is for Europe to rely on Russia for energy supply and how important it is for Europe to have a strong military defense system.  Rebuilding Europe’s defense will compete with energy diversification initiatives to boost demand for metals. Such a structural shift no longer warrants an underweight in Materials (Chart 28, panel 1).  In addition, relative valuation in the Materials sector is as low as it was in the early 2000s, right before the multi-year upcycle in Materials’ relative performance (Chart 28, panel 2).  Why not go overweight then? The concern is that the sector is technically overbought due to the sharp rises in metal price. Covid lockdowns in China have disrupted the supply chain in metals, and the Russian-Ukrainian war has further intensified the rise in metals prices due to extremely low inventories. We will watch closely for a better entry point to upgrade this sector to overweight. To finance this upgrade, we downgrade Real Estate to neutral from overweight, and Communication Services to underweight from neutral. Both downgrades are driven by a deteriorating relative earnings growth outlook as shown in Chart 28, panels 4 and 5. Rising mortgage rates do not bode well for the Real Estate sector. “Reopening from Covid lockdowns” reduces the “work from home” tailwind for the Communication Services sector, where relative valuation is also stretched.    Government Bonds Chart 29WILL INFLATION COME DOWN IN 2022? Maintain At-Benchmark Duration. The first quarter of 2022 had seen a steady rise in global bond yields even before the Russian-Ukrainian war, in response to a higher inflation outlook. The negative shock to bond yields from the war was quickly reversed and bond yields continued to march higher as the supply shortage in the commodity complex further pushed up commodity prices and inflation expectations. The US 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has risen above the 2.3-2.5% range that is consistent with the Fed’s 2% PCE target. However, the 5-year/5-year forward breakeven inflation rate, the measure that the Fed pays more attention to, is only slightly above 2.3% (Chart 29, panel 2). The base case of BCA Research’s Fixed Income Strategists is that inflation will moderate in the coming months so that there should be limited upside for bond yields. We already upgraded duration to at-benchmark from below-benchmark, and government bonds to neutral from underweight within the bond asset class in the March Portfolio Update. These are still appropriate going forward with the US 10-year Treasury yield currently standing at 2.33%. Inflation-linked bonds are not cheap anymore. We maintain a neutral stance to hedge against the tail risk of a further rise in inflation.   Corporate Bonds Chart 30Continue To Favor High-Yield Credit Since the beginning of the year, investment-grade bonds have underperformed duration-matched Treasurys by 191 basis points, while high-yield bonds have underperformed duration-marched Treasurys by 173 basis points. Even with spreads widening, we continue to underweight investment-grade credits within the fixed-income category. Spreads currently do not offer enough value to warrant a neutral shift. Moreover, investment-grade corporate bonds have been performing poorly compared to high-yield corporate bonds (Chart 30, panel 1). But shouldn’t one expect lower-rated bonds to perform worse in bear markets, and better in bull markets? Our US Bond Service believes that one explanation for the poor performance of investment-grade compared to high-yield bonds is that the industry composition of the two categories is quite different. High-yield has a large concentration in the Energy sector while investment-grade bonds have a larger weighting in Financials. And with the recent surge in oil prices, it’s possible that the strong performance of Energy credits is the reason behind that return divergence. We continue to overweight high-yield bonds, as there is likely to be no material increase in corporate default risk. The market currently implies that defaults will rise to 3.7% during the next 12 months, from 1.2% over the past 12 months (Chart 30, panel 2). That seems too high. What about European credit? The ECB’S hawkish turn and then the Ukranian crisis made yields almost double this year. The spreads for both investment-grade and high-yield corporate bonds have been widening since the beginning of the year (Chart 30, panel 3). Their valuations seem to offer an attractive entry point but investors should be cautious as spreads could continue to widen in response to the negative news from the Ukranian crisis.   Commodities Chart 31Risks To Oil Price Are To The Upside Energy (Overweight): Oil prices surged to $120 – the highest level since 2013 – in the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, pricing in sanctions against the nation’s oil producers and an estimated 3-5 mm b/d of supply disruptions (Chart 31, panel 1). While the actual hit to Russian production might end up being lower, Russia accounts for over 10% of global production, almost half of which is exported (Chart 31, panel 2). The price shock was slightly offset by a marginal demand weakness from China amid another outbreak of Covid-19. However, uncertainty regarding how quickly core OPEC producers will ramp up production to fill supply shortages – as well as the breakdown in the US-Iranian talks – continue to keep oil prices jittery. Our Commodity & Energy strategists see 1.3mm b/d of increased supply from OPEC coming onto the market beginning in May. This should bring the price of Brent crude down to average $93 per barrel this year and next. The risks to this view however remain tilted to the upside. For more details, see What Our Clients Are Asking on page 14. Industrial Metals (Neutral): Russia is a major player in the metals market, providing more than a third of the world’s palladium output; it is also the third biggest producer of nickel (Chart 31, panel 3). The prices of those metals, as well as the broad industrial metals complex, have shot up following the invasion: Industrial metals had the largest weekly price change since 1990 in the week following the invasion. The outlook for industrial metals prices is tilted to the upside. Inventories for some of the industrial metals required for the energy transition are low. Moreover, if China implements significant stimulus – and supply remains tight – prices are likely to stay elevated. Precious Metals (Neutral): Gold prices reacted in line with the moves in US real rates over the first quarter of this year, initially relatively flat, before rising in the past few weeks as real rates came down. The upward move in gold prices was further amplified by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which pushed the bullion’s price close to $2040, just shy of its all-time high in late 2020. This comes as no surprise: The metal is known (despite its volatility) for its safe-haven and inflation-hedging characteristics. We maintain our neutral exposure to gold. Real rates should start to rise as inflation pressures abate in the second half of the year. Gold is also somewhat expensively valued, with the price in inflation-adjusted terms close to its record high (Chart 31, panel 4).   