Hot Topic

Executive Summary Macron Still Favored, But Le Pen Cannot Be Ruled Out Macron is still favored to win the French election but Le Pen’s odds are 45%. Le Pen would halt France’s neoliberal structural reforms, paralyze EU policymaking, and help Russia’s leverage in Ukraine. But she would lack legislative support and would not fatally wound the EU or NATO. European political risk will remain high in Germany, Italy, and Spain. Favor UK equities on a relative basis. Financial markets are complacent about Russian geopolitical risk again. Steer clear of eastern European assets. Do not bottom feed in Chinese stocks. China faces social unrest. North Korean geopolitical risk is back. Australia’s election is an opportunity, not a risk. Stay bullish on Latin America. Prefer Brazil over India. Stay negative on Turkey and Pakistan.   Trade Recommendation Inception Date Return TACTICALLY LONG US 10-YEAR TREASURY 2022-04-14   Bottom Line: Go long the US 10-year Treasury on geopolitical risk and near-term peak in inflation. Feature Last year we declared that European political risk had reached a bottom and had nowhere to go but up. Great power rivalry with Russia primarily drove this view but we also argued that our structural theme of populism and nationalism would feed into it. Related Report  Geopolitical StrategyThe Geopolitical Consequences Of The Ukraine War In other words, the triumph of the center-left political establishment in the aftermath of Covid-19 would be temporary. The narrow French presidential race highlights this trend. President Emmanuel Macron is still favored but Marine Le Pen, his far-right, anti-establishment opponent, could pull off an upset victory on April 24. The one thing investors can be sure of is that France’s ability to pursue neoliberal structural reforms will be limited even if Macron wins, since he will lack the mandate he received in 2017. Our GeoRisk Indicators this month suggest that global political trends are feeding into today’s stagflationary macroeconomic context. Market Complacent About Russia Again Global financial markets are becoming complacent about European security once again. Markets have begun to price a slightly lower geopolitical risk for Russia after it withdrew military forces from around Kyiv in an open admission that it failed to overthrow the government. However, western sanctions are rising, not falling, and Russia’s retreat from Kyiv means it will need to be more aggressive in the south and east (Chart 1). Chart 1Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia has not achieved its core aim of a militarily neutral Ukraine – so it will escalate the military effort to achieve its aim. Any military failure in the east and south would humiliate the Putin regime and make it more unpredictable and dangerous. The West has doubled down on providing Ukraine with arms and hitting Russia with sanctions (e.g. imposing a ban on Russian coal). Germany prevented an overnight ban on Russian oil and natural gas imports but the EU is diversifying away from Russian energy rapidly. Sanctions that eat away at Russia’s export revenues will force it to take a more aggressive posture now, to achieve a favorable ceasefire before funding runs out. Sweden and Finland are reviewing whether to join NATO, with recommendations due by June. Russia will rattle sabers to underscore its red line against NATO enlargement and will continue to threaten “serious military-political repercussions” if these states try to join. We would guess they would remain neutral as a decision to join NATO could lead to a larger war. Bottom Line: Global equities will remain volatile due to a second phase of the war and potential Russian threats against Ukraine’s backers. European equities and currency, especially in emerging Europe, will suffer a persistent risk premium until a ceasefire is concluded. What If Le Pen Wins In France? By contrast with the war in Ukraine, the French election is a short-term source of political risk. A surprise Le Pen victory would shake up the European political establishment but investors should bear in mind that it would not revolutionize the continent or the world, as Le Pen’s powers would be limited. Unlike President Trump in 2017, she would not take office with her party gaining full control of the legislature. Le Pen rallied into the first round of the election on April 10, garnering 23% of the vote, up from 21% in 2017. This is not a huge increase in support but her odds of winning this time are much better than in 2017 because the country has suffered a series of material shocks to its stability. Voters are less enthusiastic about President Macron and his centrist political platform. Macron, the favorite of the political establishment, received 28% of the first-round vote, up from 24% in 2017. Thus he cannot be said to have disappointed expectations, though he is vulnerable. The euro remains weak against the dollar and unlikely to rally until Russian geopolitical risk and French political risk are decided. The market is not fully pricing French risk as things stand (Chart 2). Chart 2France: GeoRisk Indicator The first-round election results show mixed trends. The political establishment suffered but so did the right-wing parties (Table 1). The main explanation is that left-wing, anti-establishment candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon beat expectations while the center-right Republicans collapsed. Macron is leading Le Pen by only five percentage points in the second-round opinion polling as we go to press (Chart 3). Macron has maintained this gap throughout the race so far and both candidates are very well known to voters. But Le Pen demonstrated significant momentum in the first round and momentum should never be underestimated. Table 1Results Of France’s First-Round Election​​​​​​ Chart 3French Election: Macron Maintains Lead​​​​​​ Are the polls accurate? Anti-establishment candidates outperformed their polling by 7 percentage points in the first round. Macron, the right-wing candidates, and the pro-establishment candidates all underperformed their March and April polls (Chart 4). Hence investors should expect polls to underrate Le Pen in the second round. Chart 4French Polls Fairly Accurate Versus First-Round Results Given the above points, it is critical to determine which candidate will gather the most support from voters whose first preference got knocked out in the first round. The strength of anti-establishment feeling means that the incumbent is vulnerable while ideological camps may not be as predictable as usual. Mélenchon has asked his voters not to give a single vote to Le Pen but he has not endorsed Macron. About 21% of his supporters say they will vote for Le Pen. Only a little more of them said they would vote for Macron, at 27% (Chart 5). Chart 5To Whom Will Voters Drift? Diagram 1, courtesy of our European Investment Strategy, illustrates that Macron is favored in both scenarios but Le Pen comes within striking distance under certain conservative assumptions about vote switching. Diagram 1Extrapolating France’s First-Round Election To The Second Round Macron’s approval rating has improved since the pandemic. This is unlike the situation in other liberal democracies (Chart 6). Chart 6Macron Handled Pandemic Reasonably Well The pandemic is fading and the economy reviving. Unemployment has fallen from 8.9% to 7.4% over the course of the pandemic. Real wage growth, at 5.8%, is higher than the 3.3% that prevailed when Macron took office in 2017 (Chart 7). Chart 7Real Wages A Boon For Macron But these positives do not rule out a Le Pen surprise. The nation has suffered not one but a series of historic shocks – the pandemic, inflation, and the war in Ukraine. Inflation is rising at 5.1%, pushing the “Misery Index” (inflation plus unemployment) to 12%, higher than when Macron took office, even if lower than the EU average (Chart 8). Chart 8Misery Index The Key Threat To Macron   Le Pen has moderated her populist message and rebranded her party in recent years to better align with the median French voter. She claims that she will not pursue a withdrawal from the European Union or the Euro Area currency union. This puts her on the right side of the one issue that disqualified her from the presidency in the past. Yet French trust in the EU is declining markedly, which suggests that Le Pen is in step with the median voter on wanting greater French autonomy (Chart 9). Le Pen’s well-known sympathy toward Vladimir Putin and Russia is a liability in the context of Russian aggression in Ukraine. Only 35% of French people had a positive opinion of Russia back in 2019, whereas 50% had a favorable view of NATO, and the gap has likely grown as a result of the invasion (Chart 10). However, the historic bout of inflation suggests that economic policy could be the most salient issue for voters rather than foreign policy. Chart 9Le Pen Only Electable Because She Accepted Europe​​​​​ Chart 10Le Pen’s NATO Stance Not Disqualifying ​​​​​ Le Pen’s economic platform is fiscally liberal and protectionist, which will appeal to voters upset over the rising cost of living and pressures of globalization. She wants to cut the income tax and value-added tax, while reversing Macron’s attempt at raising the retirement age and reforming the pension system. France’s tax rates on income, and on gasoline and diesel, are higher than the OECD average. In other words, Macron is running on painful structural reform while Le Pen is running on fiscal largesse. This is another reason to take seriously the risk of a Le Pen victory. What should investors expect if Le Pen pulls off an upset? France’s attempt at neoliberal structural reforms would grind to a halt. While Le Pen may not be able to pass domestic legislation, she would be able to halt the implementation of Macron’s reforms. Productivity and the fiscal outlook would suffer. Le Pen’s ability to change domestic policy will be limited by the National Assembly, which is due for elections from June 12-19. Her party, the National Rally (formerly the Front National), has never won more than 20% of local elections and performed poorly in the 2017 legislative vote. Investors should wait to see the results of the legislative election before drawing any conclusions about Le Pen’s ability to change domestic policy. France’s foreign policy would diverge from Europe’s. If Le Pen takes the presidency, she will put France at odds with Brussels, Berlin, and Washington, in much the same way that President Trump did. She would paralyze European policymaking. Yet Le Pen alone cannot take France out of the EU. The French public’s negative view of the EU is not the same as a majority desire to leave the bloc – and support for the euro currency stands at 69%. Le Pen does not have the support for “Frexit,” French exit from the EU. Moreover European states face immense pressures to work together in the context of global Great Power Rivalry. Independently they are small compared to the US, Russia, and China. Hence the EU will continue to consolidate as a geopolitical entity over the long run. Russia, however, would benefit from Le Pen’s presidency in the context of Ukraine ceasefire talks. EU sanctions efforts would freeze in place. Le Pen could try to take France out of NATO, though she would face extreme opposition from the military and political establishment. If she succeeded on her own executive authority, the result would be a division among NATO’s ranks in the face of Russia. This cannot be ruled out: if the US and Russia are fighting a new Cold War, then it is not unfathomable that France would revert to its Cold War posture of strategic independence. However, while France withdrew from NATO’s integrated military command from 1966-2009, it never withdrew fully from the alliance and was always still implicated in mutual defense. In today’s context, NATO’s deterrent capability would not be much diminished but Le Pen’s administration would be isolated. Russia would be unable to give any material support to France’s economy or national defense. Bottom Line: Macron is still favored for re-election but investors should upgrade Le Pen’s chances to a subjective 45%. If she wins, the euro will suffer a temporary pullback and French government bond spreads will widen over German bunds. The medium-term view on French equities and bonds will depend on her political capability, which depends on the outcome of the legislative election from June 12-19. She will likely be stymied at home and only capable of tinkering with foreign policy. But if she has legislative support, her agenda is fiscally stimulative and would produce a short-term sugar high for French corporate earnings. However, it would be negative for long-term productivity. UK, Italy, Spain: Who Else Faces Populism? Chart 11Rest Of Europe: GeoRisk Indicators Between Russian geopolitical risk and French political risk, other European countries are likely to see their own geopolitical risk premium rise (Chart 11). But these countries have their own domestic political dynamics that contribute to the reemergence of European political risk. Germany’s domestic political risk is relatively low but it faces continued geopolitical risk in the form of Russia tensions, China’s faltering economy, and potentially French populism (Chart 11, top panel). In Italy, the national unity coalition that took shape under Prime Minister Mario Draghi was an expedient undertaken in the face of the pandemic. As the pandemic fades, a backlash will take shape among the large group of voters who oppose the EU and Italian political establishment. The Italian establishment has distributed the EU recovery funds and secured the Italian presidency as a check on future populist governments. But it may not be able to do more than that before the next general election in June 2023, which means that populism will reemerge and increase the political risk premium in Italian assets going forward (Chart 11, second panel). Spain is still a “divided nation” susceptible to a rise in political risk ahead of the general election due by December 10, 2023. However, the conservative People’s Party, the chief opposition party, has suffered from renewed infighting, which gives temporary relief to the ruling Socialist Worker’s Party of Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez. The Russia-Ukraine issue caused some minor divisions within the government but they are not yet leading to any major political crisis, as nationwide pro-Ukraine sentiment is largely unified. The Andalusia regional election, which is expected this November, will be a check point for the People’s Party’s new leadership and a test run for next year’s general election. Andalusia is the most populous autonomous community in Spain, consisting about 17% of the seats in the congress (the lower house). The risk for Sanchez and the Socialists is that the opposition has a strong popular base and this fact combined with the stagflationary backdrop will keep political polarization high and undermine the government’s staying power (Chart 11, third panel). While Prime Minister Boris Johnson has survived the scandal over attending social events during Covid lockdowns, as we expected, nevertheless the Labour Party is starting to make a comeback that will gain momentum ahead of the 2024 general election. Labour is unlikely to embrace fiscal austerity or attempt to reverse Brexit anytime soon. Hence the UK’s inflationary backdrop will persist (Chart 11, fourth panel). Bottom Line: European political risk has bottomed and will rise in the coming months and years, although the EU and Eurozone will survive. We still favor UK equities over developed market equities (excluding the US) because they are heavily tilted toward consumer staples and energy sectors. Stay long GBP-CZK. Favor European defense stocks over tech. Prefer Spanish stocks over Italian. China: Social Unrest More Likely China’s historic confluence of internal and external risks continues – and hence it is too soon for global investors to try to bottom-feed on Chinese investable equities (Chart 12). A tactical opportunity might emerge for non-US investors in 2023 but now is not the right time to buy. Chart 12China: GeoRisk Indicator In domestic politics, the reversion to autocracy under Xi is exacerbating the economic slowdown. True, Beijing is stimulating the economy by means of its traditional monetary and fiscal tools. The latest data show that the total social financing impulse is reviving, primarily on the back of local government bonds (Chart 13). Yet overall social financing is weaker because private sector sentiment remains downbeat. The government is pursuing excessively stringent social restrictions in the face of the pandemic. Beijing is doubling down on “Covid Zero” policy by locking down massive cities such as Shanghai. The restrictions will fail to prevent the virus from spreading. They are likely to engender social unrest, which we flagged as our top “Black Swan” risk this year and is looking more likely. Lockdowns will also obstruct production and global supply chains, pushing up global goods inflation. Meanwhile the property sector continues to slump on the