Recession-Hard/Soft Landing
Executive Summary EU Embargoes Russian Oil The EU imposed an embargo on 90% of Russian oil imports, which will provoke retaliation. Russia will squeeze Europe’s economy ahead of critical negotiations over the coming 6-12 months. Russian gains on the battlefield in Ukraine point to a ceasefire later, but not yet – and Russia will need to retaliate against NATO enlargement. The Middle East and North Africa face instability and oil disruptions due to US-Iran tensions and Russian interference. China’s autocratic shift is occurring amid an economic slowdown and pandemic. Social unrest and internal tensions will flare. China will export uncertainty and stagflation. Inflation is causing disparate effects in South Asia – instability in Pakistan and Sri Lanka, and fiscal populism in India. Asset Initiation Date Return Long Brazilian Financials / Indian Equities (Closed) Feb 10/22 22.5% Bottom Line: Markets still face three geopolitical hurdles: Russian retaliation; Middle Eastern instability; Chinese uncertainty. Feature Global equities bounced back 6.1% from their trough on May 12 as investors cheered hints of weakening inflation and questioned the bearish consensus. BCA’s Global Investment Strategy correctly called the equity bounce. However, as BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy service, we see several sources of additional bad news. Throughout the Ukraine conflict we have highlighted two fundamental factors to ascertain regarding the ongoing macroeconomic impact: Will the war cut off the Russia-EU energy trade? Will the war broaden beyond Ukraine? Chart 1Russian-Exposed Assets Will Suffer More In this report we update our views on these two critical questions. The takeaway is that the geopolitical outlook is still flashing red. The US dollar will remain strong and currencies exposed to Russia and geopolitical risk will remain weak (Chart 1). In addition, China’s politics will continue to produce uncertainty and negative surprises this year. Taken together, investors should remain defensive for now but be ready to turn positive when the market clears the hurdles we identify. The fate of the business cycle hangs in the balance. Energy Ties Eroding … Russia Will Retaliate Over Oil Embargo Chart 2AEU Embargoes Russian Oil Europe is diversifying from Russian oil and natural gas. The European Union adopted a partial oil embargo on Russia that will cut oil imports by 90% by the end of 2022. It also removed Sberbank from the SWIFT banking communications network and slapped sanctions on companies that insure shipments of Russian crude. The sanctions will cut off all of Europe’s seaborne oil imports from Russia as well as major pipeline imports, except the Southern Druzhba pipeline. The EU made an exception for landlocked eastern European countries heavily dependent on Russian pipeline imports – namely Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Bulgaria (Chart 2A). Focus on the big picture. Germany changed its national policy to reduce Russian energy dependency for the sake of national security. From Chancellors Willy Brandt to Angela Merkel, Germany pursued energy cooperation and economic engagement as a means of lowering the risk of war with Russia. Ostpolitik worked in the Cold War, so when Russia seized Crimea in 2014, Merkel built the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. But Merkel’s policy failed to persuade Russia that economic cooperation is better than military confrontation – rather it emboldened President Putin, who viewed Europe as divided and corruptible. Chart 2BRussia Squeezes EU’s Natural Gas Russia’s regime is insecure and feels threatened by the US and NATO. Russia believed that if it invaded Ukraine, the Europeans would maintain energy relations for the sake of preserving overall strategic stability. Instead Germany and other European states began to view Russia as irrational and aggressive and hence a threat to their long-term security. They imposed a coal ban, now an oil ban the end of this year, and a natural gas ban by the end of 2027, all formalized under the recently announced RePowerEU program. Russia retaliated by declaring it would reduce natural gas exports to the Netherlands and probably Denmark, after having already cut off Finland, Poland, and Bulgaria (Chart 2B). As a pretext Russia points to its arbitrary March demand that states pay for gas in rubles rather than in currencies written in contracts. This ruble payment scheme is being enforced on a country-by-country basis against those Russia deems “unfriendly,” i.e. those that join NATO, adopt new sanctions, provide massive assistance to Ukraine, or are otherwise adverse. Chart 3Russia Actively Cutting Gas Flows Russia and Ukraine are already reducing natural gas exports through the Ukraine and Turkstream pipelines while the Yamal pipeline has been empty since May – and it is only a matter of time before flows begin to fall in the Nord Stream 1 pipeline to Germany (Chart 3). German government and industry are preparing to ration natural gas (to prioritize household needs) and revive 15 coal plants if necessary. Europe is attempting to rebuild stockpiles for the coming winter, when Russian willingness and capability to squeeze natural gas flows will reach a peak. The big picture is demonstrated by game theory in Diagram 1. The optimal situation for both Russia and the EU is to maintain energy exports for as long as possible, so that Russia has revenues to wage its war and Europe avoids a recession while transitioning away from Russian supplies (bottom right quadrant, each side receives four points). The problem is that this solution is not an equilibrium because either side can suffer a sudden shock if the other side betrays the tacit agreement and stops buying or selling (bottom left and top right quadrants). Diagram 1EU-Russia Standoff: What Does Game Theory Say? The equilibrium – the decision sets in which both Russia and the EU are guaranteed to lose the least – is a