Currencies Chart 32Don't Turn Bearish On The Dollar Yet US Dollar: The DXY index has risen by 2.3% this quarter. We are maintaining our neutral stance on the US dollar. While the dollar is expensive by more than 20% according to purchasing power parity (PPP), positive momentum continues to be too strong to take an outright bearish position (Chart 32, panels 1 and 2). We will look to downgrade the dollar to underweight when momentum starts to weaken and when there is clear evidence that the Fed will have to back off from its tightening path. Japanese Yen: With stock markets rebounding and expectations of interest-rate hikes rising in the US, the yen has fallen by more than 18% since the beginning of the year. Still, we reiterate the overweight that we placed at the beginning of March. The yen should act as a hedge if global stock markets sell off anew. Moreover, we believe there is now limited upside for US yields, given that there are now more than 250 basis points of Fed hikes priced over the next 12 months. This should put a cap on USDJPY, as this cross is closely tied to the relative expectations of tightening between the US and Japan (Chart 32, panel 3). Canadian Dollar: We are currently underweight the Canadian dollar. Our Commodity and Energy Strategists believe that oil should come down to around $90/barrel by the end of the year. Additionally, the BoC won’t be able to follow along with the Fed in its tightening cycle, given that household debt is much higher in Canada than in the US. Both developments should put downward pressure on the CAD over the next 12 months.   Alternatives Chart 33Prepare To Turn To Defensive Alternatives Return Enhancers: We previously suggested that private equity tends to outperform other alternative assets in the early years of expansions as it benefits from cheaper financing opportunities and attractive entry valuations. This view has been correct: Following the large drawdown in Q1 2020 due to Covid, PE returns have significantly outperformed those of hedge funds (Chart 33, panel 1). However, financing conditions are tightening and could weigh down on economic activity and PE returns going forward (Chart 33, panel 2). Preliminary results for Q3 2021 show PE funds returning only around 6% compared to an average quarterly return of 10% since the beginning of the pandemic. Given the time it takes to move allocations in the illiquid space, investors should prepare to pare back exposure from PE, and look for more defensive alternative assets, such as macro hedge funds. Inflation Hedges: We have been of the view that inflation will follow a “two steps up, one step down” trajectory: More likely than not, we are near the top of those two steps. Accordingly, we were positioned to favor real estate over commodities; real estate tends to outperform when inflation is more subdued (close to 2%-3%). Inflation, globally, however has turned out to be stickier than expected and recent economic and political developments have propelled another surge in commodity prices. Scarce inventories, lingering inflation, and a potential significant Chinese stimulus imply, at least in the short-term, that commodity prices have room to run (Chart 33, panel 3). Volatility Dampeners: Timberland and Farmland remain our long-time favorite assets within this bucket. We have previously shown that both assets outperform other traditional and alternative assets during recessions and equity bear markets. Farmland particularly continues to offer an attractive yield of approximately 2.8% (Chart 33, panel 4).   Footnotes 1   Please see BCA Research Special Report, "The Yield Curve As An Indicator," for a detailed analysis of this.   Recommended Asset Allocation Model Portfolio (USD Terms)

Executive Summary Thai stocks’ recent outperformance had more to do with investors forsaking Chinese and Russian markets to rotate elsewhere, rather than Thailand’s bullish outlook. Thai domestic demand is still shaky as households are struggling with meagre income growth amid high indebtedness. Tight fiscal policy is another headwind. All this will delay the recovery in Thai corporate profits, without which a sustainable equity bull market is unlikely. On the positive side, the baht is much more competitive now, which is a boon for an economy where trade makes up 100% of GDP. The country’s travel and tourism revenues are also set to rise. Keep An Eye On Order Books For A Hint On A Sustainable Stock Rally Bottom Line: Equity investors should stay neutral for now; but put this bourse on an upgrade watchlist. Domestic bond investors should upgrade Thai local currency bonds from neutral to overweight in EM portfolios, and from underweight to neutral in Emerging Asian portfolios.   Chart 1Thai Stocks' Recent Outperformance Will Not Linger Thai stocks have held up relatively well during the market turbulence of the past two months or so. Can this be a sign that the end of the Thai bear market is near (Chart 1, top panel)? We believe that this bourse is not about to experience a major breakout in absolute or in relative terms. Thai domestic demand is still shaky, and might take some more time to recover. This is because households’ real income growth remains lackluster, and they are saddled with high debts. This will hinder consumer demand from rising strongly even after the pandemic subsides. That, in turn, will also discourage capital investments. Notably, Thai stocks’ recent relative breakout is more due to a meltdown in Chinese and Russian markets following the Ukraine crisis rather than any major improvements in Thailand’s domestic fundamentals. Thai relative performance looks much less impressive versus the EM equity index excluding Chinese and Russian stocks (Chart 1, middle and bottom panels). That said, two major macro headwinds that had hamstrung this market over the past several years have eased. The baht is no longer expensive, and the country’s decimated travel and tourism revenues – which fell from 12% of the GDP before the pandemic to nearly naught – are also set to recoup some of the losses. All this warrants that investors maintain a neutral allocation to this bourse in EM and emerging Asian portfolios for now, but put it on an upgrade watchlist. As for domestic bonds, investors should upgrade Thai bonds to overweight in an EM local currency bond portfolio, and to neutral in Emerging Asian portfolios. The Economy: An Extended Bottoming Phase  Chart 2Thai Private Consumption Is Struggling The Thai economy is still in an extended bottoming phase. Top panel of Chart 2 shows that private consumption is barely at 2019 levels, and is still about 10% lower than what would be the pre-pandemic trend. Consumption clearly slows as new COVID-19 cases go up are. The latter have been on the rise again lately, and it could slow the pace of recovery again. This is at a time when durable goods sales have not recovered to even their pre-pandemic levels (Chart 2, bottom panel). More importantly, what could hinder the economic recovery beyond the pandemic is the fact that Thai households are quite depleted in terms of their purchasing power: Household incomes are severely impaired as average wage growth has been very poor. In fact, both private and government sector jobs have barely seen any rise in their real wages in the past six years (Chart 3, top panel). Given the current higher energy and transportation prices, that leaves households with little discretionary income to spend elsewhere.   