back of weak domestic demand, large debt levels, excess capacity, regulatory scrutiny, and negative sentiment. Consumer borrowing appetite and general animal spirits are weak in the face of the pandemic and repressive political environment (Chart 14). Chart 13China's Stimulus Has Clearly Arrived​​​​​​ Chart 14Yet Chinese Animal Spirits Still Suffering​​​​​​ Hence China will be exporting slow growth and inflation – stagflation – to the rest of the world until after the party congress. At that point President Xi will feel politically secure enough to “let 100 flowers bloom” and try to improve economic sentiment at home and abroad. This will be a temporary phenomenon (as were the original 100 flowers under Chairman Mao) but it will be notable for 2023. In foreign politics, Russia’s attack on Ukraine has accelerated the process of Russo-Chinese alliance formation. This partnership will hasten US containment strategy toward China and impose a much faster economic transition on China as it pursues self-sufficiency. The result will be a revival of US-China tensions. The implications are negative for the rest of Asia Pacific: Taiwanese geopolitical risk will continue rising for reasons we have outlined in previous reports. In addition, Taiwanese equities are finally starting to fall off from the pandemic-induced semiconductor rally (Chart 15). The US and others are also pursuing semiconductor supply security, which will reduce Taiwan’s comparative advantage. Chart 15Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator South Korea faces paralysis and rising tensions with North Korea. The presidential election on May 9 brought the conservatives back into the Blue House. The conservative People Power Party’s candidate, Yoon Suk-yeol, eked out a narrow victory that leaves him without much political capital. His hands are also tied by the National Assembly, at least for the next two years. He will attempt to reorient South Korean foreign policy toward the US alliance and away from China. He will walk away from the “Moonshine” policy of engagement with North Korea, which yielded no fruit over the past five years. North Korea has responded by threatening a nuclear missile test, restarting intercontinental ballistic missile tests for the first time since 2017, and adopting a more aggressive nuclear deterrence policy in which any South Korean attack will ostensibly be punished by a massive nuclear strike. Tensions on the peninsula are set to rise (Chart 16). Three US aircraft carrier groups are around Japan today, despite the war in Europe (where two are placed), suggesting high threat levels. Chart 16South Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Australia’s elections present opportunity rather than risk. Prime Minister Scott Morrison formally scheduled them for May 21. The Australian Labor Party is leading in public opinion and will perform well. The election threatens a change of parties but not a drastic change in national policy – populist parties are weak. No major improvement in China relations should be expected. Any temporary improvement, as with the Biden administration, will be subject to reversal due to China’s long-term challenge to the liberal international order. Cyclically the Australian dollar and equities stand to benefit from the global commodity upcycle as well as relative geopolitical security due to American security guarantees (Chart 17). Chart 17Australia: GeoRisk Indicator Bottom Line: China’s reversion to autocracy will keep global sentiment negative on Chinese equities until 2023 at earliest. Stay short the renminbi and Taiwanese dollar. Favor the Japanese yen over the Korean won. Favor South Korean over Taiwanese equities. Look favorably on the Australian dollar. Turkey, South Africa, And … Canada Turkish geopolitical risk will remain elevated in the context of a rampant Russia, NATO’s revival and tensions with Russia, the threat of commerce destruction and accidents in the Black Sea region, domestic economic mismanagement, foreign military adventures, and the threat posed to the aging Erdogan regime by the political opposition in the wake of the pandemic and the lead-up to the 2023 elections (Chart 18). Chart 18Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator While we are tactically bullish on South African equities and currency, we expect South African political risk to rise steadily into the 2024 general election. Almost a year has passed since the civil unrest episode of 2021. Covid-19 lockdowns have been lifted and the national state of disaster has ended, which has helped quell social tensions. This is evident in the decline of our South Africa GeoRisk indicator from 2021 highs (Chart 19). While fiscal austerity is under way in South Africa, we have argued that fiscal policy will reverse course in time for the 2024 election. In this year’s fiscal budget, the budget deficit is projected to narrow from -6% to -4.2% over the next two years. Government has increased tax revenue collection through structural reforms that are rooting out corruption and wasteful expenditure. But the ANC will have to tap into government spending to shore up lost support come 2024. Thus South Africa benefits tactically from commodity prices but cyclically the currency is vulnerable. Chart 19South Africa: GeoRisk Indicator Canadian political risk will rise but that should not deter investors from favoring Canadian assets that are not exposed to the property bubble. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has had a net negative approval rating since early 2021 and his government is losing political capital due to inflation, social unrest, and rising difficulties with housing affordability (Chart 20). While he does not face an election until 2025, the Conservative Party is developing more effective messaging. Chart 20Canada: GeoRisk Indicator India Will Stay Neutral But Lean Toward The West Chart 21Sino-Pak Alliance’s Geopolitical Power Is Thrice That Of India US President Joe Biden has openly expressed his administration’s displeasure regarding India’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This has led many to question the strength of Indo-US relations and the direction of India’s geopolitical alignments. To complicate matters, China’s overtures towards India have turned positive lately, leading clients to ask if a realignment in Indo-China relations is nigh. To accurately assess India’s long-term geopolitical propensities, it is important to draw a distinction between ‘cyclical’ and ‘structural’ dynamics that are at play today. Such a distinction yields crystal-clear answers about India’s strategic geopolitical leanings. In specific: Indo-US Relations Will Strengthen On A Strategic Horizon: As the US’s and China’s grand strategies collide, minor and major geopolitical earthquakes are bound to take place in South Asia and the Indo-Pacific. Against this backdrop, India will strategically align with the US to strengthen its hand in the region (Chart 21). While the Russo-Ukrainian war is a major global geopolitical event, for India this is a side-show at best. True, India will retain aspects of its historic good relations with Russia. Yet countering China’s encirclement of India is a far more fundamental concern for India. Since Russia has broken with Europe, and China cannot reject Russia’s alliance, India will gradually align with the US and its allies. India And China Will End Up As A Conflicting Dyad: Strategic conflict between the two Asian powers is likely because China’s naval development and its Eurasian strategy threaten India’s national security and geopolitical imperatives, while India’s alliances are adding to China’s distrust of India. Thus any improvement in Sino-Indian diplomatic relations will be short-lived. The US will constantly provide leeway for India in its attempts to court India as a key player in the containment strategy against China. The US and its allies are the premier maritime powers and upholders of the liberal world order – India serves its national interest better by joining them rather than joining China in a risky attempt to confront the US navy and revolutionize the world order. Indo-Russian Relations Are Bound To Fade In The Long Run: India will lean towards the US over the next few years for reasons of security and economics. But India’s movement into America’s sphere of influence will be slow – and that is by design. India is testing waters with America through networks like the Quadrilateral Dialogue. It sees its historic relationship with Russia as a matter of necessity in the short run and a useful diversification strategy in the long run. True, India will maintain a trading relationship with Russia for defense goods and cheap oil. But this trade will be transactional and is not reason enough for India to join Russia and China in opposing US global leadership. While these factors will mean that Indo-Russian relations are amicable over a cyclical horizon, this relationship is bound to fade over a strategic horizon as China and Russia grow closer and the US pursues its grand strategy of countering China and Russia. Bottom Line: India may appear to be neutral about the Russo-Ukrainian war but India will shed its historical stance of neutrality and veer towards America’s sphere of influence on a strategic timeframe. India is fully aware of its strategic importance to both the American camp and the Russo-Chinese camp. It thus has the luxury of making its leanings explicit after extracting most from both sides. Long Brazil / Short India Brazil’s equity markets have been on a tear. MSCI Brazil has outperformed MSCI EM by 49% in 2022 YTD. Brazil’s markets have done well because Brazil is a commodity exporter and the war in Ukraine has little bearing on faraway Latin America. This rally will have legs although Brazil’s political risks will likely pick back up in advance of the election (Chart 22). The reduction in Brazil’s geopolitical risk so far this year has been driven mainly by the fact that the currency has bounced on the surge in commodity prices. In addition, former President Lula da Silva is the current favorite to win the 2022 presidential elections – Lula is a known quantity and not repugnant to global financial institutions (Chart 23). Chart 22Brazil's Markets Have Benefitted From Rising Commodity Prices Chart 23Brazil: Watch Out For Political Impact Of Commodity Prices Whilst there is no denying that the first-round effects of the Ukraine war have been positive for Brazil, there is a need to watch out for the second-round effects of the war as Latin America’s largest economy heads towards elections. Surging prices will affect two key constituencies in Brazil: consumers and farmers. Consumer price inflation in Brazil has been ascendant and adding to Brazil’s median voter’s economic miseries. Rising inflation will thus undermine President Jair Bolsonaro’s re-election prospects further. The fact that energy prices are a potent polling issue is evinced by the fact that Bolsonaro recently sacked the chief executive of Petrobras (i.e. Brazil’s largest listed company) over rising fuel costs. Furthermore, Brazil is a leading exporter of farm produce and hence also a large importer of fertilizers. Fertilizer prices have surged since the war broke out. This is problematic for Brazil since Russia and Belarus account for a lion’s share of Brazil’s fertilizer imports. Much like inflation in general, the surge in fertilizer prices will affect the elections because some of the regions that support Bolsonaro also happen to be regions whose reliance on agriculture is meaningful (Map 1). They will suffer from higher input prices. Map 1States That Supported Bolso, Could Be Affected By Fertilizer Price Surge Chart 24Long Brazil Financials / Short India Given that Bolsonaro continues to lag Lula on popularity ratings – and given the adverse effect that higher commodity prices will have on Brazil’s voters – we expect Bolsonaro to resort to fiscal populism or attacks on Brazil’s institutions in a last-ditch effort to cling to power. He could even be emboldened by the fact that Sérgio Moro, the former judge and corruption fighter, decided to pull out of the presidential race. This could provide a fillip to Bolso’s popularity. Bottom Line: Brazil currently offers a buying opportunity owing to attractive valuations and high commodity prices. But investors should stay wary of latent political risks in Brazil, which could manifest themselves as presidential elections draw closer. We urge investors to take-on only selective tactical exposure in Brazil for now. Equities appear cheap but political and macro risks abound. To play the rally yet stave off political risk, we suggest a tactical pair trade: Long Brazil Financials / Short India (Chart 24). Whilst we remain constructive on India on a strategic horizon, for the next 12 months we worry about near-term macro and geopolitical headwinds as well as India’s rich valuations. Don’t Buy Into Pakistan’s Government Change Chart 25Pakistan’s Military Is Unusually Influential The newest phase in Pakistan’s endless cycle of political instability has begun. Prime Minister Imran Khan has been ousted. A new coalition government and a new prime minister, Shehbaz Sharif, have assumed power. Prime Minister Sharif’s appointment may make it appear like risks imposed by Pakistan have abated. After all, Sharif is seen as a good administrator and has signaled an interest in mending ties with India. But despite the appearance of a regime change, geopolitical risks imposed by Pakistan remain intact for three sets of reasons: Military Is Still In Charge: Pakistan’s military has been and remains the primary power center in the country (Chart 25). Former Prime Minister Khan’s rise to power was possible owing to the military’s support and he fell for the same reason. Since the military influences the civil administration as well as foreign policy, a lasting improvement in Indo-Pak relations is highly unlikely. Risk Of “Rally Round The Flag” Diversion: General elections are due in Pakistan by October 2023. Sharif is acutely aware of the stiff competition he will face at these elections. His competitors exist outside as well as inside his government. One such contender is Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), which is a key coalition partner of the new government that assumed power. Imran Khan himself is still popular and will plot to return to power. Against such a backdrop the newly elected PM is highly unlikely to pursue an improvement in Indo-Pak relations. Such a strategy will adversely affect his popularity and may also upset the military. Hence we highlight the risk of the February 2021 Indo-Pak ceasefire being violated in the run up to Pakistan’s general elections. India’s government has no reason to prevent tensions, given its own political calculations and the benefits of nationalism. Internal Social Instability Poor: Pakistan is young but the country can be likened to a social tinderbox. Many poor youths, a weak economy, and inadequate political valves to release social tensions make for an explosive combination. Pakistan remains a source of geopolitical risk for the South Asian region. Some clients have inquired as to whether the change of government in Pakistan implies closer relations with the United States. The US has less need for Pakistan now that it has withdrawn from Afghanistan. It is focused on countering Russia and China. As such the US has great need of courting India and less need of courting Pakistan. Pakistan will remain China’s ally and will struggle to retain significant US assistance. Bottom Line: We remain strategic sellers of Pakistani equities. Pakistan must contend with high internal social instability, a weak democracy, a weak economy and an unusually influential military. As long as the military remains excessively influential in Pakistan, its foreign policy stance towards India will stay hostile. Yet the military will remain influential because Pakistan exists in a permanent geopolitical competition with India. And until Pakistan’s economy improves structurally and endemically, its alliance with China will stay strong. Investment Takeaways Cyclically go long US 10-year Treasuries. Geopolitical risks are historically high and rising but complacency is returning to markets. Meanwhile inflation is nearing a cyclical peak. Favor US stocks over global. It is too soon to go long euro or European assets, especially emerging Europe. Favor UK equities over developed markets (excluding the US). Stay long GBP-CZK. Favor European defense stocks over European tech. Stay short the Chinese renminbi and Taiwanese dollar. Favor the Japanese yen over the Korean won. Favor South Korean over Taiwanese equities.   Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Ritika Mankar, CFA Editor/Strategist ritika.mankar@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor Jesse.Kuri@bcaresearch.com Yushu Ma Research Analyst yushu.ma@bcaresearch.com Guy Russell Senior Analyst GuyR@bcaresearch.com Alice Brocheux Research Associate alice.brocheux@bcaresearch.com   Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Executive Summary The Ukraine war reinforces our key view that commodity producers will use their geopolitical leverage this year. The market is growing complacent again about Russian risks. Iran is part of the same dynamic. If US-Iran talks fail, as we expect, the Middle East will destabilize and add another energy supply risk on top of the Russian risk. The Ukraine war also interacts with our other two key views for 2022: China’s reversion to autocracy and the US’s policy insularity. Both add policy uncertainty and weigh on risk sentiment. The war also reinforces our strategic themes for the 2020s: Great Power Rivalry, Hypo-Globalization, and Populism/Nationalism. Stagflation Cometh Trade Recommendation Inception Date Return Cyclically Long Global Defensives Versus Cyclicals 2022-01-20 10.8% Bottom Line: Tactically stay long global defensives and large caps. Cyclically stay long gold, US equities, aerospace/defense, and cyber security. Feature In our annual outlook, “The Gathering Storm,” we argued that the post-pandemic world economy would destabilize due to intensifying rivalry among the leading nations. We argued that China’s reversion to autocracy, US domestic divisions, and Russia’s commodity leverage would produce a toxic brew for global investors in 2022. By January 27 it was clear to us that Russia would invade Ukraine, so the storm was arriving sooner than we thought, and we doubled down on our defensive and risk-averse market positioning. We derived these three key views from new cyclical trends and the way they interact with our underlying strategic themes – Great Power Rivalry, Hypo-Globalization, and Populism/Nationalism (Table 1). These themes are mutually reinforcing, rooted in solid evidence over many years, and will not change easily. Table 1Three Geopolitical Strategic Themes Related Report  Geopolitical Strategy2022 Key Views: The Gathering Storm The Ukraine war reinforces them: Russia took military action to increase its security relative to the US and NATO; the West imposed sanctions that reduce globalization with Russia and potentially other states; Russian aggression stemmed from nationalism and caused a spike in global prices that will spur more nationalism and populism going forward. In this report we examine how these trends will develop in the second quarter and beyond. We see stagflation taking shape and recommend investors prepare for it by continuing to favor defensive sectors, commodities, and value plays. Checking Up On Our Russia View For 2022 Our third key view for 2022 – that oil producers like Russia and Iran possessed immense geopolitical leverage and would most likely use it – is clearly the dominant geopolitical trend of the year, as manifested in the Russian invasion of Ukraine.1 Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014 and curtailed operations after commodity prices crashed. It launched a new and larger invasion in 2022 when a new commodity cycle began (Chart 1). Facing tactical setbacks, Russia has begun withdrawing forces from around the Ukrainian capital Kyiv. But it will redouble its efforts to conquer the eastern Donbas region and the southern coastline. The coast is the most strategic territory at stake (Map 1). Chart 1Russia's Commodity-Enabled Aggression Map 1Russian Invasion Of Ukraine, 2022 The most decisive limitation on Russia’s military effort would come from a collapse of commodity exports or prices, which has not happened yet. Europe continues to buy Russian oil and natural gas, although it is debating a ban on the $4.4 billion worth of coal that it imports. With high energy prices making up for a drop in export volumes, Russian armed forces can still attempt a summer and fall campaign (Chart 2). The aim would be to conquer remaining portions of Donetsk and Luhansk, the “land bridge” to Crimea, and potentially the stretch of land between the Dnieper river and eastern Moldova, where Russian troops are already stationed. Chart 2Russia’s War Financing Ukraine’s military neutrality is the core Russian objective. Ukraine is offering neutrality in exchange for security guarantees in the current ceasefire talks. Hence a durable ceasefire is possible if the details of neutrality are agreed – Ukraine forswears joining NATO and hosting foreign military infrastructure while accepting limitations on military exercises and defense systems. The security guarantees that Ukraine demands are mostly symbolic, as the western powers that would be credible guarantors are already unwilling to use military force against Russia (e.g. the US, UK, NATO members). However, Russia’s withdrawal from Kyiv will embolden the Ukrainians, so we do not expect a durable ceasefire in the second quarter. Global investors will be mistaken if they ignore Ukraine in the second quarter, at least until core problems are resolved. What matters most is whether the war expands beyond Ukraine: The likelihood of a broader war is low but not negligible. So far the Russian regime is behaving somewhat rationally: Moscow attacked a non-NATO member to prevent it from joining NATO; it limited the size of the military commitment; and it is now accepting reality and withdrawing from Kyiv while negotiating on Ukrainian neutrality. But a major problem emerges if Russia’s military fails in the Donbas while Ukraine reneges on offers of neutrality. Any ceasefire could fall apart and the war could re-escalate. Russia could redouble its attacks on the country or conduct a limited attack outside of Ukraine to trigger a crisis in the western alliance. Moreover, if sanctions keep rising until Russia’s economy collapses, Moscow could become less rational. Finland and Sweden have seen a shift of public opinion in favor of joining NATO. Any intention to do so would trigger a belligerent reaction from Russia. These governments are well aware of the precarious balance that must be maintained to prevent war, so war is unlikely. But if their stance changes then Russia will threaten to attack. Russia would threaten to bomb these states since it cannot now credibly threaten invasion by land (Charts 3A & 3B). Chart 3ANordic States Joining NATO Would Trigger Larger War​​​​​ Chart 3BNordic States Joining NATO Would Trigger Larger War​​​​​​ The Black Sea is vulnerable to “Black Swan” events or military spillovers. Russia is re-concentrating its military efforts in the Donbas and land bridge to Crimea. Russia could expand its offensive to Odessa and the Moldovan border. Or Russia could attempt to create a new norm of naval dominance in the Black Sea. Or ships from third countries could hit mines or become casualties of war. For these and other reasons, investors should not take on additional risk in their portfolios on the basis that a durable ceasefire will be concluded quickly. Russia’s position is far too vulnerable to encourage risk-taking. Moscow could escalate tensions to try to save face. It is also critical to ensure that Russia and Europe maintain their energy trade: Neither side has an interest in total energy cutoff. Russia needs the revenue to finance its war and needs to discourage Europe from fulfilling its pledges to transition rapidly to other sources and substitutes. Europe needs the energy to avoid recession, maintain some tie with Russia, and enable its energy diversification strategy. So far natural gas flows are continuing (Chart 4). Chart 4Natural Gas Flows Continuing (So Far)​​​​​​ Chart 5Global Oil Supply/Demand Balance​​​​​​ However, risks to energy trade are rising. Russia is threatening to cut off energy exports if not paid in rubles, while the EU is beginning to entertain sanctions on energy. Russia can reduce oil or gas flows incrementally to keep prices high and prevent Europe from rebuilding stockpiles for fall and winter. Partial energy cutoff is possible. Europe’s diversification makes Russia’s predicament dire. Substantial sanction relief is highly unlikely, as western powers will want to prevent Russia from rebuilding its economy and military. Russia could try to impose significant pain on Europe to try to force a more favorable diplomatic solution. A third factor that matters is whether the US will expand its sanction enforcement to demand strict compliance from other nations, at pain of secondary sanctions: Secondary sanctions are likely in the case of China and other nations that stand at odds with the US and help Russia circumvent sanctions. In China’s case, the US is already interested in imposing sanctions on the financial or technology sector as part of its long-term containment strategy. While the Biden administration’s preference is to control the pace of escalation with China, and thus not to slap sanctions immediately, nevertheless substantial sanctions cannot be ruled out in the second quarter. Secondary sanctions will be limited in the case of US allies and partners, such as EU members, Turkey, and India. Countries that do business with Russia but are critical to US strategy will be given waivers or special treatment. Russia is not the only commodity producer that enjoys outsized geopolitical leverage amid a global commodity squeeze. Iran is the next most critical producer. Iran is also critical for the stability of the Middle East. In particular, the consequential US-Iran talks over whether to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal are likely to come to a decision in the second quarter. Chart 6Failure Of US-Iran Talks Jeopardizes Middle East Oil Supply If the US and Iran agree to a strategic détente, then regional tensions will briefly subside, reducing global oil disruption risks and supply pressures. Iran could bring 1.3 million barrels per day of oil back online, adding to President Biden’s 1 million per day release of strategic petroleum reserves. The combination would amount to 2.3% of global demand and more than cover the projected quarterly average supply deficit, which ranges from 400k to 900k barrels per day for the rest of 2022 (Chart 5). If the US and Iran fail to agree, then the Middle East will suffer another round of instability, adding a Middle Eastern energy shock on top of the Russian shock. Not only would Iran’s 1.3 million barrels per day be jeopardized but so would Iraq’s 4.4 million, Saudi Arabia’s 10.3 million, the UAE’s 3.0 million, or the Strait of Hormuz’s combined 24 million per day (Chart 6). This gives Iran leverage to pursue nuclear weaponization prior to any change in US government that would strengthen Israel’s ability to stop Iran. We would not bet on an agreement – but we cannot rule it out. The Biden administration can reduce sanctions via executive action to prevent a greater oil shock, while the Iranians can accept sanction relief in exchange for easily reversible moves toward compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal. But this would be a short-term, stop-gap measure, not a long-term strategic détente. Conflict between Iran and its neighbors will revive sooner than expected after the deal is agreed, as Iran’s nuclear ambitions will persist. OPEC states are already producing more oil rapidly, suggesting no quick fix if the US-Iran deal falls apart. While core OPEC states have 3.5 million barrels per day in spare capacity to bring to bear, a serious escalation of tensions with Iran would jeopardize this solution. Finally, if commodity producers have geopolitical leverage, then commodity consumers are lacking in leverage. This is clear from Europe’s inability to prevent Russia’s attack or ban Russian energy. It is clear from the US’s apparent unwillingness to give up on a short-term deal with Iran. It is clear from China’s inability to provide sufficient monetary and fiscal stimulus as it struggles with Covid-19. Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan are geopolitically significant importers of Russian and Ukrainian grain that are likely to face food insecurity and social unrest. We will address this issue below under our Populism/Nationalism theme. Bottom Line: Investors should not be complacent. Russia’s military standing in Ukraine is weak, but its ability to finance the war has not yet collapsed, which means that it will escalate the conflict to save face. What About Our Other Key Views For 2022? Our other two key views for 2022 are even more relevant in the wake of the Ukraine re-invasion. China’s reversion to autocracy is a factor in China’s domestic and foreign policy: Domestically China needs economic and social stability in the advance of the twentieth national party congress, when President Xi Jinping hopes to clinch 10 more years in power. In pursuit of this goal China is easing monetary and fiscal policy. However, with depressed animal spirits, a weakening property sector, and high debt levels, monetary policy is proving insufficient. Fiscal policy will have to step up. But even here, inflation is likely to impose a limitation on how much stimulus the authorities can utilize (Chart 7). Chart 7China Stimulus Impaired By Inflation​​​​​​ Chart 8Chinese Supply Kinks To Persist Due To Covid-19 China is also trying but failing to maintain a “Covid Zero” policy. The more contagious Omicron variant of the virus is breaking out and slipping beyond the authorities’ ability to suppress cases of the virus to zero. Shanghai is on lockdown and other cities will follow suit. China will attempt to redouble its containment efforts before it will accept the reality that the virus cannot be contained. Chinese production and shipping will become delayed and obstructed as a result, putting another round of upward pressure on global prices (Chart 8). Stringent pandemic restrictions could trigger social unrest. China is ripe for social unrest, which is why it launched the “Common Prosperity” program last year to convince citizens that quality of life will improve. But this program is a long-term program that will not bring immediate relief. On the contrary, the economy is still suffering and the virus will spread more widely, as well as draconian social restrictions. The result is that the lead up to the national party congress will not be as smooth as the Xi administration had hoped. Global investors will remain pessimistic toward Chinese stocks. In foreign affairs, China’s reversion to autocracy is reinforced by Russia’s clash with the West and the need to coordinate more closely. Xi hosted Putin in Beijing on February 4, prior to the invasion, and the two declared that their strategic partnership ushers in a “new era” of “multipolarity” and that their cooperation has “no limits,” which really means that military cooperation is not forbidden. China agreed to purchase an additional 10 billion cubic meters of Russian natural gas over 30-years. While this amount would only replace 3% of Russian natural gas exports to Europe, it would mark a 26% increase in Russian exports to China. More importantly it acts as a symbol of Chinese willingness to substitute for Europe over time. There is a long way to go for China to replace Europe as a customer (Chart 9). But China knows it needs to convert its US dollar foreign exchange reserves, vulnerable to US sanctions, into hard investments in supply security within the Eurasian continent. Chart 9Long Way To Go For China NatGas Imports To Replace EU China is helping Russia circumvent sanctions. China’s chief interest is to minimize the shock to its domestic economy. This means keeping Russian energy and commodities flowing. China could also offer military equipment for Russia. The US has expressly warned China against taking such an action. China could mitigate the blowback by stipulating that the assistance cannot be used in Ukraine. This would be unenforceable but would provide diplomatic cover. While China is uncomfortable with the disturbance of the Ukraine war – it does not want foreign affairs to cause even larger supply shocks. At the same time, China does not want Russia to lose the war or Putin’s regime to fall from power. If Russia loses, Taiwan and its western allies would be emboldened, while Russia could pursue a détente with the West, leaving China isolated. Since China faces US containment policy regardless of what happens in Russia, it is better for China to have Putin making an example out of Ukraine and keeping the Americans and Europeans preoccupied. Chart 10China Strives To Preserve EU Trade Ties China must also preserve ties with Europe. Diplomacy will likely succeed in the short run since Europe has no interest or desire to expand sanctions to China. The Biden administration will defer to Europe on the pace of sanctions – it is not willing or able to force Europe to break with China suddenly. Eventually Europe and China may sever relations but not yet – China has a powerful incentive to preserve them (Chart 10). China will also court India and other powers in an attempt to hedge its bets on Russia while weakening any American containment. Beyond the party congress, China will be focused on securing the economic recovery and implementing the common prosperity agenda. The first step is to maintain easy monetary and fiscal policy. The second step is to “let 100 flowers bloom,” i.e. relaxing social and regulatory controls to try to revive entrepreneurship and animal spirits, which are heavily depressed. Xi will have the ability to do this after re-consolidating