situation in which both states reduce energy trade immediately. Europe needs to cut off the revenues that fuel the Russian war machine while Russia needs to punish and deter Europe now while it still has massive energy leverage (top left quadrant, circled). Once Europe diversifies away, Russia loses its leverage. If Europe does not diversify immediately, Russia can punish it severely by cutting off energy before it is prepared. Russian energy weaponization is especially useful ahead of any ceasefire talks in Ukraine. Russia aims for Ukrainian military neutrality and a permanently weakened Ukrainian state. To that end it is seizing territory for the Luhansk and Donetsk People’s Republics, seizing the southern coastline and strategic buffer around Crimea, and controlling the mouth of the Dnieper river so that Ukraine is forever hobbled (Map 1). Once it achieves these aims it will want to settle a ceasefire that legitimizes its conquests. But Ukraine will wish to continue the fight. Map 1Russian Invasion Of Ukraine, 2022 Russia will need leverage over Europe to convince the EU to lean on Ukraine to agree to a ceasefire. Something similar occurred in 2014-15 when Russia collaborated with Germany and France to foist the Minsk Protocols onto Ukraine. If Russia keeps energy flowing to EU, the EU not only gets a smooth energy transition away from Russia but also gets to keep assisting Ukraine’s military effort. Whereas if Russia imposes pain on the EU ahead of ceasefire talks, the EU has greater interest in settling a ceasefire. Finally, given Russia’s difficulties on the battlefield, its loss of European patronage, and potential NATO enlargement on its borders, Moscow is highly likely to open a “new front” in its conflict with the West. Josef Stalin, for example, encouraged Kim Il Sung to invade South Korea in 1950. Today Russia’s options lie in the Middle East and North Africa – the regions where Europe turns for energy alternatives. Not only Libya and Algeria – which are both inherently fertile ground for Russia to sow instability – but also Iran and the broader Middle East, where a tenuous geopolitical balance is already eroding due to a lack of strategic understanding between the US and Iran. Russia’s capabilities are limited but it likely retains enough influence to ignite existing powder kegs in these areas. Bottom Line: Investors still face a few hurdles from the Ukraine war. First, the EU’s expanding energy embargo and Russian retaliation. Second, instability in the Middle East and North Africa. Hence energy price pressures will remain elevated in the short term and kill more demand, thus pushing the EU and the rest of the world toward stagflation or even recession. War Contained To Ukraine So Far … But Russia To Retaliate Over NATO Enlargement At present Russia is waging a full-scale assault on eastern and southern Ukraine, where about half of Donetsk awaits a decision (Map 2). If Russia emerges victorious over Donetsk in the summer or fall then it can declare victory and start negotiating a ceasefire. This timeline assumes that its economic circumstances are sufficiently straitened to prevent a campaign to the Moldovan border.1 Map 2Russia May Declare Victory If It Conquers The Rest Of Donetsk There are still ways for the Ukraine war to spill over into neighboring areas. For example, the Black Sea is effectively a Russian lake at the moment, which prevents Ukrainian grain from reaching global markets where food prices are soaring. Eventually the western maritime powers will need to attempt to restore freedom of navigation. However, Russia is imposing a blockade on Ukraine, has more at stake there than other powers, and can take greater risks. The US and its allies will continue to provide Ukraine with targeting information against Russian ships but this assistance could eventually provoke a larger naval conflict. Separately, the US has agreed to provide Ukraine with the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS), which could lead to attacks on Russian territory that would prompt a ferocious Russian reaction. Even assuming that the Ukraine war remains contained, Russia’s strategic conflict with the US and the West will remain unresolved and Moscow will be eager to save face. Russian retaliation will occur not only on account of European energy diversification but also on account of NATO enlargement. Finland and Sweden are attempting to join NATO and as such the West is directly repudiating the Putin regime’s chief strategic demand for 22 years. Finland shares an 830 mile border with Russia, adding insult to injury. The result will be another round of larger military tensions that go beyond Ukraine and prolong this year’s geopolitical risk and uncertainty. Russia’s initial response to Finland’s and Sweden’s joint application to NATO was to dismiss the threat they pose while drawing a new red line. Rather than forbidding NATO enlargement, Russia now demands that no NATO forces be deployed to these two states. This demand, which Putin and other officials expressed, may or may not amount to a genuine Russian policy change. Russia’s initial responses should be taken with a grain of salt because Turkey is temporarily blocking Finland’s and Sweden’s applications, so Russia has no need to respond to NATO enlargement yet. But the true test will come when and if the West satisfies Turkey’s grievances and Turkey moves to admit the new members. If enlargement becomes inevitable, Russia will respond. Russia will feel that its national security is fundamentally jeopardized by Sweden overturning two centuries of neutrality and Finland reversing the policy of “Finlandization” that went so far in preventing conflict during the Cold War. Chart 4Military Balances Stacking Up Against Russia Russia’s military options are limited. Russia has little ability to expand the war and fight on multiple fronts judging by the army’s recent performance in Ukraine and the Red Army’s performance in the Winter War of 1939. This point can be