Lack of employment opportunities is exacerbating the poor wages issue. Non-farm jobs have not grown at all since 2016. The number of manufacturing jobs has actually fallen by 10% during this period (Chart 3, bottom panel). All this has been a headwind to household income. Prospects of a strong job/wage recovery in the near future is also not high. One reason for this is that Thai banks have substantially retrenched their loans to the SME sector in the past couple of years. From a high of 30% of GDP in 2019, these loans are now down to 21% (Chart 4). Credit retrenchment of this order in the job-intensive SME sector has driven many companies out of business, shrinking job opportunities. It will take a considerable time to recoup all these jobs even when the pandemic subsides.  Chart 3Real Wages Have Stagnated For Years As Employment Stopped Growing Chart 4Massive Credit Retrenchment To SMEs Will Cost Jobs Notably, Thai households were already highly leveraged going into the pandemic. Household borrowing from banks and other financial institutions taken together now amount to a very high 90% of GDP. The top panel of Chart 5 shows that for almost a decade until 2015, Thai households were leveraging up incessantly. Those loans did help boost consumer demand during all those years. But now, when jobs are scarce and wage growth is paltry, households are shy to add more leverage to their balance sheets. This means a debt-fueled recovery in consumer demand is not in the cards. Notably, total domestic credit (including households and corporates)  had also surged in a similar fashion, and is now very high at 170% of GDP (Chart 5, bottom panel). Facing subdued demand, Thai manufacturing and shipments are also struggling. Weak sales mean businesses are struck with high inventories. Order books do not appear to be strong either (Chart 6). Chart 5High Household Debt Entails No Debt-Fueled Consumer Demand Recovery Chart 6Mediocre Orders Amid High Inventory Does Not Entail Strong Manufacturing Recovery The combination of rather high finished goods inventories and mediocre order books entail that a strong manufacturing recovery is not around the corner. If so, that could be a problem as only a sustained recovery in manufacturing can lead to a major breakout in Thai stock performance. Indeed, the first hints of an improving economy often come from the status of order books. At present, middling order book figures do not imply that Thai stocks are on the cusp of a major rally (Chart 7). Chart 7Keep An Eye On Order Books For A Hint On A Sustainable Stock Rally Chart 8Thai Profits Are Far Too Low Compared To Stock Prices Notably, Thai share prices have outpaced corporate profits since 2012. The listed companies’ EPS in US dollar terms are still languishing at around the same level as they were a decade back. As such, multiples have steadily risen over the past 10 years, and stocks are not cheap (Chart 8). Provided that the policy rate is already close to zero (with little room to fall), any multiple expansion-based rally in Thai equities is also unlikely. In sum, for a new bull market to develop, this bourse needs a sustained rise in corporate profits. But given the macro backdrop, that kind of sustained earnings expansion will take more time to materialize. What About Policy Support? Fiscal policy in Thailand will remain tight. In its fiscal budget, the government plans to spend about 5.5% less this year (October 2021 – September 2022) than the year before. Actual fiscal expenditure is indeed contracting in nominal terms. The IMF estimates that the fiscal thrust in 2022 will be a significantly negative 3% of GDP (Chart 9). As for monetary policy, the policy rate is already very low at 0.5% since early 2020. Yet, it hasn’t helped much in terms of credit growth. Meanwhile, thanks to a sharp rise in commodity prices, headline CPI has surged past the central bank’s upper inflation target band. CPI-excluding sectors affected by energy and food prices, however, are still very low (Chart 10). The lingering softness in domestic demand, weak employment and muted wages also indicate that deflationary pressures are more dominant in the Thai economy than are inflationary pressures. As such, the central bank is unlikely to raise interest rates in the foreseeable future. Chart 9Thai Fiscal Policy Is Very Restrictive Chart 10There Is No Genuine Inflation In sum, fiscal policy will tighten considerably this year and there will be little change in monetary policy. Altogether, these factors do not herald a strong recovery.  External Outlook Thailand’s external outlook has improved. One reason for that is the currency is now more competitive as it has cheapened significantly in real terms (Chart 11, top panel). For a small, open economy where external trade (exports + imports) makes up 100% of GDP, a competitive currency is a major positive. Right on cue, Thai export volumes, which have been falling for a decade relative to global and EM exports, appears to have bottomed (Chart 11, bottom panel). The country’s travel and tourism revenues are set to rise as well. Thailand has already relaxed various travel restrictions for foreign tourists and further relaxation will be in effect from April 1. The country hosted 40 million foreign tourists in 2019, earning about $60 billion in revenues. All this disappeared during the pandemic in the past two years, leading to a massive drop in the country’s services sector balance. In fact, those losses also pushed the Thai current account balance into deficit – even though the country’s goods balance held up well (Chart 12). Chart 11The Baht Has Cheapened Significantly In Real Terms, Improving Competitiveness Chart 12With Easing Travel Restrictions, The Current Account Balance Will Improve Going forward, even if a quarter of those lost revenues come back over the next year, that should be enough to push the current account and the balance of payments back into surplus. An improving balance of payments is a bullish development for the currency. Chart 13The Depreciation In The Baht Is Likely Over All this means that the baht depreciation is likely over. It has fallen about 10% against the US dollar since February last year when we first recommended that investors short the baht (Chart 13). We sent a special alert on February 18 this year announcing the closing of this trade. Upgrade Domestic Bonds Chart 14Thai Domestic Bond Returns Are Highly Dependent On The Baht Thai domestic bond returns in US dollar terms are highly contingent on the baht’s performance. Chart 14 shows that both have fallen materially over the past year. However, given that the baht has likely bottomed, Thai bonds’ total return in USD terms will get a boost from now on. The Thai currency could also be one of the more resilient currencies in EM going forward. Historically, the baht had tended to perform better than most other EM currencies during periods of global uncertainty. We are witnessing such a period in view of the rapidly rising US bond yields and the Ukraine crisis. A better-performing baht compared to other currencies would help boost Thai bonds’ total returns relative to other EM bonds. Notably, Thai bond yields have been falling relative to that of the GBI-EM (excluding Russia) index. This is reflecting the difference in the inflationary backdrop between Thailand and many other EM countries, especially in Latin America and EMEA. The relative yields, therefore, might fall further. Considering the above, we recommend that investors upgrade Thai domestic bonds from neutral to overweight in EM domestic bond portfolios (Chart 15). Relative to their Emerging Asian peers, we recommend a neutral allocation to Thai bonds. This is because inflationary pressures in Asia are very similar to those in Thailand. Meanwhile, Thai relative bond yields have already risen significantly versus their Emerging Asian counterparts since the height of the pandemic scare in early 2020. As such, the relative yield compression move is likely late (Chart 16, top panel). Considering that Thai bonds have already had a steep underperformance, and that the baht is also cheaper now, we recommend that investors upgrade Thai bonds to a neutral allocation in Emerging Asian portfolios (Chart 16, bottom panel).    