power. The third step will be to try to stabilize economic relations with Europe and others (conceivably even the US temporarily, though no serious détente is likely). The remaining key view for 2022 is that the Biden administration’s domestic focus will be defensive and will invite foreign policy challenges. The Ukraine war vindicates this view but the question now is whether Biden has or will change tack: The Biden administration is focused on the midterm elections and the huge risk to the Democratic Party’s standing. Biden has not received a boost in opinion polls from the war. He is polling even worse when it comes to handling of the economy (Chart 11). While he should be able to repackage his budget reconciliation bill as an energy security bill, his thin majorities in both houses make passage difficult. Chart 11Biden And Democrats Face Shellacking In Midterm Election Biden’s weak standing – with or without a midterm shellacking – raises the prospect that Republicans could take back the White House in 2024, which discourages foreign nations from making any significant concessions to the United States in their negotiations. They must assume that partisanship will continue to contaminate foreign policy and lead to abrupt policy reversals. In foreign policy, the US remains reactive in the face of Russian aggression. If Russia signs a ceasefire, the US will not sabotage it to prolong Russian difficulties. Moreover Biden continues to exempt Europe and other allies and partners from enforcing the US’s most severe sanctions for fear of a larger energy shock. Europe’s avoidance of an energy ban is critical and any change in US policy to try to force the EU to cut off Russian energy is unlikely. China will not agree to structural reform or deep concessions in its trade negotiations, knowing that former President Trump could come back. The Biden administration’s own trade policy toward China is limited in scope, as the US Trade Representative Katherine Tai admitted when she said that the US could no longer aim to change China’s behavior via trade talks. Biden’s only proactive foreign policy initiative, Iran, will not bring him public kudos if it is achieved. But American inconstancy is one of the reasons that Iran may walk away from the 2015 nuclear deal. Why should Iran’s hawkish leaders be expected to constrain their nuclear program and expose their economy to future US sanctions if they can circumvent US sanctions anyway, and Republicans have a fair chance of coming back into power as early as January 2025? Biden’s unprecedented release of strategic petroleum reserves will not be able to prevent gasoline prices from staying high given the underlying supply pressures at home and abroad. This is especially true if the Iran talks fail as we expect. Even if inflation abates before the election, it is unlikely to abate enough to save his party from a shellacking. That in turn will weaken the global impression of his administration’s staying power. Hence Biden will focus on maintaining US alliances, which means allowing Europe, India, and others to proceed at a more pragmatic and dovish pace in their relations with Russia and China. Bottom Line: China’s reversion to autocracy and America’s policy insularity suggest that global investors face considerable policy uncertainty this year even aside from the war in Europe. Checking Up On Our Strategic Themes For The 2020s Russia’s invasion strongly confirmed our three strategic themes of Great Power Rivalry, Hypo-Globalization, and Populism/Nationalism. These themes are mutually reinforcing: insecurity among the leading nation-states encourages regionalization rather than globalization, while populism and nationalism encourage nations to pursue economic and security interests at the expense of their neighbors. First, the Ukraine war confirms and exacerbates Great Power Rivalry: Chart 12China And Russia Both Need To Balance Against US Preponderance Russia’s action vindicates the “realist” school of international relations (in which we count ourselves) by forcing the world to wake up to the fact that nations still care primarily about national security defined in material ways, such as armies, resources, and territories. The paradox of realism is that if at least one of the great nations pursues its national self-interest and engages in competition for security, then all other nations will be forced to do the same. If a nation neglects its national security interests in pursuit of global economic engagement and cooperation, then it will suffer, since other nations will take advantage of it to enhance their security. Hence, as a result of Ukraine, nations will give a higher weight to national security relative to economic efficiency. The result will be an acceleration of decisions to use fiscal funds and guide the private economy in pursuit of national interests – i.e. the Return of Big Government. Since actions to increase deterrence will provoke counteractions for the same reason, overall insecurity will rise. For example, the US and China will take extra precautions in case of future sanctions and war. But these precautions will reduce trust and cooperation and increase the probability of war over the long run. For the same reason, China cannot reject Russia’s strategic overture – it cannot afford to alienate and isolate Russia. China and Russia have a shared interest in countering the United States because it is the only nation that could conceivably impose a global empire over all nations (Chart 12). The US could deprive Beijing and Moscow of the regional spheres of influence that they each need to improve their national security. This is true not only in Ukraine and Taiwan but in other peripheral areas such as Belarus, the Caucasus, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia. China has much to gain from Russia. Russia is offering China privileged overland access to Russian, Central Asian, and Middle Eastern resources and markets. This resource base is vital to China’s strategic needs, given its import dependency and vulnerability to US maritime power (Chart 13). Chart 13China’s Maritime Vulnerability Forces Eurasian Strategy, Russian Alliance Investors should understand Great Power Rivalry in a multipolar rather than bipolar sense. As Russia breaks from the West, investors are quick to move rapidly to the bipolar Cold War analogy because that is what they are familiar with. But the world today has multiple poles of political power, as it did for centuries prior to the twentieth. While the US is the preponderant power, it is not hegemonic. It faces not one but two revisionist challengers – Russia and China. Meanwhile Europe and India are independent poles of power that are not exclusively aligned with the US or China. For example, China and the EU need to maintain economic ties with each other for the sake of stability, and neither the US nor Russia can prevent them from doing so. The same goes for India and Russia. China will embrace Russia and Europe at the same time, while hardening its economy against US punitive measures. India will preserve ties with Russia and China, while avoiding conflict with the US and its allies (the maritime powers), whom it needs for its long-term strategic security in the Indian Ocean basin. Ultimately bipolarity may be the end-game – e.g. if China takes aggressive action to revise the global order like Russia has done – but the persistence of Sino-European ties and Russo-Indian ties suggest we are not there yet. Second, the Ukraine war reinforces Hypo-Globalization: Since the pandemic we have argued that trade would revive on the global economic snapback but that globalization – the deepening of trade integration – would ultimately fall short of its pre-2020 and pre-2008 trajectory. Instead we would inhabit a new world of “hypo-globalization,” in which trade flows fell short of potential. So far the data support this view (Chart 14). Chart 14Globalization Falling Short Of Potential The Ukraine war has strengthened this thesis not only by concretely reducing Russia’s trajectory of trade with the West – reversing decades of integration since the fall of the Soviet Union – but also by increasing the need for nations to guard against a future Chinese confrontation with the Western world. Trust between China and the West will further erode. China will need to guard against any future sanctions, and thus diversify away from the US dollar and assets, while the US will need to do a better job of deterring China against aggression in Asia, and will thus have to diversify away from Chinese manufacturing and critical resources like rare earths. While China and Europe need each other now, the US and China are firmly set on a long-term path of security competition in East Asia. Eventually either the US or China will take a more aggressive stance and Europe will be forced to react. Since Europe will still need US support against a decaying and aggressive Russia, it will likely be dragged into assisting the US against China. Third, the Ukraine war reflects and amplifies Populism/Nationalism: Populism and nationalism are not the same thing but they both stem from the slowing trend of global income growth, the rise of inequality, the corruption of the elite political establishments, and now the rise in inflation. Nations have to devote more resources to pacifying an angry populace, or distracting that populace through foreign adventures, or both. The Ukraine war reflects the rise in nationalism. First, the collapse of the Soviet Union ushered in a period in which Moscow lost control of its periphery, while the diverse peoples could pursue national self-determination and statehood. The independence and success of the Baltic states depended on economic and military cooperation with the West, which eroded Russian national security and provoked a nationalist backlash in the form of President Putin’s regime. Ukraine became the epicenter of this conflict. Ukraine’s successful military resistance is likely to provoke a dangerous backlash from Moscow until either policy changes or the regime changes. American nationalism has flared repeatedly since the fall of the Soviet Union, namely in the Iraq war. The American state has suffered economically and politically for that imperial overreach. But American nationalism is still a potent force and could trigger a more aggressive shift in US foreign policy in 2024 or beyond. European states have kept nationalism in check and tried to subsume their various nationalist sentiments into a liberal and internationalist project, the European Union. The wave of nationalist forces in the wake of the European debt crisis has subsided, with the exception of the United Kingdom, where it flowered in Brexit. The French election in the second quarter will likely continue this trend with the re-election of President Emmanuel Macron, but even if he should suffer a surprise upset to nationalist Marine Le Pen, Europe’s centripetal forces will prevent her from taking France out of the EU or euro or NATO (Chart 15). Over the coming decade, nationalist forces will revive and will present a new challenge to Europe’s ruling elites – but global great power competition strongly supports the EU’s continued evolution into a single geopolitical entity, since the independent states are extremely vulnerable to Russia, China, and even the US unless they unite and strengthen their superstructure. Chart 15Macron Favored, Le Pen Would Be Ineffective In fact the true base of global nationalism is migrating to Asia. Chinese and Indian nationalism are very potent forces under President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Xi is on the verge of clinching another ten years in power while Modi is still favored for re-election in 2024, so there is no reason to anticipate a change anytime soon. The effects are various but what is most important for investors is to recognize that as China’s potential GDP has fallen over the past decade, the Communist Party has begun to utilize nationalism as a new source of legitimacy, and this is expressed through a more assertive foreign policy. President Xi is the emblem of this shift and it will not change, even if China pursues a lower profile over certain periods to avoid provoking the US and its allies into a more effective coalition to contain China. Chart 16Food Insecurity Will Promote Global Unrest, Populism The surge in global prices will destabilize regimes that lack food security and contribute to new bouts of populism and nationalism. Turkey is the most vulnerable due to a confluence of political, economic, and military risks that will unsettle the state. But Egypt is vulnerable to an Arab Spring 2.0 that would have negative security implications for Israel and add powder to the Middle Eastern powder keg. Pakistan is already witnessing political turmoil. Investors may overlook any Indonesian unrest due to its attractiveness in a world where Russia and China are scaring away western investment (Chart 16). All three of these strategic themes are mutually reinforcing – and they tend to be inflationary over the long run. Great powers that redouble the pursuit of national interest – through defense spending and energy security investments – while simultaneously being forced to expand their social safety nets to appease popular discontent, will drive up budget deficits, consume a lot of natural resources, and purchase a lot of capital equipment. They will also more frequently engage in economic or military conflicts that constrain supply (Chart 17). Chart 17War And Preparation For War Are Inflationary Bottom Line: The Ukraine war is a powerful confirmation of our three strategic themes. It is also a confirmation that these themes have inflationary macroeconomic implications. Investment Takeaways Chart 18Global Investors Still Flee To US For Safety Now that great power rivalry is intensifying immediately and rapidly, and yet China’s and Europe’s economies are encountering greater difficulties, we expect stagflation to arrive sooner rather than later. High headline and core inflation, the Ukraine war, tacit Chinese support for Russia, persistent Chinese supply kinks, US and EU sanctions, US midterm elections, and a potential US-Iran diplomatic breakdown will all weigh on risk sentiment in the second quarter. In Ukraine, Russia’s position is too weak to give comfort for investors, who should continue to favor defensive over cyclical equities and US stocks over global stocks. Russia’s break with the West, and the West’s use of sanctions to prevent Russia from accessing its foreign exchange reserves, has raised new questions about the global currency reserve system and the dollar’s status within that system. Over the coming years China will redouble the efforts it began in the wake of the Great Recession to reduce its dependency on US dollar assets within its reserve basket, while also recycling new current account surpluses into non-dollar assets. However, the evidence does not suggest that King Dollar will suffer a structural breakdown. First, the world lacks alternative safe-haven assets to US Treasuries – and net foreign purchases of US bonds rose in the face of the Ukraine war (Chart 18). Second, the return of war to Europe will weaken the perceived long-term security of European currency and government bonds relative to US counterparts. Even if the Ukraine war is contained in the short run, as we expect, Russia is in structural decline and will remain a disruptive player for some time. We are not at all bearish on the euro or European bonds but we do not see the Ukraine war as increasing their value proposition, to put it lightly. The same logic extends to Japanese bonds, since China, like Russia, is an autocratic and revisionist state that threatens to shake up the security order in its neighborhood. Japan is relatively secure as a nation and we are bullish on the yen, but China’s de facto alliance with Russia weakens Japan’s security outlook over the very long run, especially relative to the United States. Thus, on a cyclical basis the dollar can depreciate, but on a structural basis the US dollar will remain the dominant reserve currency. The US is not only the wealthiest and most secure country in the world but also the largest oil producer. Meanwhile Chinese potential growth, domestic political stability, and foreign relations are all worsening. The US-Iran talks are the most critical geopolitical dynamic in the second quarter aside from Russia’s clash with the West. The fate of the 2015 nuclear deal will be decided soon and will determine whether an even bigger energy shock begins to emanate from the Middle East. We would not bet on a new US-Iran deal but we cannot rule it out. Any deal would be a short-term, stop-gap deal but would prevent an immediate destabilization of the Middle East this year. As such it would reduce the risk of stagflation. Since we expect the deal to fail, we expect a new energy shock to emerge. We see stagflation as more likely than the BCA House View. It will be difficult to lift productivity in an environment of geopolitical and political uncertainty combined with slowing global growth, rising interest rates, and a worsening commodity shock (Chart 19). We will gladly revise this stance if Biden clinches an Iran deal, China relaxes its Covid Zero policy and stabilizes domestic demand, Russia and Europe maintain energy trade, and commodity prices fall to more sustainable levels for global demand. Chart 19Stagflation Cometh Strategically we remain long gold, overweight US equities, overweight UK equities, long British pound and Japanese yen, long aerospace/defense stocks and cyber security stocks. We remain short Chinese renminbi and Taiwanese dollar and short emerging European assets. Our short Chinese renminbi trade and our short Taiwanese versus Korean equity trade are our worst-performing recommendations. However, the above analysis should highlight – and the Ukraine war should underscore – that these two economies face a fundamentally negative geopolitical dynamic. Both Chinese and Taiwanese stocks have been underperforming global peers since 2021 and our short TWD-USD trade is in the money. While we do not expect war to break out in Taiwan this year, we do expect various crisis events to occur, particularly in the lead up to the crucial Taiwanese and American 2022 midterms and 2024 presidential election. We also expect China to depreciate the renminbi when inflation peaks and commodity prices subside. Cyclically we remain long North American and Latin American oil producers and short Middle Eastern producers, based on our pessimistic read of the Iran situation. The Americas are fundamentally better protected from geopolitical risks than other regions, although they continue to suffer from domestic political risks on a country-by-country basis. Cyclically we continue to take a defensive positioning, overweighting defensive sectors and large cap equities.   Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      That the Russian threat fell under our third key view for 2022 implies that we did not get our priorities straight. However, consider the timing: shortly after publishing our annual outlook on December 15, the Russians issued an ultimatum to the western powers demanding that NATO stop expanding toward Russia. Diplomats from Russia and the West met on January 12-13 but Russia’s demands were not met. We upgraded the odds that Russia would invade Ukraine from 50% to 75% on January 27. Shuttle diplomacy ensued but failed. Russia invaded on February 24. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix "Batting Average": Geopolitical Strategy Trades () Section II: Special (EDIT this Header) Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Executive Summary Long Small Cap Energy Versus Large Cap President Biden has not received a boost in opinion polls from the Ukraine war. If he has not by now then it is increasingly unlikely that he will do so. Yet Biden performs worse in polls for his handling of economic policy than foreign policy, despite falling unemployment and rising real wages. The economy should help stabilize his approval rating but not in time to prevent Democrats from losing the Senate as well as the House this fall.  Biden’s decision to tap the strategic petroleum reserve exemplifies our 2022 trend of executive action. However, the oil outlook still depends on Biden’s Iran talks and OPEC’s reaction. Recommendation Inception Level Inception Date Return Long Small Vs. Large Cap Energy 0.56 26-Jan-22 14.9% Bottom Line: The return of gridlock is bad for stocks in 2022 but good in 2023. Feature Investors need answers to three questions about US policy at the moment: 1.   Will President Biden’s reaction to the Ukraine war exacerbate the hit to the global and US economy? 2.   Will Biden’s domestic agenda revive? If so, how will it impact corporate earnings expectations? 3.   Will Biden’s foreign and domestic policies cause any changes to the midterm election outlook and hence US policy in 2023-24? In recent reports we have answered these questions as follows. Related Report  US Political StrategySecond Quarter Outlook: Gridlock Looms First, Biden will continue to pursue a defensive or reactive foreign policy, meaning that he will not force Europe or other allies to adopt Russia sanctions beyond their near-term economic and political capabilities. If Europe wants to boycott Russian energy then that is fine but it is Europe’s decision. In fact, Europe is pursuing gradual rather than immediate diversification. Russia needs the funds. So Europe is unlikely to experience a sharp energy cutoff that plunges its economy into recession. Nevertheless, the risk is substantial enough that we remain long DXY and defensive US sectors on a tactical time frame. Second, Biden’s congressional agenda is getting back on track, with the war providing Democrats with a basis for redesigning and rebranding their budget reconciliation bill. Therefore we did not downgrade our 65% subjective odds that Congress will pass a bill. The bill will be close to deficit neutral and focused especially on energy policy. The Senate version of the bill is not yet available but we will examine the likeliest policy options in a forthcoming special report with our US Equity Strategy. Third – our focus for this report – current political changes do not substantially alter the midterm election odds, which suggest Republicans will retake Congress. Gridlock will return – and is the norm in US policy. In an inflationary context gridlock may well be positive for equities in 2023 since it will curb fiscal spending. However, uncertainty is negative for equities this year. We remain tactically defensive. We recommend renewable energy, cyber stocks, defense stocks, and infrastructure stocks as cyclical plays. Biden’s Approval Stabilizing At Low Level Foreign policy shocks are likely to hurt the ruling party – especially if the nature of the shock exacts a toll on the voter’s pocketbook. We showed evidence to this effect just before Russia re-invaded Ukraine. We concluded that Biden would experience a bounce in opinion polls as the nation rallied around him in the face of the Russian menace but the likely rise in gasoline prices would end up hurting the Democratic Party in the midterm elections.  Yet 40 days after Russia’s attack Biden’s general job approval is still at the lowest of his presidency, in the 41-42% range, while his disapproval is still high, in the 52-53% range. So far the war has not given him an appreciable boost, outside of his own party (where the boost has still been small). The results are even worse when it comes to his handling of the economy. Here his approval is 39% and disapproval 54%. In foreign policy, Biden’s approval stands at 40% and disapproval at 52% (Chart 1). Presidential approval has a big influence on the midterm election – as does perception of the two parties. Republicans have taken the lead in the generic congressional ballot, at 43.7% support versus 42.2% for Democrats. The war has blunted the Republican rally but nothing more. The economy is the likeliest source of good news for Biden and the Democrats over the coming six months but even here there is not a basis for optimism among Democrats, as we will see in the next section.  Chart 1No ‘War Bounce’ For Biden Jobs And Wages Not Boosting Biden Either Our Political Capital Index shows that the Biden administration now has weak or moderate political capital in every category except economic conditions and financial markets (Appendix). Yet economic conditions are still mixed. While they will likely improve before November, they do not look to improve enough to change the election outlook: Both Republicans and Democrats are viewing the economy more negatively. Republican economic sentiment declined by 16% in March, while Democrat economic sentiment declined by 6%. The partisan gap widened, which means Republicans will remain motivated to vote (Chart 2). Manufacturing activity is slowing down (though not shrinking). The reading slipped lower than its level in November 2020, when Biden took office. This drop is the first sign of the negative effect of inflation and geopolitical risk on the economy. New manufacturing orders declined while inventories increased. The new-orders-to-inventories ratio, which should be a leading indicator of economic activity, fell by 15.7% compared to its February reading. It is now the weakest since May 2020 (Chart 3). Chart 2Economic Sentiment Declines For Both Parties The budget deficit is “normalizing” and weighing on demand. The fiscal thrust – or change in the budget deficit – turned negative as the stimulus of 2020 waned. The intensity of the drag is now lessening, both on the federal and state level, but it would require a massive new crisis for the US to outdo the stimulus of 2020, so the drag will persist for the foreseeable future (Chart 4). Any last-minute reconciliation bill from congressional Democrats would reduce the drag further, but not generate positive thrust, and not in time to affect the election. To pass the bill, Democrats need to reduce the deficit impact in the face of inflation and paper-thin congressional majorities. Chart 3First Sign Of Inflation, Geopolitics Hitting Manufacturing Chart 4US Fiscal Drag In Wake Of 2020 Stimulus Most worrisome for President Biden, his approval rating has suffered despite a tight labor market and real wage growth. The headline unemployment rate declined to 3.6% in March, down 3.1 percentage points since November 2020. The ISM manufacturing employment index stands at the highest point since March of 2021, and 17% higher than in November 2020 (Chart 5). Inflation is apparently eating away the benefits of low unemployment. Real wages grew by 3.3% on an annual basis in February, up from 2.5% in January. This wage growth is higher than that of November 2020, at 2.2%. Biden’s approval rating is probably in the process of stabilizing, if we assume that unemployment stays low and real wages keep growing. But it is stabilizing at a low level and not perking up as a result of the Russian menace. The likeliest culprit for Biden’s troubles is inflation. Fortunately for the Democrats inflation is likely to fall in the coming months. However, voters are likely to respond to year-on-year rather than month-on-month inflation. And voters make up their minds early in midterm election years. Plus, if inflation does not subside, or if Biden is perceived as making a foreign policy mistake, then his approval rating will not stabilize. Bottom Line: Biden’s approval rating is not perking up despite a foreign threat. His approval on economic policy is even worse than on foreign policy, despite low unemployment and real wage growth higher than when he took office. A drop in inflation would improve his fortunes but taken together the evidence suggests that the war has not helped, and may have hurt, the Democrats’ chances this fall. Chart 5Will Jobs And Real Wages Stabilize Presidential Approval? Biden Taps Strategic Oil Reserve But Implications Depend On Iran One of our key views for 2022 (reiterated in our Q2 outlook) is the Biden administration’s transition from congressional to executive action. Biden’s decision to tap the strategic petroleum reserve (SPR) on March 31 exemplifies this trend. Gasoline prices have spiked to $4.20 per gallon, which is more than double the level in November 2020 (Chart 6). Biden’s SPR order aims to mitigate the rise in prices. Biden ordered the release of 1 million barrels per day of crude oil over the next 180 days (six months). This would constitute the largest release since the SPR came into being in 1975 (Chart 7).1 Chart 6Prices At The Pump Trigger Red Alert In White House Chart 7Biden Taps Strategic Petroleum Reserve The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) originated in the wake of the Arab oil embargo to protect the US from supply shocks. Faced with “severe petroleum supply interruptions” the president can authorize a maximum drawdown of 396 million barrels over 90 days, which begin reaching the market roughly 13 days after the decision. The current inventory is 570 million barrels of sweet and sour crude, which could last 92 days of crude imports and 72 days of crude and petroleum product imports (Chart 8). Unlike during the 1970s, today the US is the world’s largest oil and refined products producer. It is a net exporter as well. However, it is still vulnerable to external shocks. It imports 6.3 million barrels per day and has already cut off 283 thousand barrels per day of imports from Russia (Chart 9). Global price shocks still affect the US prices at the pump, as Chart 6 above shows in the relationship between domestic gasoline prices and Brent crude. Chart 8SPR Can Be Tapped For Six-To-Nine Months Easily Chart 9US Energy Independent But Still Vulnerable To Shocks The Ukraine crisis is just the sort of geopolitical crisis that the SPR was invented to address – but the magnitude of Biden’s action is larger than normal. The SPR was tapped for 21 million barrels in 1990-91, during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and for 30 million barrels in 2011, when Libyan production fell to zero amid the revolution. However, because of US net exporter status, Biden has much more room for maneuver. The SPR would be tapped for 180 million barrels if Biden’s current plan is fully implemented. The SPR can be released at a rate of 4.4 million barrels per day for about 90 days, though after that the drawdown rate begins to decline for technical reasons (e.g. contaminants). Biden’s 180 days would end in early October, a month before the midterm election. If the SPR has at least 282 million barrels left (90 days of US net crude imports in 2021), the president can continue to release oil from it. The minimum storage level is 282 million barrels of crude. Thus at the end of Biden’s current order, he would have 390 million barrels left and would still be able to release 1 million barrels per day for 108 days.  There are various interpretations of Biden’s decision to tap the SPR today: Currently the Russians and Europeans are in a standoff over energy flows. Russia is demanding payment in rubles and Europe is rejecting Russia’s demands while threatening to ban Russian coal imports. Since crude oil is generally interchangeable, an EU-Russia breakdown in crude trade would not prevent Russian barrels from reaching global markets eventually (Chart 10). In short Biden did not tap the SPR in anticipation of a breakdown. Biden could have tapped the SPR because of difficulties convincing the core OPEC states to increase production. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Kuwait are rapidly increasing production already, though their 90-day spare capacity enables them to bring out as much as 3.5 million additional barrels per day. But on March 31 they ruled out any massive near-term adjustments. Their relations with the US under the Biden administration have been strained, namely as Biden is still trying to rejoin the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal. If the US and Iran rejoin the 2015 deal, the US would lift sanctions and Iran could quickly bring about 1.3 million barrels per day back to global markets. Biden’s SPR release is roughly equal to this amount, which means it could be insurance for a failure to do a deal (Chart 11). Chart 10Russian Oil Exports To Europe And World An Iran deal on top of the SPR release would add 2.3 million barrels per day in positive supply surprises, while reducing the short-term risk of a military conflict in the Persian Gulf. This would have a significant short-term negative impact on oil prices this year. Chart 11Biden Struggles For Help From OPEC What is clear is that our Geopolitical Strategy’s base case of a failure of US-Iran talks would imply a significantly higher risk of oil disruptions in the Middle East over the short and long run. In that case the OPEC states would need to change their position and increase production or else a new supply shock would be added on top of the Russian shock. Biden’s SPR release would make up for production bottled up in Iran but regional supply disruptions would intensify and Iran would threaten the Strait of Hormuz. Biden’s executive action to tap the SPR removes one option from the table. The ultimate impact of this move depends on whether Biden also uses executive action to do a deal with Iran. We cannot rule it out, because Biden has the authority to lift sanctions unilaterally, but we would not bet on it. Bottom Line: Market fundamentals suggest that Brent prices will fall from their current $105 per barrel toward their likely average of $93 per barrel this year and in 2023. Quant Model Points To Republican Senate Last week we highlighted that our Senate election model flipped from predicting the status quo to predicting a Republican victory, in line with our subjective view of the situation. The latest model findings, using data from the state coincident economic indicators released on April 5, suggests that Republicans have a 51.6% chance of gaining control of the Senate (Chart 12). Democrats only need to lose a single seat to slip from 50 to 49 seats and thus yield the majority. The model suggests they will lose two seats, in Arizona and Georgia. The result is a Republican majority of 52-48 seats. Chart 12Senate