illustrated by taking the military balance of Russia and its most immediate adversaries, which add up to about half of Russian military strength even apart from NATO (Chart 4). Russian armed forces already demonstrated some pragmatism in April by withdrawing from Kyiv and focusing on more achievable war aims. Unless President Putin turns utterly reckless and the Russian state fails to restrain him, Russia will opt for defensive measures and strategic deterrence rather than a military offensive in the Baltics. Hence Russia’s military response will come in the form of threats rather than outright belligerence. However, these threats will probably include military and nuclear actions that will raise alarm bells across Europe and the United States. President Dmitri Medvedev has already warned of the permanent deployment of nuclear missiles in the Kaliningrad exclave.2 This statement points to only the most symbolic option of a range of options that will increase deterrence and elevate the fear of war. Otherwise Russia’s retaliation will consist of squeezing global energy supply, as discussed above, including by opening a new front in the Middle East and North Africa. Instability should be expected as a way of constraining Europe and distracting America. Higher energy prices may or may not convince the EU to negotiate better terms with Russia but they will sow divisions within and among the allies. Ultimately Russia is highly unlikely to sacrifice its credibility by failing to retaliate for the combination of energy embargo and NATO enlargement on its borders. Since its military options are becoming constrained (at least its rational ones), its economic and asymmetrical options will grow in importance. The result will be additional energy supply constraints. Bottom Line: Even assuming that the war does not spread beyond Ukraine – likely but not certain – global financial markets face at least one more period of military escalation with Russia. This will likely include significant energy cutoffs and saber-rattling – even nuclear threats – over NATO enlargement. China’s Political Situation Has Not Normalized China continues to suffer from a historic confluence of internal and external political risk that will cause negative surprises for investors. Temporary improvements in government policy or investor sentiment – centered on a relaxation of “Zero Covid” lockdowns in major cities and a more dovish regulatory tone against the tech giants – will likely be frustrated, at least until after a more dovish government stance can be confirmed in the wake of the twentieth national party congress in October or November this year. At that event, Chinese President Xi Jinping is likely to clinch another ten years in power and complete the transformation of China’s governance from single-party rule to single-person rule. This reversion to autocracy will generate additional market-negative developments this year. It has already embedded a permanently higher risk premium in Chinese financial assets because it increases the odds of policy mistakes, international aggression, and ultimately succession crisis. The most successful Asian states chose to democratize and expand free markets and capitalism when they reached a similar point of economic development and faced the associated sociopolitical challenges. But China is choosing the opposite path for the sake of national security. Investors have seen the decay of Russia’s economy under Putin’s autocracy and would be remiss not to upgrade the odds of similarly negative outcomes in China over the long run as a result of Xi’s autocracy, despite the many differences between the two countries. China’s situation is more difficult than that of the democratic Asian states because of its reviving strategic rivalry with the United States. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken recently unveiled President Biden’s comprehensive China policy. He affirmed that the administration views China as the US’s top strategic competitor over the long run, despite the heightened confrontation with Russia.3 The Biden administration has not eased the Trump administration’s tariffs or punitive measures on China. It is unlikely to do so during a midterm election year when protectionist dynamics prevail – especially given that the Xi administration will be in the process of reestablishing autocracy, and possibly repressing social unrest, at the very moment Americans go to the polls. Re-engagement with China is also prohibited because China is strengthening its strategic bonds with Russia. President Biden has repeatedly implied that the US would defend Taiwan in any conflict with China. These statements are presented as gaffes or mistakes but they are in fact in keeping with historical US military actions threatening counter-attack during the three historic Taiwan Strait crises. The White House quickly walks back these comments to reassure China that the US does not support Taiwanese independence or intend to trigger a war with China. The result is that the US is using Biden’s gaffe-prone personality to reemphasize the hard edge (rather than the soft edge) of the US’s policy of “strategic ambiguity” on Taiwan. US policy is still ambiguous but ambiguity includes the possibility that a president might order military action to defend Taiwan. US attempts to increase deterrence and avoid a Ukraine scenario are threatening for China, which will view the US as altering the status quo and penalizing China for Russia’s actions. Beijing resumed overflights of Taiwan’s air defense identification zone in the wake of Biden’s remarks as well as the decision of the US to send Senator Tammy Duckworth to Taiwan to discuss deeper economic and defense ties. Consider the positioning of US aircraft carrier strike groups as an indicator of the high level of strategic tensions. On January 18, 2022, as Russia amassed military forces on the Ukrainian border – and the US and NATO rejected its strategic demands – the US had only