Chart 15Upgrade Thai Domestic Bonds To Overweight In An EM Bond Portfolio Chart 16Upgrade Thai Domestic Bonds To Neutral In An Emerging Asian Portfolio Investment Recommendations Currency: The baht has fallen about 10% in nominal terms over the past year or so. It has cheapened significantly in real terms also – which has enhanced the economy’s competitiveness. Going forward, prospects of an improving balance of payments means the Thai currency will be one of the more resilient ones in the EM. Stocks: A sustainable rise in Thai corporate profits is still some way off. But a much cheaper currency and an improving balance of payments will help. One should not chase the recent Thai outperformance. It had more to do with investors forsaking Chinese stocks en masse to pile on elsewhere in EM, including Thai equities. Chart 17 shows that the Thai bourse saw an unusual amount of foreign net purchases over the past month. Some of these inflows are at risk of unwinding in the months ahead. Instead, equity managers should put this market on an upgrade watchlist to move its allocation from the current neutral to overweight in EM and Emerging Asian portfolios. Chart 17Some Of The Recent Foreign Equity Inflows Are At Risk Of Unwinding Domestic Bonds: Investors should upgrade Thai bonds from neutral to overweight in an EM basket, and from underweight to neutral in an Emerging Asian basket.   Rajeeb Pramanik Senior EM Strategist rajeeb.pramanik@bcaresearch.com

Executive Summary Energy and National Security Will Drive the Market Our 2022 key views are broadly on track. Biden’s shift from domestic to foreign policy is dominating the other views.   However, Democrats still have a 65% chance of passing a reconciliation bill that will raise taxes to pay for green energy and prescription drug caps. Then gridlock will set in. The US is developing a new national consensus. Generational change is promoting the shift to proactive fiscal policy to address the country’s social unrest and rising foreign policy challenges. Polarization is still at peak levels in the short term but will fall over the coming decade as the US pursues “nation building” at home while confronting geopolitical rivals. The return of Big Government is being priced into the bond market today. But it will be Limited Big Government, as the sharp spike in inflation today will provoke a backlash. Recommendation Inception Level Inception Date Return Long Aerospace And Defense Vs. Broad Market (Cyclical)   30-Mar-22   Long Oil And Gas Transportation And Storage Vs. Broad Market (Cyclical)   30-Mar-22   Long Refinitive Renewable Energy Vs. Broad Market (Tactical)   30-Mar-22   Bottom Line: Investors dedicated to the US market should stay tactically defensive. Cyclically favor the new US policy consensus on national defense, infrastructure, cyber security, and energy security. Feature The title of our annual outlook was “Gridlock Begins Before The Midterms.” We argued that Biden would still have some room for legislative maneuver in the first half of 2022 but that checks and balances would grow as the year went on. Checks will grow due to (1) the looming midterm elections; (2) Biden’s falling political capital and need to rely on executive action; (3) rising foreign policy challenges. Of these, foreign policy has proven decisive, with Russia invading Ukraine and the US and Europe imposing economic sanctions. The resulting energy shock is adding to inflation, weighing on consumer confidence, stock market multiples, and investor sentiment (Chart 1). Having said that, we also argued that congressional Democrats still had enough political capital to pass a watered-down fiscal 2022 budget reconciliation bill before the scene of action shifted to the White House. The second quarter is the last chance for this prediction to come true – and we are sticking with our 65% odds. The reconciliation bill will be even more watered down than we expected. But the point is that fiscal policy – especially tax hikes – can still move markets in the second quarter, even though inflation, the Fed, and the war will have a bigger influence. Chart 1US Seeks National Security And Energy Security Related Report  US Political Strategy2022 Key Views: Gridlock Begins Before The Midterms The war in Europe is clearly the most important political, geopolitical, and policy dynamic for investors this year. It is prompting some important congressional action that speaks to Biden’s room for maneuver in the first half of the year. In so doing it reinforces our long-term themes of “Peak Polarization” and “Limited Big Government.” As Americans face rising foreign policy challenges, a new bipartisanship is emerging, particularly on industrial and trade policy. Checking Up On Our Three Key Views For 2022 Here are our three key trends for 2022 with comments about their development over the past three months: 1.   From Single-Party Rule To Gridlock: We argued that the Biden administration would pass a watered-down reconciliation bill on a party-line vote by June at latest. Then Congress would grind to a halt for election campaigning, to be followed by Republicans taking one or both chambers of Congress, restoring gridlock and making it hard to pass major legislation from the second half of 2022 through 2024. This view is still generally on track. The basis for believing that a bill will still pass is that the Democrats are in trouble in the midterms and badly need a legislative victory. Public opinion polls suggest they face a beating reminiscent of President Trump and the Republicans in 2018 (Chart 2). Democrats trail Republicans in enthusiasm. Only about 45% of Democrats and 42% of Biden voters are enthusiastic to vote, while 50% of Republicans and 54% of Trump voters are enthusiastic. Men, who lean Republican, are more enthusiastic than women, by 51% to 38%, according to the pollster Morning Consult.1 With the economy and foreign policy rising as the most important issues of the election, Democrats have lost their key issues of health care and the pandemic. Notably Democrats have also lost ground on traditional strengths like education. However, the Ukraine war has put a new emphasis on energy security which Democrats are harnessing to repackage their climate agenda. Hence Democrats will make a last-ditch effort