Election Model Flips To Republicans Our presidential election model still shows Democrats holding onto the White House in 2024 with 308 electoral college votes but their chances are declining. Specifically Democrats’ odds of retaining the White House have fallen from 54.9% to 54.7% now that the March data is taken into account (Chart 13). North Carolina is still considered a toss-up state, with a 45% probability that Democrats win it, but that means that a single percentage point drop puts it firmly in the Republican camp, along with Arizona and Georgia. Democrats’ odds are falling in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Nevada especially, although they are improving in Wisconsin and Minnesota. Chart 13Presidential Election Model Still Slightly Favors Democrats Florida presents an interesting difference between the two models: the Senate model gives Florida to the Republicans, while the presidential model gives it to the Democrats. This requires some explanation: The incumbent advantage plays a role. Biden did not win Florida in 2020 but that does not stop the model from ascribing Democrats a good chance of winning Florida given that they are the incumbent party. Incumbency would be punished if Democrats held the White House for eight years due to the variable that accounts for the public sentiment that it is “time for change.” The Senate model works differently. The model only helps the party that controls a state Senate seat by means of the partisan leaning of the state in recent elections. This is helpful for Republicans in the model’s 2022 prediction. Meanwhile the model only punishes an incumbent party if it has held control of the US Senate for three or more terms, which is not the case today. Our sample periods across the two election models are the same (1984-2020), but in this period, Democrats only held Senate seats for three out of nine changes. There have been nine different senators from Florida since 1989, three of which have been Democrats. The last Democratic senator was Bill Nelson but he was beaten by Republican Rick Scott in 2018. The other Senate seat has been held by a Republican since around 2004, most recently Marco Rubio, who is up for re-election in 2022. So the model will “lean” more Republican based on total outcomes and how recently recurring they were. Finally, a caveat: we should be careful about explicitly comparing the two election models. Although they are both Probit models, the variables are not all the same. Some are shared but their interaction with one another and the election outcome (dependent variable) should not be assumed to be exactly the same. There can be little doubt in the model’s outlook for the Florida Senate race. Senator Marco Rubio is a young incumbent, has strong name recognition, and is up for re-election in a favorable year for Republicans. As of February he was leading his top Democratic opponent Val Demings by 12 percentage points in opinion polls. Confirming the state’s Republican leaning, Governor Ron DeSantis was leading his Democratic opponent Charlie Crist by 21 percentage points in February polls, with over 50% favoring DeSantis. (Other than former President Trump, DeSantis is currently the favored Republican nominee for 2024.) Moreover the presidential model is catching up to the Senate model, with the odds of a Democratic win in Florida dropping from 59% to 55% over the past month alone. If the odds fall beneath 50% then the model naturally awards all of Florida’s 29 electoral votes to the Republicans. This would leave Democrats hanging by a thread at 279 votes. What is clear is that the 2024 election is a long way off. Democrats benefit from an incumbent advantage as a political party, aside from whether President Biden runs again. Yet the quantitative model suggests that the US will experience another hotly contested presidential election. Bottom Line: Republicans are now tipped to take the Senate in our quantitative model as well as our subjective judgment. Meanwhile Democrats are still favored to win the 2024 election but only slightly, and their odds are falling. These views support the market consensus but in general US investors will remain risk averse ahead of the midterm election.  Investment Takeaways Stay tactically long the US dollar and defensive stocks like in the health care sector. Russia is threatening to cut off energy exports to Europe, which is considering a ban on Russian coal. Until this dispute is resolved, risk appetite will suffer, the euro will be limited, and the dollar will stay strong. Stay long renewable energy, cyber security stocks, infrastructure stocks, defense stocks, oil and gas distribution, and small cap energy stocks (Chart 14). Chart 14Investment Takeaways Matt Gertken Senior Vice President Chief US Political Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com Guy Russell Senior Analyst guyr@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     See White House, “FACT SHEET: President Biden’s Plan to Respond to Putin’s Price Hike at the Pump,” March 31, 2022, whitehouse.gov; Department of Energy, “Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Providing Energy Security For America,” March 28, 2022, energy.gov; and Heather L. Greenley, “The Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Background, Authorities, and Considerations,” Congressional Research Service, R46355, May 13, 2020, crsreports.congress.gov.   Appendix 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  

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)

Special Report

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

Special Report

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

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

Executive Summary Russia Not Prepared To Invade West Ukraine Yet Russia is escalating its aggressiveness in Ukraine, marked by the shelling of a nuclear power station, troop reinforcements, and rhetorical threats of nuclear attack. Global financial markets will continue to suffer from negative news arising from this event until Russia achieves its aims in eastern Ukraine. Private sector boycotts on Russian commodity exports are imposing severe strains on the Russian economy, provoking it to apply more pressure on Ukraine and the West. Western governments are losing the ability to control the pace of strategic escalation, a dangerous dynamic. Moscow’s demand for security guarantees from Finland and Sweden will lead to a further escalation of strategic tensions between Russia and the West. During the Cold War the US and USSR saw a “balance of terror” due to rapidly expanding nuclear arms, which prevented them from waging war against each other. Today the same balance will probably prevent nuclear war but a nuclear scare that rattles financial markets may be required first. Trade Recommendation Inception Date Return Long Gold (Strategic) 2019-12-06 32.1% Bottom Line: Russia’s aggressiveness toward the US and Europe, including nuclear threats and diplomatic demands, will continue to escalate until it achieves its core military objectives. Investors should stick to safe havens and defensive equity markets and sectors on a tactical basis. Book profits on tactical trade long Japan/Germany industrials at close of trading on March 4. Feature Russian military forces shelled the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Station on March 4, causing a fire. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) declared that “essential equipment” was not damaged and that the facility possessed adequate containment structures to prevent a nuclear meltdown. Local authorities said the facility was “secured.” This incident, which may or may not be settled, should be added to several others to highlight that Russia is escalating its aggression in Ukraine and global financial markets face more bad news that they will be forced to discount. Signposts For Further Escalation Map 1 shows the status of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, along with icons for the nuclear power plants. Map 1War In Ukraine, Status Of Russian Invasion As Of March 2, 2022 To understand the end-game in Ukraine – and why we think the war will escalate and are keeping open our bearish trade recommendations – we need to review our net assessment for this conflict: Our 65% “limited invasion” scenario included the seizure of strategic territory east of the Dnieper river and all of the southern coastline. Energy trade would be exempt from sanctions, saving Europe from a recession and limiting the magnitude of global energy shock. We gave 10% odds to a “full-scale invasion of all of Ukraine” (deliberate wording) because we viewed it as highly unlikely that Russia would invade the mountainous and guerilla-happy far west, the ethnic Ukrainian core. Energy trade would be sanctioned, delivering a global energy shock and European recession. A handful of clients have criticized us for not predicting that Russia would attack Kiev and for not defining a full-scale invasion as one that involved replacing the government. We never gave a view on whether Russia would invade Kiev. It is not clear that the focus on Kiev is warranted since the US and EU had committed to powerful sanctions in the event of any invasion at all. This fixed price of invasion may have given Moscow the perverse incentive to invade Kiev. Either way, Russia invaded Kiev and eastern Ukraine and the US and EU imposed crippling sanctions but exempted the energy trade. Thus anything that breaks off energy trade between the EU and Russia – and any Russian attempt to invade the west of the country to Poland – should be seen as a significant escalation. Unfortunately there are signs that the energy trade is being disrupted. Any westward campaign to Poland will be delayed until Putin sacks Kiev and controls the east and south of Ukraine, at which point he will be forced either to invade the west to cut off the supply lines of the insurgency or, more likely, to negotiate a ceasefire that partitions Ukraine. Global investors will not care about the war in Ukraine as long as strategic stability is achieved between Russia and the West. But that is far away. Today, as Russia’s economic situation deteriorates, Putin is escalating on the nuclear front. Bottom Line: Russia’s showdown with the West is escalating. Good news for the Ukrainians will lead to bad news for financial markets. Global investors should not view the situation as stabilized and should maintain safe haven trades and defensive equity positioning. Energy Boycotts Will Antagonize Russia Chart 1Russia Not Prepared To Invade West Ukraine Yet So far Russia has not conducted a full-scale invasion of all of Ukraine. The reason is that it does not have the necessary military forces, as we have highlighted. Russia is limiting its invasion force to around 200,000 troops while Ukraine consists of 30 million prime age citizens (Chart 1). Unless Russia massively reinforces its troops, it does not have the basic three-to-one troop ratio that is the minimum necessary to invade, conquer, and hold the entire country. However, Russia is likely to increase troop sizes. We are inclined to believe that Russia has started shifting troops from its southern and eastern military districts to reinforce the Ukraine effort, according to the Kyiv Independent, citing the Ukrainian armed forces’ general staff. Apparently it aims to conquer the east and then either invade further west or negotiate a new ceasefire with greater advantage. Investors should not accept the consensus narrative in the western world that Russia is losing the war in the east. Russia is encountering various difficulties but it is gradually surrounding and blockading Ukraine and cutting its power supply. It is capable of improving its supply lines and increasing the size and destructiveness of its forces. Remember that the US took 20 days to sack Baghdad in 2003. Russia has only been fighting for nine days. Having incurred crippling economic sanctions, Putin cannot afford to withdraw without changing the government in Kiev. The odds of Ukraine “winning” the war are low, while the odds of Russia dramatically intensifying its efforts are high. This is why new developments on the energy front and worrisome: Chart 2Energy Trade Remains The Fulcrum While western governments refrained from sanctioning Russian energy as predicted, private companies are boycotting Russian energy to avoid sanctions and unpopularity. Estimates vary but about 20% of Russian oil exports could be affected so far.1 Russian oil will make its way to global markets – Russian, Chinese, and other third parties will pick up the slack – but in the meantime the Russian economy is suffering more than expected due to the cutoff. Energy is the vital remaining source of Russian economic stability and Russo-European relations (Chart 2). If it fails then Russia could grow more desperate while Europe’s economy would fall into recession and Europe would become less stable and less coordinated in its responses to the conflict. These private boycotts make it beyond the control of western governments to control the pace and intensity of pressure tactics, since it is politically impractical to demand that companies trade with the enemy. Bottom Line: With the rapidly mounting economic pressure, it should be no surprise that Russia is escalating its threats – it is under increasing economic pressure and wants to drive the conflict to a quick decision in its favor. Russia’s Nuclear Threats And Putin’s Mental State Russia is terrorizing Ukraine and the western world with threats of either nuclear missile attacks or a nuclear meltdown. Putin put the country’s nuclear deterrent forces on “special combat status” on February 27. His forces began shelling the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant on March 4. Russia is also demanding security guarantees from Finland and Sweden, which are becoming more favorable toward joining the NATO alliance.2 Their lack of membership in NATO, while maintaining a strong military deterrent with defense support from the US, was a linchpin of stability in the Cold War but is now at risk. They will retain the right to choose their alliances at which point Russia will need to threaten them with attack. Since Russia cannot plausibly invade them with full armies while invading Ukraine, it may resort to nuclear brinksmanship. The western media is greatly amplifying a narrative in which Russia’s actions can only be understood in the context of Putin’s insanity or fanaticism. This may be true. But it is also suspicious because it saves the West from having to address the problem of NATO enlargement, which, along with Russia’s domestic weaknesses, contributed to Russia’s decision over the past 17 years to stage an aggressive campaign to control Ukraine and the former Soviet Union. There is a swirl of conspiracy theories in the news about Putin’s illnesses, age, vaccines, or psychology, none of which are falsifiable. Putin has an incentive to appear reckless and insane so that his enemies capitulate sooner. The decision to invade a non-NATO member, rather than a NATO member, suggests that he is still making rational calculations. Rational, that is, from the perspective of Russian history and an anarchic international system in which nation states that seek to survive, secure themselves, and expand their power. If Ukraine were to become a military ally of the US then Russian security would suffer a permanent degradation. Of course, Putin may be a fanatic and it is possible that he grows desperate or miscalculates. The western public (and global investors) will thus be reminded of the “balance of terror” that prevailed throughout the Cold War, in which the world lived and conducted business under the shadow of nuclear holocaust. Today Russia has 1,588 deployed strategic nuclear warheads, contra the US’s 1,644. Both countries can deliver nuclear weapons via ballistic missiles, submarines, and bombers and are capable of destroying hundreds of each other’s cities on short notice (Table 1). While the US has at times contemplated the potential for nuclear attacks to occur but remain limited, the Soviet Union’s nuclear doctrine ultimately rejected the likelihood of limitations and anticipated maximum escalation.3 Table 1The Return Of The Balance Of Terror Ultimately the US and Russia avoided nuclear war in the Cold War because it entailed “mutually assured destruction” which violated the law of self-preservation. Neither Stalin nor Mao used nukes on their opponents, including when they lost conflicts (e.g. to Afghanistan and Vietnam). The US tied with North Korea and lost to Vietnam without using nukes. However in the current context the US has been wary of antagonizing Putin for fear of his unpredictable and aggressive posture. In response to Putin’s activation of combat-ready nuclear forces, the US called attention to its own nuclear deterrent subtly by canceling the regular test of a ballistic missile and issuing a press statement highlighting the fact and saying that it was too responsible to bandy in nuclear threats. Yet the autocratic nature of Putin’s regime means that if Putin ultimately does prove to be a lunatic