one publicly acknowledged aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean (the USS Harry Truman) whereas it had at least five US carriers in East Asia. On February 24, the day of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the US had at least four of these carriers in Asia. Even today the US has at least four carriers in the Pacific compared to at least two in Europe – one of which, notably, is in the Baltics to deter Russia from attacking Finland and Sweden (Map 3). The US is warning China not to take advantage of the Ukraine war by staging a surprise attack on Taiwan. Map 3Amid Ukraine War, US Deters China From Attacking Taiwan Of course, strategic tensions are perennial, whereas what investors are most concerned about is whether China can secure its economic recovery. The latest data are still disappointing. Credit growth continues to falter as the private sector struggles with a deteriorating demographic and macroeconomic outlook (Chart 5). The credit impulse has entered positive territory, when local government bonds are included, reflecting government stimulus efforts. But it is still negative when excluding local governments. And even the positive measure is unimpressive, having ticked back down in April (Chart 6). Chart 5Credit Growth Falters Amid Economic Transition Chart 6Silver Lining: Credit Impulse Less Negative Bottom Line: Further monetary and fiscal easing will come in China, a source of good news for global investors next year if coupled with a broader policy shift in favor of business, but the effects will be mixed this year due to Covid policy and domestic politics. Taken together with a European energy crunch and Middle Eastern oil supply disruptions, China’s stimulus is not a catalyst for a sustainable global equity market rally this year. South Asia: Inflation Hammers Sri Lanka And Pakistan Since 2020 we have argued that the global pandemic would result in a new wave of supply pressures and global social unrest. High inflation is blazing a trail of destruction in emerging markets, notably in South Asia, where per capita incomes are low and political institutions often fragile. Chart 7South Asia: Surging Inflation Sri Lanka has been worst affected (Chart 7). Inflation surged to an eye-watering 34% in April and is expected to rise further. Surging inflation has affected Sri Lanka disproportionately because its macroeconomic and political fundamentals were weak to begin with. The tourism-dependent Sri Lankan economy suffered a body blow from terrorist attacks in 2019 and the pandemic in 2020-21. Then 2022 saw a power struggle between Sri Lanka’s President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and members of the national assembly including Prime Minister (PM) Mahinda Rajapaksa. The crisis hit a crescendo when the country defaulted on external debt obligations last month. These events weigh on Sri Lanka’s ability to transition from a long civil war (1983-2009) to a path of sustained economic development. While the political crisis has seemingly stabilized following the appointment of new Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, we remain bearish on a strategic time horizon. This is mainly because the new PM is unlikely to bring about structural solutions for Sri Lanka’s broken economy. Moreover, Sri Lanka holds more than $50 billion of foreign debt, or 62% of GDP. Another country that has been dealing with political instability alongside high inflation in South Asia is Pakistan, where inflation hit a three-year high in April (see Chart 7 above). The latest twist in Pakistan’s never-ending cycle of political uncertainty comes from the ousted Prime Minister Imran Khan. The former PM, who commands an unusual popular support group due to his fame as a cricketer prior to entering politics, is demanding fresh elections and otherwise threatening to hold mass protests. Pakistan’s new coalition government and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who came to power amid parliamentary intrigues, are refusing elections and ultimatums. From a structural perspective Pakistan is characterized by a weak economy and an unusually influential military. Now it faces high inflation and rising food prices – indeed it is one of the countries that is most dangerously exposed to the Russia-Ukraine war as it depends on these two for over 70% of its grain imports. Bottom Line: MSCI Sri Lanka has underperformed the MSCI EM index by 58.3% this year to date. Pakistan has underperformed the same index by 41.6% over the same period. Against this backdrop, we remain strategic sellers of both bourses. Instability in these countries is also one of the factors behind our strategic assessment of India as a country with a growing domestic policy consensus. South Asia: India’s Fiscal Populism And Geopolitics Inflation is less rampant in India, although still troublesome. Consumer prices nearly jumped to an 8-year high in April (see Chart 7). With a loaded state election calendar due over the next 12-18 months, the jump in inflation naturally triggered a series of mitigating policy responses. Ban On Wheat Exports: India produces 14% of the world’s wheat and 11% of grains, and exports 5% and 7%, respectively. India’s exports could make a large profit in the context of global shortages. But Prime Minister Narendra Modi is entering into the political end of the business cycle, with key state elections due that will have an impact on the ruling party’s political standing two years before the next federal election. He fears political vulnerability if exports continue amid price pressures at home. The emphasis on food security is typical but also bespeaks a lack of commitment to economic reform. Chart 8India's Real Interest Rates Fall Surprise Rate Hikes: The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) increased the policy repo rate by 40 basis points at an unscheduled meeting on May 4, thereby implementing its first rate hike since August 2018. With real rates in India lower