to pass a reconciliation bill before the summer campaigning gets under way. The “Build Back Better” plan was always going to be watered down but now it will be extensively revised. The bill will now have to be closer to neutral in its impact on the deficit so as not to feed inflation. Public opinion polls back in January, when the bill was primarily a social welfare bill, showed 61% of political independents in favor, not to mention 85% of Democrats. A majority of independents supported the bill even when asked about each provision separately and when the tax hikes were made plain.2 By halting progress on the left-wing version of the bill that the House of Representatives passed late last year, West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin saved his party from passing a highly stimulative fiscal bill in the middle of the biggest outbreak of inflation since the 1980s, when the output gap was virtually closed (Chart 3). Chart 2Democrats Not Faring Much Better Than Trump Republicans In 2018 Chart 3Output Gap Closed, No More Stimulus Needed Now Manchin will face a “Build Back Slimmer” bill that will be harder to oppose when Congress comes back from Easter.3 Our research over the past year suggests that Manchin is likely to vote for a bill that meets his main demands. The bill will be crafted for his approval. Manchin supports corporate tax hikes, funding for green energy transition (as long as it is not punitive toward certain sources or technologies), and a cap on prescription drug costs.4 Tax hikes, such as a minimum 15% corporate tax rate on book earnings, will be included, albeit diluted from the original proposals. Most investors have forgotten about the risk of tax hikes altogether so stock investors may not be happy that the US is hiking taxes amid inflation. Earnings estimates for the year are not reflecting any negative news, whether energy shock, or weak consumer confidence, or new taxes (Chart 4). If the bill fails to pass, equity investors may well cheer, since they are worried about inflation rather than deflation and the bill will not truly be deficit-neutral. Chart 4Inflation, War, Potentially Tax Hikes Will Weigh On Earnings Estimates Given Democrats’ thin majorities in both houses (222 versus 210 seats in the House and 50 versus 50 seats in the Senate), a single defection in the Senate can derail the bill, so we cannot have high conviction that it will pass. We are sticking with our 65% subjective odds. Passage of a reconciliation bill will slightly help Democrats’ fortunes ahead of the midterm but Republicans are still highly likely to win at least the House of Representatives. So the transition to gridlock will still occur. Only very rarely do ruling parties gain seats in the midterms. Biden’s loss of support among women voters is a tell-tale sign that trouble looms, as was the case for the Obama administration at this stage in its first term (Chart 5). The implication for financial markets is that the budget reconciliation bill will bring a negative surprise in the form of tax hikes that will weigh on bullish or pro-cyclical sentiment in the second quarter, at least marginally. Chart 5Women Like Biden Less Than Obama, Who Suffered Midterm Losses Chart 6Biden's Energy Shock 2.   From Legislative To Executive Power: Similarly we anticipated a transition from legislative action to executive action over the course of 2022. After the budget reconciliation bill is decided, the president will have to rely on executive action to achieve any policy goals. We expected this trend to derive from Biden’s regulatory aims as well as from the need to respond to rising geopolitical challenges, especially the energy shock (Chart 6). This shock is the single biggest reason for the market consensus that Democrats will lose Congress this year. The chief equity sector winner was the energy industry, as we expected. Now Biden needs to encourage rather than discourage supply. Until Biden decides whether to lift sanctions on Iran, volatility will prevail in energy markets. But Biden will condone domestic energy production, with a view to alleviating shortages prior to 2024. He will abandon his left wing and adopt the Obama administration’s permissiveness toward domestic energy, which will help oil and natural gas rig counts to rise (Chart 7). Renewable energy policy will gain traction as it will now clearly be seen in the context of national security and energy security. It also combines trade policy with national security in the form of exports to allies. The US now has a free pass to help Europe diversify away from Russian energy. Not that the US can replace Russia but merely that it can make a dent in both oil and liquefied natural gas (Chart 8). Subsidies for green energy are still likely but not a carbon tax or punitive measures toward the fossil fuel industry. Chart 7Biden Revives Obama Truce With O&G Chart 8US Helps Europe Diversify Away From Russia 3.   From Domestic To Foreign Policy: We fully expected Biden to be forced to pay attention to foreign affairs in 2022, despite his desire to focus on the voter ahead of midterms. We argued that he would maintain a defensive or reactive foreign policy since he would not want to create higher inflation ahead of the midterms and yet oil producers like Russia or Iran would go on offensive due to energy shortage. While Biden has imposed harsh sanctions on Russia, we still define his foreign policy as defensive rather than offensive. First, Biden is reacting to a Russian attack and will not sabotage a ceasefire. Second, Biden is carving out exceptions to US sanctions rather than disciplining or coercing allies into adopting US policy. The administration’s chief foreign policy aim is to refurbish US alliances. Hence the US condones the EU’s continued energy imports from Russia, thus ensuring that Russian energy makes it into the global market, unless the Russians cut natural gas exports (Chart 9). Nevertheless a risk to our view is that Biden will start to adopt a more offensive foreign policy, especially if Democrats are floundering ahead of the midterms. He could turn more aggressive about sanction enforcement if Russia starts bombarding Kyiv again. Or he could slap broad sanctions on China for helping Russia bypass sanctions. To be clear, we fully expect secondary sanctions on China, based on US record of doing so, but we expect them to be targeted rather than broad (Table 1). Chart 9Russian Energy Still Reaches Global Market Table 1US Will Slap China With Sanctions Over Russia – Sooner Or Later Foreign policy will define US politics and policy in 2022. What matters for markets is whether the energy supply shock gets worse as a result of Biden’s handling of Russia and Iran. A worse energy shock will amplify stock market volatility. On one hand, if Biden suffers a humiliating foreign policy defeat, it will reinforce the negative trends for Democrats in the 2022-24 cycle. Since Republicans, especially former President Trump, would be expected to pursue an offensive rather than defensive foreign and trade policy (e.g. toward Iran’s nuclear program and China’s economy), global economic policy uncertainty would rise and investor risk appetite would fall in this situation (Chart 10). On the other hand, investors will be surprised if Biden achieves a remarkable domestic