then large parts of the world face existential danger. Our Global Investment Strategist Peter Berezin ascribes Russian Roulette odds to nuclear Armageddon – while arguing that investors should stay invested over the long run anyway. Sanctions on the Russian central bank have frozen roughly half of the country’s $630 billion foreign exchange reserves (Table 2). If the energy trade also stops, then the economy will crash and Putin could become desperate. Table 2Western Sanctions On Russia As Of March 4, 2022 Bottom Line: Global financial markets have yet to experience the full scare that is likely as Russia escalates its aggression and nuclear brinksmanship to ensure it achieves it strategic aims in Ukraine and prevents Finland from joining NATO. GeoRisk Indicators In March In what follows we provide our monthly update of our quantitative, market-based GeoRisk Indicators. Russian geopolitical risk is surging as the ruble and equity markets collapse (Chart 3). The violent swings of the underlying macroeconomic variables as Russia saw a V-shaped recovery from the COVID-19 lockdowns, then sharply decelerated again, prevented our risk indicator from picking up the full scale of the geopolitical risk until recently. But alternative measures of Russian risk show the historic increase more clearly – and it can also be demonstrated by reducing the weighting of the underlying macroeconomic variables relative to the USD-RUB exchange rate in the indicator’s calculation (Chart 4). Chart 3Russian GeoRisk Indicator Chart 4Other Measures Of Russian Geopolitical Risk This problem of dramatically volatile pandemic-era macro data skewing our risk indicators has been evident over the past year and is more apparent with some indicators than with others. China’s geopolitical risk as measured by the markets is starting to peak and stall but we do not recommend investors try to take advantage of the situation. China’s domestic and international political risk will remain elevated through the twentieth national party congress this fall. The sharp increase in commodity prices will amplify the problem. The earliest China’s political environment can improve substantially is in 2023 after President Xi Jinping cements another ten years’ in power (Chart 5). And yet that very process is negative for long-term political stability. Chart 5China GeoRisk Indicator British geopolitical risk is contained. It enjoys some insulation from the war on the continent, underpinning our long GBP-CZK trade and long UK equities trade relative to developed markets other than the United States (Chart 6). Chart 6United Kingdom GeoRisk Indicator German and French geopolitical risk is being priced higher as expected (Charts 7 and 8). Of these two Germany is the more exposed due to the risk of energy shortages. France is nuclear-armed and nuclear-powered, and unlikely to see a change of president in the April presidential elections. Italian risk was already at a higher level than these countries but the Russian conflict and high energy supply risk will keep it elevated (Chart 9). Chart 7Germany GeoRisk Indicator Chart 8France GeoRisk Indicator Chart 9Italy GeoRisk Indicator Canada’s trucker strikes are over and the loonie will benefit from the country’s status as energy producer and insulation from geopolitical threats due to proximity with the United States (Chart 10). Chart 10Canada GeoRisk Indicator Spain still has substantial domestic political polarization but this will have little impact on markets amid the Ukraine war. Spain is distant from the fighting and will act as a conduit for liquefied natural gas imports into Europe (Chart 11). Chart 11Spain GeoRisk Indicator Australia’s political risk will remain elevated due to its clash with China amid the emerging global conflict between democracies and autocracies as well as the country’s looming general election, which threatens a change of ruling party (Chart 12). However, as a commodity and LNG producer and staunch US ally the country’s risks are overrated. Chart 12Australia GeoRisk Indicator Markets are gradually starting to price the risk of an eventual China-Taiwan military conflict as a result of the Ukrainian conflict. China is unlikely to invade Taiwan on Russia’s time frame given the greater difficulties and risks associated with an amphibious invasion of a much more strategically critical territory in the world. But Taiwan’s situation is comparable to that of Ukraine and it is ultimately geopolitically unsustainable, so we expect Taiwanese assets to suffer a higher risk premium over the long run (Chart 13). Chart 13Taiwan Territory GeoRisk Indicator South Korea faces a change of ruling parties in its March 9 general election as well as uncertainties emanating from China and a new cycle of provocations from North Korea (Chart 14). However these risks are probably not sufficient to prevent a rally in South Korean equities on a relative basis as China stabilizes its economy. Chart 14Korea GeoRisk Indicator Turkey’s international environment has gotten even worse as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and effective closure of the Black Sea to international trade. Turkey has invoked the 1936 Montreux Convention to close the Dardanelles and Bosporus straits to Russian warships, although it will let those ships return to home from outside the Black Sea. The Black Sea is highly vulnerable to “Black Swan” events, highlighted by the sinking of an Estonian ship off Ukraine’s coast in recent days. Turkey’s domestic political situation will also generate a political risk premium through the 2023 presidential election (Chart 15), as President Recep Erdogan’s reelection bid may benefit from international chaos and yet he is an unorthodox and market-negative leader, and if he loses the country will be plunged into factional conflict. Chart 15Turkey GeoRisk Indicator South Africa looks surprisingly attractive in the current environment given our assessment that the government is stable and relatively friendly to financial markets, the next general election is years away, and the search for commodity alternatives to Russia amid a high commodity price context will benefit South Africa (Chart 16). Chart 16South Africa GeoRisk Indicator India And Brazil: A Tale Of Two Emerging Markets Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will have a minimal impact on the growth engines of India and Brazil. This is because Russia directly accounts for a smidgeon of both these countries trade pie. However, the main route through which this war will be felt in both markets is through commodity prices. Brazil by virtue of being a commodity exporter is better positioned as compared to India which is a commodity importer and is richly valued to boot. The year 2022 promises to be important from the perspective of domestic politics in both countries and will add to the policy risks confronting both EMs. Our Brazilian GeoRisk indicator has collapsed but is highly likely to recover and rise from here (Chart 17). Chart 17Brazil GeoRisk Indicator Commodity Price Spike – Advantage Brazil Politically India and Brazil have a lot in common today. The popularity ratings of their respective right-leaning heads of states, Prime Minister Narendra Modi in India and President Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, have suffered over the last two years. The economic prospects of the median voter in both countries have weakened over the last year (Chart 18). Policymakers in both countries face a dilemma: they cannot stimulate their way out of their problems without an adverse market reaction since both countries are loaded with public debt. Chart 18Economic Miseries Rising For Both India's And Brazil's Median Voter Despite these commonalties, Brazil’s equity markets have outperformed relative to EMs whilst India has underperformed (Chart 19). On a tactical horizon, we expect this divergent performance to continue as the effects of the Russian invasion feed through commodity markets. Chart 19India Is Richly Valued, Brazil Has Outperformed EMs​​​​​ Commodity markets were tight even before the Russian invasion. The ongoing war will force inventories to draw across a range of commodities including oil, iron ore and even corn. Given that India is a net importer of oil whilst Brazil is a net commodity exporter, the current spike in commodity prices will benefit Brazil over India in the short term. However, our Commodity & Energy Strategy team expects supply responses from oil producers to eventually come through, thereby sending the price of Brent crude to $85 per barrel by the end of 2022. Hence if Indian equities correct in response to the current oil spike or domestic politics (see below), then investors can turn constructive on India on a tactical horizon. Elections Stoke Policy Risks – In India And Brazil Results of key state elections in India will be announced on March 10, 2022. Of all the state elections, the results that the market will most closely watch will be those of Uttar Pradesh, the most populous state of India. In a base case scenario, we expect the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) which rules this state, to cross the 50% seat share mark and retain power. But the BJP will not be able to beat the extraordinary 77% seat share it won at the 2017 elections in Uttar Pradesh. A sharp deviation from this benchmark may lead the BJP to focus on populism ahead of the next round of state elections due in 4Q 2022. At a time when the Indian government’s appetite to take on structural reforms is waning, we worry that such a populist tilt could perturb Indian equity markets. Also, general elections are due in India in 2024. If the latest state election results suggest that the BJP has ceded a high vote share to regional parties (such as the Samajwadi Party in Uttar Pradesh or Aam Aadmi Party in Punjab), then this would mean that regional parties can pose a credible threat to BJP’s ability to maintain a comfortable majority in 2024. In Brazil, some polls show that left-leaning former president Lula da Silva's lead on President Bolsonaro may have narrowed. While we expect Lula to win the presidential elections due in Brazil in October 2022, the road to victory will not be as smooth as markets expect. If the difference between the two competitors’ popularity stays narrow, then there is real a chance that President Bolsonaro will make a last-ditch effort to cling to power. He will resort to fiscal populism and attacks on Brazil’s institutions, potentially opening up institutional or civil-military rifts that generate substantially greater uncertainty among investors. Bolsonaro already appears to be planning a cut in fuel prices and a bill to further this could be tabled as soon as next week. He has coddled Russian President Putin to shore up his base of authoritarian sentiment at home. To conclude, investors must balance these two opposing forces affecting Brazilian markets today. On one hand are the latent policy risks engendered by a far-right populist who still has a few months left in office. On the other hand, in a year’s time Bolsonaro will likely be gone while Brazil stands to benefit as commodity prices rise and EM investors shift funds into commodity exporters like Brazil. Against this backdrop, we re-iterate our view that investors should take-on selective tactical exposure in Brazil. Risk-adjusted returns in Brazil at this juncture can be maximized by buying into sectors like financials as these sectors’ inherent political and policy sensitivity is low. Postscript: Is India’s Foreign Policy Reverting To Non-Alignment? India traditionally has followed a foreign policy of non-alignment, carefully maintaining ties with both America and Russia through the Cold War. Things changed in the 2000s as Russia under President Putin courted closer ties with China while the US tried to warm up to India. India’s decision to join the newly energized US-led “quadrilateral” alliance in 2017 is a clear sign that India is gradually shedding its historical stance of neutrality and veering towards America. However, this thesis is being questioned as India, like China, is continuing to trade and transact with Russia despite its invasion of Ukraine, providing Russia with a lifeline as it suffers punishing sanctions from the US and European Union. India repeatedly abstained from voting resolutions critical of Russia at the United Nations in recent weeks. In other words, India’s process of transitioning over to the US alignment will be “definitive yet slow,” owing to reasons of both history and practicality. The former Soviet Union’s support played a critical role in helping India win several regional battles like the Indo-Pakistan war of 1971. Russia’s military and security influence in Central Asia makes it useful to India, which seeks a counter to Pakistan on its flank in Afghanistan. India sees Russia as a fairly dependable partner that cannot be abandoned until America is willing to provide much greater and more reliable guarantees and subsidies to India – through military support and beneficial trade deals. The backbone of Indo-Russia relations has been their arms trade (Chart 20). India’s reliance on Russia for arms could decline in the long term. But in the short term, as India tilts towards the US at a calibrated pace, India could remain a source of meaningful defense revenue for Russia. It is possible but not likely that the US would impose sanctions on India for maintaining this trade. Chart 20India Today Is A Key Buyer Of Russian Weapons The fundamental long-term dynamic is that Russia has foreclosed its relations with the West and will therefore be lashed to China, at least until the Putin regime falls and a Russian diplomatic reset with the West can be arranged. In the face of this combined geopolitical bloc, India will gradually be driven to cooperate more closely with the United States. But India will not lead the transition away from Russia – rather it will react appropriately depending on the US’s focus and resolve in countering China and assisting India’s economy.   Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Ritika Mankar, CFA Editor/Strategist ritika.mankar@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Energy Aspects long-term estimate. 2     Tzvi Joffre, “Russian FM repeats nuclear war rhetoric as invasion of Ukraine continues,” Reuters, March 3, 2022. 3     Jack L. Snyder, “The Soviet Strategic Culture : Implications for Limited Nuclear Operations,” Rand Corporation, R-2154-AF (1977), argues that Soviet and American strategic cultures differ greatly and that the US should not be “sanguine about the likelihood that the Soviets would abide by American-formulated rules of intrawar restraint." Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix "Batting Average": Geopolitical Strategy Trades (2022) Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

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

Special Report