than those in China or Brazil (Chart 8), the RBI will be forced to expedite its planned rate hikes through 2022. Tax Cuts On Fuel: India’s central government also announced steep cuts in excise duty on fuel. This is another populist measure that reduces political pressures but fails to encourage the private sector to adjust. These measures will help rein in inflation but the rate hikes will weigh on economic growth while the tax cuts will add to India’s fiscal deficit. Indeed, India is resorting to fiscal populism with key state elections looming. Geopolitical risk is less of a concern for India – indeed the Ukraine war has strengthened its bargaining position. In the short run, India benefits from the ability to buy arms and especially cheap oil from Russia while the EU imposes an embargo. But over the long run its economy and security can be strengthened by greater interest from the US and its allies, recently highlighted by the fourth meeting of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) and the launch of the US’s Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF). These initiatives are modest but they highlight the US’s need to replace China with India and ASEAN over time, a trend that no US administration can reverse now because of the emerging Russo-Chinese strategic alliance. At the same time, the Quad underscores India’s maritime interests and hence the security benefits India can gain from aligning its economy and navy with the other democracies. Bottom Line: Fiscal populism in the context of high commodity prices is negative for Indian equities. However, our views on Russia, the Middle East, and China all point to a sharper short-term spike in commodity prices that ultimately drives the world economy deeper into stagflation or recession. Therefore we are booking a 22.5% profit on our tactical decision to go long Brazilian financials relative to Indian equities. Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Ritika Mankar, CFA Editor/Strategist ritika.mankar@bcaresearch.com Chart 9Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Chart 10Other Measures Of Russian Geopolitical Risk Chart 11China: GeoRisk Indicator Chart 12United Kingdom: GeoRisk Indicator Chart 13Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Chart 14France: GeoRisk Indicator Chart 15Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Chart 16Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Chart 17Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Chart 18Australia: GeoRisk Indicator Chart 19Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Chart 20Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Chart 21Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Chart 22South Africa: GeoRisk Indicator Chart 23Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Footnotes 1 Recent diplomatic flaps between core European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reflect Ukraine’s fear that Europe will negotiate a “separate peace” with Russia, i.e. accept Russian territorial conquests in exchange for economic relief. 2 Dmitri Medvedev explicitly states ‘there can be no more talk of any nuclear-free status for the Baltic - the balance must be restored’ in warning Finland and Sweden joining NATO. Medvedev is suggesting that nuclear weapons will be placed in this area where Russia has its Kaliningrad exclave sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania. Guy Faulconbridge, ‘Russia warns of nuclear, hypersonic deployment if Sweden and Finland join NATO’, April 14, 2022, Reuters. 3 See Antony J Blinken, Secretary of State, ‘The Administration’s Approach to the People’s Republic of China’, The George Washington University, Washington D.C., May 26, 2022, state.gov. Additionally, see President Joe Biden’s remarks on China and getting involved military to defend Taiwan in a joint press conference with Japan’s Prime Minister Kishida Fumio. ‘Remarks by President Biden and Prime Minister Kishida Fumio of Japan in Joint Press Conference’, Akasaka Palace, Tokyo, Japan, May 23, 2022, whitehouse.gov. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix Section III: Geopolitical Calendar
Executive Summary Loss Of Russian Production Will Lift Brent With German imports of Russian oil close to 10% of its total requirements – following an impressive decline from 35% pre-invasion – we expect the EU to declare an embargo on Russian oil imports this week or next. Smaller states – e.g., Hungary and Slovokia – will be granted embargo waivers; their import volumes will not affect the EU effort. Russia will be forced to shut in ~ 1.6mm b/d of production, rising to 2mm b/d next year (vs. pre-invasion levels). Demand will fall as Brent prices surpass $120/bbl by 2H22, in our revised base case. Prices above $140/bbl are likely if Russia immediately halts EU oil exports. Our revised forecast calls for Brent to average $113/bbl this year, and $122/bbl next year. WTI will trade $3/bbl lower. Per earlier threats, Russia will cut EU natgas exports following the EU embargo. Benchmark euro natgas prices will go back above €225/MWh, and trigger an EU recession. Bottom Line: An EU embargo on Russian oil imports is close. Brent crude will rally above $120/bbl by 2H22, with $140/bbl or higher likely, depending on how quickly Russia reacts to the EU oil embargo. Eurozone natgas will trade above €225/MWh again. We remain long the S&P GSCI index, the COMT ETF, and the XOP and CRAK ETFs to retain exposure to higher prices. We are getting long 1Q23 ICE Brent futures and 4Q22 TTF futures at tonight's close. Feature Related Report Commodity & Energy StrategyDie Cast By EU: Inflation, Recession Risks Rise The stage is set for the EU to announce an embargo on Russian oil imports this week or next. Odds of an EU embargo being declared sooner rather than later increased, in our view, in the wake of Germany's success in cutting Russian oil imports by more than half in a very short period – from ~ 35% prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine on 24 February to ~ 12% earlier this month (Chart 1). Further reductions in Russian oil imports we expect from Germany will make it easier for the EU's largest economy to walk away from Russian crude and product imports sooner rather than later.1 Other EU member states already stand with Germany on the issue of an embargo on Russian imports. Those that do not – Hungary and Slovakia, e.g. – do not import Russian oil on a scale that can meaningfully derail EU solidarity on the embargo, which means waivers for these states can be expected to keep the embargo on track. In addition, four of the Five-Eyes states – the US, UK, Australia and Canada – already have imposed embargoes on Russian oil imports. Chart 1EU Energy Import Dependency (2021) Russian Shut-ins Will Tighten Supply The immediate fallout of the EU embargo will be to accelerate the rate at which Russia is forced to shut in production, as increasing volumes of its oil remain stranded on the water looking for a home. We reckon 1mm b/d or so of Russian crude oil output already has been cut. This will continue to increase. Russia will be forced to shut in ~ 1.6mm b/d of crude output this year, rising to 2mm b/d next year (averages vs. pre-invasion levels), in our modelling. This takes Russian oil production down to 8.4mm b/d this year, on average, and 8.0mm b/d next year.2 As more and more Russian crude is shut in, the pipelines carrying Urals and Eastern Siberia-Pacific Ocean (ESPO) crude from the Siberian oil fields to ports will fill, along with inventory in the ports where ships are loaded for export. When storage and pipelines fill, the only alternative Russian producers will have will be to shut in crude and condensate production. While some states obviously will benefit from the increasing availability of Russian crude on offer at 30% discounts or more – e.g., India and China – there is a limit as to how much surplus Russian output they can take in. China, in particular, will not want to jeopardize long-term contracts with key suppliers – e.g., the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) – nor will India, which will limit the total volumes both are willing to take from Russia longer term. Security of supply becomes an increasingly important consideration as Russia's oil output continues a long-term decline going forward: Costs were rising prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine from 2008 to 2019. Falling drilling efficiency and production, were accompanied by rising water cuts – i.e., the amount of water being produced drilling for oil – in Russia's largest fields, which rose to as high as 86%. Shutting production from these older fields will force hard choices as to whether these fields are ever revived.3 Demand Will Be Stressed Shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine, the country's Energy Ministry Alexander Novak warned the EU it would cut off natural gas pipeline supplies being sent to the continent, in retaliation for embargoing oil imports.4 Oil exports of close to 5mm b/d accounted for just under half of Russia's revenue from energy exports last year, with OECD Europe representing half of that amount.5 For Russia, oil exports are far more important than gas exports, which will incline it to immediately cut pipeline flows to Europe as soon as an oil embargo is announced. For the EU, natgas exports from Russia are critical to the economies of its member states (Chart 2). The EU imported ~ 155 bcm of natgas from Russia in 2021, or just over 40% of its total natgas consumption. Germany's share amounted to 45 bcm, or 45% of domestic gas use . If, as we expect, the EU is close to announcing its oil embargo on Russia, an immediate retaliation from Moscow in the form of a cutoff of pipeline exports to the EU most likely will follow. This will throw the EU into a recession, as natgas prices surge. Chart 2Losing Russia's Natgas Will Be Painful For EU Revised Forecast Reflects Falling Russian Output We are revising our Brent forecast and crude oil balances in line with our expectation Russian oil output will decline meaningfully. As noted above, we now expect Russian crude oil output to fall to 8.4mm b/d this year and 8.0mm b/d in 2023. This pushes non-core OPEC 2.0 production – which now includes Russia – lower, as a result (Chart 3). We moved Russia out of the core OPEC 2.0 producer group, given the production declines we expect this year and next, and into the "Other Guys" group. Our base case demand reflects a shift in OECD vs. non-OECD consumption estimates, with the OECD gaining incrementally, while EM demand (via non-OECD consumption) falls incrementally (Chart 4). Chart 3Falling Russia Output Pushes Non-Core OPEC 2.0 Output Lower Chart 4DM Demand Shifts Higher, EM Shifts Lower The lower EM demand growth reflects weaker China oil consumption resulting from the country's zero-COVID policy. In addition, because we expect Russia to act quickly on cutting off EU natgas exports, benchmark TTF natgas prices will move back above €225/MWh. Higher oil and natgas prices in the EU will lead to recession later this year. How quickly this shows up depends on how quickly Russia reacts to an EU oil embargo. In addition, a strong USD – bid higher by global economic uncertainty and safe-haven demand – will pushing the local-currency costs of refined products like gasoline, diesel and jet fuel higher, also will contribute to lower EM demand (Chart 5). Chart 5USD Remains Well Bid In our base case, we expect a tighter market on balance (Chart 6). Oil inventories remain under pressure, owing to falling as Russian output and declines in production outside core OPEC 2.0 and the US (Chart 7). We cannot rule out additional SPR releases from the US or IEA to offset tightening global inventories. Chart 6Global Balances Tighten Chart 7Inventories Draw As Supply Tightens Our forecast for Brent this year has been lifted on the back of a much stronger expectation of an EU oil embargo against Russia. This will