or foreign policy success that boosts Democrats’ odds in 2022. An early ceasefire in Ukraine combined with a reconciliation bill would give Biden and Democrats a boost. Global policy uncertainty might rise anyway but it would not be super-charged and it would be flat-to-down relative to US policy uncertainty. Democrats could conceivably retain control of the Senate in the latter case. Our quantitative election model says Democrats have a 49% chance of retaining the Senate (Chart 11). This means the election is too close to call, though subjectively we would agree with the model and bet on the Republicans since they only need to gain one seat on a net basis. The model shows Georgia and Arizona flipping back to the Republican side. If the economy and opinion polling improve between now and November, the swing states will see higher probabilities of Democrats staying in power but the model is trending against Democrats and shows their odds of victory falling in every state. Chart 10US Political Outlook Affects Relative Policy Uncertainty Chart 11Senate Race Too Close To Call, But Quant Model Now Tips Republicans Anything that pares Democrats’ expected losses in Congress will cause US economic policy uncertainty to rise since it goes against the consensus view. Moreover if Republicans only win the House, they will be obstructionist and disruptive in 2023-24, whereas if they win all of Congress they will have to produce bills and try to compromise with Biden. Thus a Republican House but Democratic Senate would imply an increase in policy uncertainty. By contrast, anything that hurts the Democrats will reinforce current expectations and imply that tax hikes might fail, or that they will freeze after the reconciliation bill, which would be marginally positive for US equity investors in an inflationary context. Bottom Line: Democrats still have a 65% subjective chance of passing a reconciliation bill that raises taxes. Investors should favor defensives over cyclicals. Checking Up On Our Strategic Themes For The 2020s Our central long-term thesis is that generational change, social instability, and foreign policy threats are generating a new national consensus in the United States, particularly on economic policy. Hence US political polarization is peaking in the short run and will decline over the long run. The new consensus rests on proactive fiscal policy and a larger government role in the economy to reduce social unrest and improve national security. Table 2 shows our three strategic US political themes. The past year’s inflation surge and the Ukraine war will affect these themes, so we make the following points: Table 2US Political Strategy Structural Themes 1.   Millennials/Gen Z Rising: Labor market participation is recovering rapidly from the pandemic. However, workers older than 55 years are not rejoining rapidly, implying that retirees are staying retired and not yet chasing rising wages. Prime age women, however, are rejoining the work force, in a sign that as kids get back to school mothers can return to work (Chart 12). The implication is that the labor shortage will continue for the foreseeable future due to the generational transition but not due to any shift toward traditional values or lifestyles among young women. 2.   Peak Polarization: Polarization has fallen after the 2020 election, as expected, but will likely stay at or near peak levels over the 2022-24 election cycle (Chart 13). Chart 12Generational Shift Evident In Labor Participation Chart 13Polarization Near Peak Levels But Will Fall Over Long Run For example, Biden’s reconciliation bill will feed polarization in 2022, since it can only pass on a party-line vote. But its tax and spending programs will have majority support, will redirect funds from corporations that pay low effective tax rates toward corporations that provide renewable energy solutions. Domestic manufacturing will benefit. Another example: Another Biden-Trump showdown in 2024 will fuel polarization but 2024 or 2028 and subsequent elections will see fresh faces with updated policy platforms. The merging of trade protectionism and renewable energy exemplifies the new policy evolution. Again, with polarization at historic levels, domestic terrorism of whatever stripe is a pronounced risk in 2022 and the coming years. But any significant political violence will ultimately drive a new national consensus in favor of federalism. 3.   Limited Big Government: The story of the 2000s and 2010s was the revival of Big Government, first in the George W. Bush national security state, then in the Barack Obama liberal spending tradition, then in the big spending Republican tradition with Trump, and finally in the liberal tradition again with Biden. The combination of popular discontent at home and great power struggle abroad means that the US is unlikely to slash either social programs or defense spending. As for tax hikes, aggressive tax hikes are impractical. Biden may pass some tax hikes but the budget deficit will continue to expand over the long run (Chart 14). At the same time, the shift to Big Government is occurring with an American context. The geography, constitution, and political system militate against centralization. The return of inflation means that fiscal conservatism will also make a comeback, starting with Republicans in the House in 2023, who will oppose new spending as a standard opposition tactic. So while Big Government has returned, and bond investors are pricing this sea change by pushing up Treasury yields, nevertheless the market will also need to price the fact that the growth of government still faces structural limits. Chart 14Reconciliation Bill Will Have Miniscule Impact On Budget Outlook These structural themes face crosswinds in 2022. The Millennials and younger generations will not carry the day in the midterm election – the Baby Boomers and Greatest Generation will. Peak polarization will bring negative surprises for investors over the 2022-24 election cycle and potentially even in 2024-28 if Trump is reelected. A Democratic reconciliation bill will expand government programs in 2022, while Republicans will revert to big spending ways if they gain full control of government again in 2025. Nevertheless the evidence suggests that generational change, peak polarization, and limited big government will prevail over time. The younger generations favor more proactive fiscal policy. Fiscal policy will address social unrest and geopolitical threats. But big government will drive inflation, which will in turn force voters to impose limits on government over the long run. Bottom Line: The US will opt to inflate away its debt over the long run – but it will also need growth and some structural reform once the ills of inflation become fully absorbed by voters. The huge bout of inflation in 2022 is only the beginning of this political process, though it will also accelerate the process. Investment Takeaways Stocks tend to be flattish ahead of midterm elections. This includes elections when a united government becomes gridlocked as is likely in 2022-23. Equities tend to perform better after election uncertainty passes. The transition from single-party government to gridlock also tends to imply higher yields until after the election is over, at which point yields decline (Chart 