Executive Summary From Nixon-Mao To Putin-Xi The geopolitical “big picture” of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is the deepening of the Russo-Chinese strategic partnership. While Russia’s economic and military constraints did not prohibit military action in Ukraine, they are still relevant. Most likely they will prevent a broader war with NATO or a total energy embargo of Europe. Still, volatility will persist in the near term as saber-rattling, aftershocks, and spillover incidents will occur this year.  Russo-Chinese relations are well grounded. Russia needs investment capital and resource sales, while China needs overland supply routes and supply security. Both seek to undermine the US in a new game of Great Power competition that will prevent global politics and globalization from normalizing. Tactically we remain defensive but buying opportunities are emerging. We maintain a cyclically constructive view. Favor equity markets of US allies and partners that are geopolitically secure. Trade Recommendation Inception Date Return Long Gold (Strategic) 2019-12-06 32.7% Bottom Line: Tactically investors should remain defensive but cyclically they should look favorably on cheap, geopolitically secure equity markets like those of Australia, Canada, and Mexico. Feature To understand the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the likely consequences, investors need to consider three factors: 1.  Why Russia’s constraints did not prohibit war and how constraints must always be measured against political will. 2.  Why Russia’s constraints will grow more relevant going forward, as the costs of occupation and sanctions take hold, the economy weakens, and sociopolitical pressures build. 3.  Why the struggle of the Great Powers will drive a Russo-Chinese alliance, whose competition with the US-led alliance will further destabilize global trade and investment. Russia’s Geopolitical Will Perhaps the gravest national security threat that Russia can face, according to Russian history, is a western military power based in the Ukraine. Time and again Russia has staged dramatic national efforts at great cost of blood and treasure to defeat western forces that try to encroach on this broad, flat road to Moscow. Putin has been in power for 22 years and his national strategy is well-defined: he aims to resurrect Russian primacy within the former Soviet Union, carve out a regional sphere of influence, and reduce American military threats in Russia’s periphery. He has long aimed to prevent Ukraine from becoming a western defense partner. Chart 1Russia Structured For Conflict While Moscow faced material limitations to military action in Ukraine, these were not prohibitive, as we have argued. Consider the following constraints and their mitigating factors: Costs of war: The first mistake lay in assuming that Russia was not willing to engage in war. Russia had already invaded Ukraine in 2014 and before that Georgia in 2008. The modern Russian economy is structured for conflict: it is heavily militarized (Chart 1). Military spending accounts for 4.3% of GDP, comparable to the United States, also known for waging gratuitous wars and preemptive invasions. Financial burdens: The second mistake was to think that Moscow would avoid conflict for fear of the collapse of the ruble or financial markets. Since Putin rose to power in 2000, the ruble has depreciated by 48% against the dollar and the benchmark stock index has fallen by 57% against EMs. Each new crackdown on domestic or foreign enemies has led to a new round of depreciation and yet Putin remains undeterred from his long-term strategy (Chart 2). Chart 2Putin Doesn't Eschew Conflict For Sake Of Ruble Or Stocks Economic health: Putin’s foreign policy is not constrained by the desire to make the Russian economy more open, complex, advanced, or productive. While China long practiced a foreign policy of lying low, so as to focus on generating wealth that could later be converted into strategic power (which it is doing now), Russia pursued a hawkish foreign policy for the past twenty years despite the blowback on the economy. Russia is still an undiversified petro-state and total factor productivity is approaching zero (Chart 3). Chart 3Putin Doesn't Eschew Conflict For Sake Of Productivity​​​​​​ Chart 4Putin Doesn’t Eschew Conflict For Fear Of Sanctions​​​​​​ Western sanctions: Western sanctions never provided a powerful argument against Russian intervention into Ukraine. Russia knew all along that if it invaded Ukraine, the West would impose a new round of sanctions, as it has done periodically since 2014. The 2014 oil crash had a much greater impact on Russia than the sanctions. Of course, Russia’s overall economic competitiveness is suffering, although it is capable of gaining market share in exporting raw materials, especially as it depreciates its currency (Chart 4). Chart 5Putin Doesn't Eschew Conflict For Sake Of Popular Opinion Public opinion: Surely the average Russian is not interested in Ukraine and hence Putin lacks popular support for a new war? True. But Putin has a strong record of using foreign military adventures as a means of propping up domestic support. Of course, opinion polls, which confirm this pattern, are manipulated and massaged (Chart 5). Nevertheless Russians like all people are highly likely to side with their own country in a military confrontation with foreign countries, at least in the short run. Over the long haul, the public will come to rue the war. Moscow believes that it can manage the domestic fallout when that time comes because it has done so since 2014. We doubt it but that is a question for a later time. Investors also need to consider Putin’s position if he did not stage ever-escalating confrontations with the West. Russia is an autocracy with a weak economy – it cannot win over the hearts and minds of its neighboring nations in a fair, voluntary competition with the West, the EU, and NATO. Russia’s neighbors are made up of formerly repressed Soviet ethnic minorities who now have a chance at national self-determination. But to secure their nationhood, they need economic and military support, and if they receive that support, then they inherently threaten Russia and help the US keep Russia strategically contained. Russia traditionally fights against this risk. Bottom Line: Investors and the media focused on the obstacles to Russian military intervention without analyzing whether there was sufficient political will to surmount the hurdles. Constraints Eroded None of the above suggests that Putin can do whatever he wants. Economic and military constraints are significant. However, constraints erode over time – and they may not be effective when needed. Europe did not promise to cancel all energy trade if Russia invaded: Exports make up 27% of Russian GDP, and 51% of exports go to advanced economies, especially European. Russia is less exposed to trade than the EU but more exposed than the US or even China (Chart 6). However, Russia trades in essential goods, natural resources, and the Europeans cannot afford to cut off their own energy supply. When Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014, the Germans responded by building the Nord Stream pipeline, basically increasing energy cooperation. Russia concluded that Europeans, not bound to defend Ukraine by any treaty, would continue to import energy in the event of a conflict limited to Ukraine. Chart 6Putin Limits Conflict For Sake Of EU Energy Trade​​​​​​ Chart 7Putin Limits Conflict For Sake Of Chinese Trade​​​​​​ Russia substitutes China for Europe: As trade with the West declines, Russia is shifting toward the Far East, especially China (Chart 7). China is unlikely to reduce any trade and investment for the sake of Ukraine – it desperately needs the resources and the import-security that strong relations with Russia can provide. It cannot replace Europe – but Russia does not expect to lose the European energy trade entirely. (Over time, of course, the EU/China shift to renewables will undermine Russia’s economy and capabilities.) Ukraine is right next door: Aside from active military personnel, the US advantage over Iraq in 2002-03 was greater than the Russian advantage over Ukraine in 2022 (Chart 8). And yet the US got sucked into a quagmire and ultimately suffered political unrest at home. However, Ukraine is not Afghanistan or Iraq. Russia wagers that it can seize strategic territory, including Kiev, without paying the full price that the Soviets paid in Afghanistan and the US paid in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is a very risky gamble. But the point is that the bar to invading Ukraine was lower than that of other recent invasions – it is not on the opposite side of the world. ​​​​​​​Chart 8Putin Limits Conflict For Fear Of Military Overreach Chart 9Putin Limits Conflict For Fear Of Military Weakness NATO faces mutually assured destruction: NATO’s conventional military weight far surpasses Russia’s. For example, Russia, with its Eurasian Union, does not have enough air superiority to engage in offensive initiatives against Europe, even assuming that the United States is not involved. Even if we assume that China joins Russia in a full-fledged military alliance under the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), NATO’s military budget is more than twice as large (Chart 9). However, this military constraint is not operable in the case of Ukraine, which is not a NATO member. Indeed, Russia’s aggression toward Ukraine stems from its fear that Ukraine will become a real or de facto member of NATO. It is the fear of NATO that prompted Russia to attack rather than deterring it, precisely because Ukraine was not a member but wanted to join. Bottom Line: Russia’s constraints did not prohibit military action because several of them had eroded over time. NATO was so threatening as to provoke rather than deter military action. Going forward, Russia’s economic and military constraints will prevent it from expanding the war beyond Ukraine.  Isn’t Russia Overreaching? Yes, Russia is overreaching – the military balances highlighted in Charts 8 and 9 above should make that plain. The Ukrainian insurgency will be fierce and Russia will pay steep costs in occupation and economic sanctions. These will vitiate the economy and popular support for Putin’s regime over the long run. Chart 10The West Is Politically Divided And Vulnerable The West is also vulnerable, however, which has given rise to a fiscal and commodity cycle that helps to explain why Putin staged his risky invasion at this juncture in time: The US and West are politically divided. Western elites see themselves as surrounded by radical parties that threaten to throw them out and overturn the entire political establishment. Their tenuous grip on power is clear from the thin majorities they hold in their legislatures (Chart 10). Nowhere is this clearer than in the United States, where Democrats cannot spare a single seat in the Senate, five in the House of Representatives, in this fall’s midterm elections, yet are facing much bigger losses. Russia believes that its hawkish foreign policy can keep the democracies divided.​​​​​​​ Elites are turning to populist spending: Governments have adopted liberal fiscal policies in the wake of the global financial crisis and the pandemic. They are trying to grow their way out of populist unrest, debt, and various strategic challenges, from supply chains to cyber security to research and development (Chart 11). China is also part of this process, despite its mixed economic policies. The result is greater demand for commodities, which benefits Russia.    Elites are turning to climate change to justify public spending: Governments, particularly in Europe and China, are using fears of climate change to increase their political legitimacy and launch a new government “moonshot” that justifies more robust public investment and pump-priming. The long-term trend toward renewable energy is fundamentally threatening to Russia, although in the short term it makes Russian natural gas and metals all the more necessary. Germany especially envisions natural gas as the fossil-fuel bridge to a green future as it has turned against both nuclear power and coal (Chart 12). Russian aggression will provoke a rethink in some countries but Germany, as a manufacturing economy, is unlikely to abandon its goals for green industrial innovation. Chart 11Politically Vulnerable States Need Fiscal Stimulus​​​​​​ Chart 12The West Reluctant To Abandon Climate Goals​​​​​​ Proactive fiscal and climate policy motivate new capex and commodity cycle: The West’s attempt to revive big government and strategic spending will require vast resource inputs – resources that Russia can sell at higher prices. The new commodity cycle gives Russia maximum leverage over Europe, especially Germany, at this point in time (Chart 13). Later, as inflation and fiscal fatigue halt this cycle, Russia will lose leverage. Chart 13Commodity Cycle Gives Russia Advantage (For Now) Meanwhile Russia’s economic and hence strategic power will subside over time. Russia’s potential GDP growth has fallen since the Great Recession as productivity growth slows and the labor force shrinks (Chart 14). Chart 14Future Will Not Yield Strategic Opportunities For Russia​​​​​​ Chart 15Younger Russians Not Calling The Shots (But Will Someday) In short, the Kremlin has chosen the path of economic austerity and military aggression as a means of maintaining political legitimacy and achieving national security objectives. Western divisions, de-carbonization, the commodity cycle, and Russia’s bleak economic outlook indicated that 2022 was the opportunity to achieve a pressing national security objective, rather than some future date when Russia will be less capable relative to its opponents. In the worst-case scenario – not our base case – the invasion of Ukraine will trigger an escalation of European sanctions that will lead to Russia cutting off Europe’s energy and producing a global energy price shock. And yet that outcome would upset US and European politics in Russia’s favor, while Putin would maintain absolute control at home in a society that is already used to economic austerity and that benefits from high commodity prices. Note that Putin’s strategy will not last forever. Ukraine will mark another case of Russian strategic overreach that will generate a social and political backlash in coming years. While Putin has sufficient support among older, more Soviet-minded Russians for his Ukraine adventure, he lacks support among the younger and middle-aged cohorts who will have to live with the negative economic consequences (Chart 15). The entire former Soviet Union is vulnerable to social unrest and revolution in the coming decade and Russia is no exception. The Russo-Chinese Geopolitical Realignment Chart 16From Nixon-Mao To Putin-Xi From a broader, geopolitical point of view, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine drives another nail into the coffin of the post-Cold War system and hyper-globalization. Russia is further divorcing itself from the western economy, with even the linchpin European energy trade falling victim to renewables and diversification. The US and its allies are imposing export controls on critical technologies such as semiconductors against Russia to cripple any attempts at modernization. The US is already restricting China’s access to semiconductors and from now on is locked into a campaign to try to enforce these export controls via secondary sanctions, giving rise to proxy battles in countries that Russia and China use to circumvent the sanctions. Russia will be forced to link its austere, militarized, resource-driven economy to the Chinese economy. Hence a major new geopolitical realignment is taking place between the US, Russia, and China, on the order of previous realignments since World War II. When the Sino-Soviet communist bloc first arose it threatened to overwhelm the US in economic heft and dominate Eurasia. This communist threat drove the US to undertake vast expeditionary wars, such as in South Korea and Vietnam. These were too costly, so the US sought economic engagement with China in 1972, which isolated the Soviet Union and ultimately helped bring about its demise. Yet China’s economic boom predictably translated into a strategic rise that began to threaten US preeminence, especially since the Great Recession. Today Russia and China have no option other than to cooperate in the face of the US’s increasingly frantic attempts to preserve its global status – and China’s economic growth and technological potential makes this alliance formidable (Chart 16). In short, the last vestiges of the “Nixon-Mao” moment are fading and the “Putin-Xi” alignment is already well-established. Russia cannot accept vassalage to China but it can make many compromises for the sake of strategic security. Their economies are much more complimentary today than they were at the time of the Sino-Soviet split. And Russia’s austere economy will not collapse as long as it retains some energy trade with Europe throughout the pivot to China. In turn the US will attempt to exploit Russian and Chinese regional aggression as a basis for a revitalization of its alliances. But Europe will dampen US enthusiasm by preserving economic engagement with Russia and China. The EU is increasingly an independent geopolitical actor and a neutral one at that. This environment of multipolarity – or Great Power Struggle – will define the coming decades. It will ensure not only periodic shocks, like the Ukraine war, but also a steady undercurrent of growing government involvement in the global economy in pursuit of supply security, energy security, and national security. Competition for security is not stabilizing but destabilizing. Hyper-globalization has given way to hypo-globalization, as regional geopolitical blocs take the place of what once promised to be a highly efficient and thoroughly interconnected global economy. Investment Takeaways Tactically, Geopolitical Strategy believes it is too soon to go long emerging markets. Russia is at war, China is reverting to autocracy, and Brazil is still on the path to debt crisis. Multiples have compressed sharply but the bad news is not fully priced (Chart 17). The dollar is likely to be resilient as the Fed hikes rates and a major European war rages. Europe’s geopolitical and energy insecurity will weigh on investment appetite and corporate earnings. American equities are likely to outperform in the short run. Chart 17Investors Should Not Bet On Russian And European Equities In This Context​​​​​ Chart 18Investors Find Value, Minimize Risk In Geopolitically Secure Equity Markets​​​​​​ Cyclically, global equities outside the US, and pro-cyclical assets offer better value, as long as the war in Ukraine remains contained, a Europe-wide energy shock is averted, and China’s policy easing secures its economic recovery. While European equities will snap back, Europe still faces structural challenges and eastern European emerging markets face a permanent increase in geopolitical risk due to Russian geopolitical decline and aggression. Investors should seek markets that are both cheap and geopolitically secure – namely Australia, Canada, and Mexico (Chart 18). We are also bullish on India over the long run.    Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)