result in 2mm b/d of Russian production being shut in by next year, which will not be fully replaced (Table 1). We are lifting our Brent forecast to $110/bbl for 2022, and $115/bbl for next year as a result (Chart 8). Chart 8Loss Of Russian Production Will Lift Brent Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) To Dec23 Investment Implications An EU embargo on Russian oil imports is close at hand, in our view. Brent crude will rally above $120/bbl by 2H22, with $140/bbl or higher possible, depending on Russia's reaction to the EU oil embargo. We expect Brent prices to average $113/bbl this year, and $122/bbl in 2023. WTI will trade $3/bbl lower on average. Eurozone natgas will trade above €225/MWh again and stay at elevated levels, likely moving higher following a Russian cutoff of natgas supplies to the continent. This will throw the EU into recession. We remain long the S&P GSCI index, the COMT ETF, and the XOP and CRAK ETFs to retain exposure to higher prices. We are getting long 1Q23 ICE Brent futures and TTF natgas futures at tonight's close. A word of caution is in order: We are assuming Russia will follow through on its threat to shut off natgas exports to the EU in the event of an embargo against importing its oil is declared. This, we believe, is Russia's red line. If the EU fails to declare an embargo, or if Russia fails to follow through on its threat to cut off gas supplies in the wake of an EU oil embargo of its exports we will have to re-assess our outlook. Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Paula Struk Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy paula.struk@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish European natural gas inventories are building at a rapid rate, as competition from Asia – typically led by Chinese demand – remains weaker than in previous seasons. EU natgas storage stood at ~446 MWh as of May 16, 2022, the latest available reports indicate (Chart 9). The EU has weathered two extremely difficult winters in 2020-21 and 2021-22. Natgas storage levels were drawn hard to meet space heating demand, which, owing to a winter energy crisis in China at the time, forced European buyers into a competition for liquified natural gas (LNG) during the former period. Following unexpected spring-summer demand in 2021 when cold weather lingered in Europe and wind power generation fell sharply, storage owners again were hard pressed to secure LNG to rebuild storage levels going into this past winter, which caused European TTF natgas prices to soar, as demand surged (Chart 10). With the threat of a cutoff of Russian natgas hanging over the EU, there is a singular focus right now on getting storage as full as possible ahead of next winter. The EU aims to replace two-thirds of Russian gas imports before yearend. Precious Metals: Bullish The Fed has adopted a more hawkish rhetoric, as it acts more aggressively to reduce US inflation. Interest rates have increased from near-zero levels in March to 0.75%, and BCA’s US Bond strategy service expects two more 50 bps rate hikes in June and July. Post July, rate hikes will depend on the Fed’s assessment of inflation, inflation expectations and financial conditions. The Fed faces the risk of either remaining behind the inflation curve or sparking a recession in case it’s either not hawkish enough, or too hawkish. Base Metals: Bullish High power prices in Europe will continue to plague refined base metals production in the continent and keep refined metal prices buoyed. LME Europe aluminum stocks are close to 17-year lows. In China – whose metal smelters were also hit by high power prices in 2021 – aluminum smelting has revived, with the country reportedly producing a record amount of primary aluminum in April. Lockdowns, however, have reduced economic activity, demand for the metal and its domestic price. China has taken advantage of this arbitrage opportunity, sending most of its primary aluminum exports to Europe. This aluminum price spread between the two states has contributed to China’s steady rise in primary aluminum exports this year, after having exported nearly none in 2020 and 2021. Chart 9 Chart 10Dutch Title Transfer Facility Going Down Footnotes 1 German officials have stated the country will wind down all oil imports from Russia by year end, even if the rest of the EU does not join it in an embargo. We highly doubt Germany will act alone, given the support an embargo already has received from EU member states. Please see Germany to Stop Russian Oil Imports Regardless of EU Sanctions, published by bloomberg.com on May 15, 2022. 2 Our expectation for shut-in volumes is lower than the IEA's, which sees Russia being forced to shut in 3mm b/d of production by 2H22. We continue to monitor this closely via satellite and reporting services and will adjust our estimates as needed. Obviously, if the IEA is correct oil markets will tighten even more than we expect. 3 Please see "The Future of Russian Oil Production in the Short, Medium, and Long Term," published by the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies in September 2019. The OIES study notes production in Russia's highest-producing area – the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous (KMA) district – actually fell 15% between 2008-19, even as drilling activity surged 66%. While output in 2018 rose due to intensified oil recovery (IOR), the OIES noted that the water cut rose sharply in 2018 as well in the KMA district. 4 Please see Russia warns of $300 oil, threatens to cut off European gas if West bans energy imports, published by cnbc.com on March 8, 2022. The article notes Novak threatened to close the Nord Stream 1 pipeline delivering gas to Germany in retaliation for an EU oil embargo. Almost three-quarters of Russia's natgas exports were sent to Europe prior to its invasion of Ukraine. Natgas export revenues accounted for $62 billion of the $242 billion funding Russia's budget last year, while crude oil revenues made up $180 billion (just under 75%). 5 Please see Die Cast By EU: Inflation, Recession Risks Rise, which we published on May 5, 2022. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed in 2022