15). Single-party governments can manipulate fiscal policy to try to stay in power. Chart 15Stocks Tend To Be Flat, Bond Yields High, Until After Midterm Elections Defensives are outperforming cyclicals on slowing growth, rising interest rates, rising labor costs and energy prices, and rising uncertainty. Our worst call for Q1 was our tactical long growth over value stocks. We made this trade knowing it went against our strategic approach, which has favored value over growth since we launched the US Political Strategy in January 2021. Our reasoning was that a geopolitical crisis would cause a temporary spike in energy prices but a longer drop in bond yields. In fact bond yields rose anyway. We still think tech is increasingly attractive, especially after the corporate minimum tax passes. The brief inversion of the 2-year/10-year yield curve suggests the US economy is flirting with recession. Other parts of the curve are not yet confirming this signal and there can be a long lead time between inversion and recession. However, there is not yet a ceasefire in Ukraine and certainly not a durable ceasefire. The US and Iran do not yet have a deal to avoid a major increase in geopolitical tensions. The risk of a bigger energy shock from Russia or Iran or both is significant and could shorten the cycle. We recommend going strategically long S&P 500 oil and gas transportation and storage relative to the broad market. We also recommend taking advantage of the lull in fighting in Ukraine to join our Geopolitical Strategy in going strategically long US defense stocks relative to the broad market. Tactically we recommend going long renewable energy since the Democrats’ pending reconciliation bill will benefit from broader public recognition of the need for the energy security of both the US and its allies (Chart 16). Chart 16Go Long Defense, Energy Storage, And Renewables Matt Gertken Senior Vice President Chief US Political Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1     See “National Tracking Poll,” Morning Consult and Politico, #2202029, February 5-6, 2022, assets.morningconsult.com. 2     Admittedly this poll is by a left-leaning organization but polling throughout 2021 supports the general conclusion that a majority of political independents support the key proposals. See Anika Dandekar and Ethan Winter, “Majority of Voters Still Want the Build Back Better Act Passed,” Data for Progress, January 4, 2022, dataforprogress.org. 3    See Nick Sobczyk and Nico Portuondo, “Democrats eye ‘Build Back Slimmer’ on reconciliation,” E&E News, March 24, 2022, eenews.net. 4    See Eugene Daniels, “The Left Gears Up to Take on Manchin Again,” Politico, March 29, 2022, politico.com. See also “Regan, McCarthy, Wyden talk revival of BBB,” The Fence Post, March 25, 2022, thefencepost.com.   Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Table A2Political Risk Matrix Table A3US Political Capital Index Chart A1Presidential Election Model Chart A2Senate Election Model Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets

Executive Summary China’s Business Cycle Has Not Bottomed Recent data showed a substantial improvement in the economy in the first two months of the year. However, the optimism is not well supported by other industry and high-frequency data. China’s exports were resilient, while infrastructure investment also rebounded sharply on the back of front-loaded fiscal stimulus. Nonetheless, domestic demand in China remains in the doldrums. Housing market indicators show a further deterioration in home sales and prices in January and February. Consumption in tourism during the Chinese New Year and service sector activities were also weaker compared with the same period last year. While we expect policymakers to roll out more measures to shore up domestic demand, China’s economy will likely have a choppy bottom in the first half of 2022. We maintain our neutral position on Chinese onshore stocks in a global portfolio. In absolute terms, we are cautious and are looking for a better price entry point in Q2. Bottom Line: Economic data in the first two months of the year sent mixed signals, which suggests that China’s economy has not reached a solid bottom. Feature Newly released economic data from January and February (i.e. industrial production, fixed-asset investment, retail sales and property investment) all generated sizable positive surprises. However, other industry and high-frequency data sent conflicting messages. The improvement in China’s total social financing (TSF) in the past few months has been due to local government (LG) bond issuance (Chart 1). Corporate credit showed little advancement, while household loans were extremely weak (Chart 2). In addition, further contracting home sales paint a bleak picture of housing demand. Soft readings in the service sector Purchasing Managers' Index (PMI) and core consumer price index (CPI) suggest that consumption remains sluggish. Chart 1The Credit Impulse Continued To Trend Down (Excluding LG Bond Issuance) Chart 2No Improvement In Corporate Or Household Demand For Credit Beijing is stepping up its pro-growth stimulus, particularly on the fiscal front. However, the country will unlikely undergo a strong recovery in its business cycle without a major reversal in the housing market and an improvement in demand from the private sector. Moreover, recent lockdowns to tame surging domestic COVID-19 cases amid China’s zero-tolerance pose major downside risks to the near-term economic outlook. Chinese equities sold off in response to lockdown news despite the release of better economic data earlier this month, highlighting investors’ weak sentiment. Chart 3China's Business Cycle Has Not Bottomed We maintain our neutral view on China’s onshore stocks relative to their global peers, but we are cautious on Chinese equities in absolute terms.  On a cyclical time horizon (6 to 12 months), there are increasing odds that Chinese policymakers will stimulate the economy more aggressively, particularly in the 2nd half of the year. However, it is too early to turn bullish on Chinese equities (Chart 3). The ongoing war in Ukraine and elevated oil prices, coupled with risks of further lockdowns in China and a prolonged downturn in domestic demand, present significant near-term risks to the performance of Chinese equities. Investors should closely watch for more reflationary efforts from Beijing and we believe a better entry point to upgrade Chinese stocks may emerge in Q2.   Qingyun Xu, CFA Associate Editor qingyunx@bcaresearch.com Near-Term Outlook For The Housing Market Remains Bleak Real estate investment growth in January-February was surprisingly strong, according to data from China’s National Bureau of Statistics. However, headline growth in real estate investment deviates from the continued weaknesses in other housing market indicators (Chart 4). In addition, data on the production of some key construction materials showed little improvement (Chart 5). Chart 4Conflicting Signals From The January-February Housing Market Indicators Chart 5Data On Building Materials Also Deviate From Strong Investment Growth In Real Estate Demand for housing remains lackluster. February’s medium- to long-term household loan growth, which is mainly mortgage loans and is highly correlated with home sales, plunged to an all-time low (Chart 6). Meanwhile, the deep contraction in home sales growth continued in February, and sentiment among home buyers remains downbeat (Chart 6, bottom panel) Chart 6Demand For Housing Remains In The Doldrums Chart 7Policymakers Are Trying To Avoid Further Inflating The Housing Price Bubble Although authorities have reiterated that they want to stabilize the property market, the policy measures have been only fine-tuned. Regional governments have been allowed to initiate their own housing policies and some cities have eased processes for home purchases.1 However, given that maintaining stable home prices is an overarching goal and China’s leadership is trying to avoid further inflating the home price bubble, it is doubtful that the government will allow significant re-leveraging in the property market (Chart 7). Chart 8 shows that funds to real estate developers have slowed to the lowest level since 2010, which will further dampen housing construction. Chart 8Housing Construction Activities Will Weaken Further In 1H22 Chart 9The Latest Spike In Domestic COVID Cases Will Weigh On Home Sales Moreover, high-frequency floor space sold data shows a broad-based decline in housing sales in tier-one, two and three cities through mid-March (Chart 9). The latest spike in China’s domestic COVID-19 cases and regional lockdowns will likely weigh on home sales in the short term. Property investment and construction will remain at risk without a decisive rebound in home sales. A Disrupted Recovery In Household Consumption Both retail and online sales of consumer goods held up better than expected in January and February (Chart 10). However, the subdued underlying data highlight that the strong reading in retail sales in the first two months of the year may be less than meets the eye. Chart 10Although Growth In Retail Sales Rebounded In January-February... Chart 11...Service Sector Activities Still Struggle To Return To Pre-Pandemic Levels Service sector and passenger activities are still well below their pre-pandemic levels, two years after the first COVID lockdowns in early 2020 (Chart 11). Consumption in tourism during the Chinese New Year holiday was weaker than last year. Households’ propensity to spend also showed few signs of rebounding (Chart 12 & 13). Chart 12Travel Consumption Was Weak During The Chinese New Year Chart 13Households’ Propensity To Consume Continues To Trend Down Furthermore, both core and service CPI weakened in February, reflecting lackluster demand from consumers (Chart 14). Labor market dynamics have also worsened and the unemployment rate, particularly among young workers, has risen rapidly since the beginning of the year (Chart 15).  Chart 14Weak Core And Service CPIs In February Suggest Lackluster Household Demand Chart 15Labor Market Situation Is Worsening The ongoing fight against mounting new COVID cases in China will likely drag down service sector activities in the coming months (Chart 16A & 16B). Importantly, the new round of lockdowns and mobility restrictions are primarily in busier and more developed coastal metropolitans, such as Shenzhen and Shanghai. Therefore, the negative impact from social activity restrictions will be more substantive compared with previous lockdowns. Chart 16AEscalating New Cases In China Will Constrain Domestic Consumption Chart 16BEscalating New Cases In China Will Constrain Domestic Consumption Strong Rebound In Manufacturing Investment Growth In January-February Probably Not Sustainable A strong rebound in the growth of manufacturing investment helped to support overall fixed-asset investment in the first two months of the year (Chart 17). Robust external demand for China’s manufacturing goods has likely contributed to the pickup in manufacturing output and helped to sustain Chinese manufacturers’ near-maximum capacity (Chart 18). Chart 17Strong Pickup In Manufacturing Investment Growth Chart 18Robust Exports Support Chinese Manufacturing Output And Capacity Utilization While the volume of manufacturing output increased, prices that producers charge consumers have rolled over (Chart 19). Historically, prices have been more important in driving corporate profits than the volume of output. In addition, a strong RMB and sharply climbing shipping costs will also weigh on Chinese exporters’ profitability (Chart 20). Chart 19Manufacturing Output Picked Up While Prices Rolled Over Chart 20Strong RMB And Rising Shipping Costs Will Reduce Chinese Exporters' Profitability Chart 21Manufacturing Sector's Profit Margins Will Be Further Squeezed The elevated prices of oil and global industrial metals will continue to disproportionally benefit upstream industries, which are mainly composed of commodity producers. Meanwhile, the manufacturing sector’s profit margins will be squeezed by rising input costs and sluggish final demand (Chart 21). Chinese manufacturers’ profit growth will likely weaken through 1H22 and the downtrend may be exacerbated by the ongoing struggle to contain COVID cases.  The impact from recent lockdowns in the northern city of Jilin (an auto production center), Shenzhen (a high-tech manufacturing production and export hub), and Shanghai (a city with major ports and a key logistics provider) will disrupt China’s manufacturing production and curb investment in the near term. Infrastructure Sector Will Remain A Bright Spot Through 1H22 Related Report  China Investment StrategyAiming High, Lying Low Infrastructure investment staged a strong recovery in January-February on the back of front-loaded fiscal stimulus (Chart 22). LG bond issuance started to accelerate last November and will boost both traditional and new-economy infrastructure spending at least through 1H22. Our calculations suggest that fiscal thrust will rise to more than 2% of GDP this year, a sharp reversal from last year’s negative impulse of 2% (Chart 23). Chart 22Fiscal Stimulus Is At Work Chart 23Fiscal Thrust In 2022 Could Reach More Than 2% Of GDP Chart 24Subdued Shadow Bank Activities Will Limit The Magnitude Of Rebound In Infrastructure Investment However, shadow bank activity, which historically had a tight correlation with infrastructure investment, remains downbeat (Chart 24). February’s reading of shadow bank credit was extremely weak, highlighting that local governments still face constraints in off-balance sheet leveraging through local government financing vehicles (LGFVs). The trend in shadow bank loans bears close attention in the coming months because it will signal whether the central government will allow more backdoor financing to help local governments fund their infrastructure projects. A continued soft reading in shadow bank activities will likely limit the upside in infrastructure investment growth. Table 1China Macro Data Summary Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary     Footnotes 1     Guangzhou lowered its down-payment ratio from 30% to 20%, along with a 20bp cut in mortgage rates. Zhengzhou marginally relaxed home purchase restrictions by allowing families who bring elderly relatives to live in the city to buy one extra home and also lifted the “definition of second home ownership by physical unit & mortgage history”. ​​​​​​​ Strategic Themes Cyclical Recommendations

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)