Executive Summary The Fed, Bank of England (BoE) and Reserve Bank of Australia all hiked rates last week. The BoE, however, signaled a note of caution on future UK growth, given soaring energy prices and plunging consumer and business confidence. Interest rate markets are pricing in a peak in UK policy rates over the next year near 2.5%, above realistic estimates of neutral that are more in the 1.5-2% range. UK productivity and potential growth remain too weak to support a higher neutral rate than that. With the BoE forecasting near recessionary conditions over the next couple of years if those market-implied rate hikes come to fruition, the time is right to increase exposure to UK government bonds in global fixed income portfolios. UK Rate Expectations Are Too High Bottom Line: Markets are overestimating how much additional tightening the Bank of England can deliver. We are upgrading our recommended strategic stance on UK Gilts from underweight (2 out of 5) to overweight (4 out of 5). Not All Central Bankers Can Credibly Restore Credibility Chart 1Developed Market Bond Yields Back To 2018 Highs Three more central bank meetings, three more rate hikes. Last week brought a 50bp hike from the Fed, a 25bp hike – the first of this tightening cycle – by the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) and a 25bp rate increase from the Bank of England (BoE). The Fed and RBA moves did little to stabilize the government bond bear markets in the US and Australia, but the BoE was able to provide a temporary reprieve for the Gilt selloff by playing up potential UK recession (stagflation?) risks. Bond yields worldwide remains laser focused on high global inflation and the associated monetary policy response that will be needed to stabilize inflation expectations (Chart 1). That includes both interest rate hikes and reducing the size of bloated central bank balance sheets. The threat of such “double tightening” is weighing on global growth expectations and risk asset valuations. The MSCI World equity index is down -6.4% (in USD terms) so far in the Q2/2022 and down -14.5% since the mid-November/2021 peak. Although in a more mitigated way, credit markets are also being impacted, with the Bloomberg Global High-Yield index down -2.6% so far in Q2 on an excess return basis versus government bonds. Rate hike expectations have started to catch up to elevated inflation expectations, at least according to inflation linked bonds. The yield on 10-year US TIPS now sits at +0.29%, a huge swing from the -1% level seen just one month ago (Chart 2). The 10-year real yield is even higher in Canada (+0.81%) where the Bank of Canada just delivered its own 50bp rate hike in April. On the other hand, 10-year real yields remain deeply below 0% in Europe and the UK, where central bankers have been providing less explicit guidance on future rate hikes and asset purchase reductions compared to the Fed or Bank of Canada. Interest rate markets remain reluctant to price in significantly positive real policy interest rates at the peak of the current tightening cycle. Our proxy for the real terminal rate expectation, the 5-year/5-year overnight index swap rate (OIS) minus the 5-year/5-year CPI swap rate, is only +0.18% in the US. It is still deeply negative in Europe (-1.53%) and the UK (-0.97%). Our estimates of the term premium component of 10-year government bond yields in those three markets is rising alongside interest rate expectations yet remains deeply negative in Europe and the UK (Chart 3). Chart 2Real Rate Divergences In The Face Of A Global Inflation Shock Chart 3Markets Still Pricing In Structurally Low Rates Of those three major bond markets, we see the UK term premium as being the least likely to see additional upward repricing, with the BoE less likely than the Fed or ECB to push for an aggressively smaller balance sheet given domestic economic risks. UK Rate Expectations Are Too Hawkish Chart 4Our BoE Monitor Justifies Recent Tightening Moves The Bank of England raised rates by 25bps last week, pushing Bank Rate to a 13-year high of 1.0%. The decision was a 6-3 majority, with three Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) members calling for a 50bp hike – matching recent moves by other G-10 central banks like the Fed and Bank of Canada – given tight UK capacity constraints (i.e. low unemployment) and high realized inflation. The MPC noted that additional rate increases would likely be necessary to tame very high UK inflation, a message confirmed by the elevated level of our UK Central Bank Monitor (Chart 4). However, the new economic forecasts presented by the BoE painted a gloomy picture on UK growth, raising the risks of a recession even as UK inflation is expected to continue climbing to a 10% peak in late 2022 on the back of high energy prices.1 Strictly looking at current inflation, the case for the BoE to continue hiking rates is obvious. Yet the BoE may now be placing more weight on the downside risks to growth from the energy shock, at a time when fiscal tightening is no longer providing stimulus. In the press conference following last week’s MPC meeting, BoE Governor Andrew Bailey noted the difficult situation policymakers are facing given the huge surge in energy prices that is fueling inflation while also weighing on household and business real incomes. So what is “neutral” anyway? Related Report Global Fixed Income StrategyThe UK Leads The Way The BoE is one of the least transparent major central banks when it comes to providing guidance on what it thinks the neutral policy rate is. Market participants are left to arrive at their own conclusions and those can vary substantially, as is currently the case. The UK OIS curve is discounting a peak in rates of 2.72% in 2023 and discounting rate cuts after that starting in 2024. Yet the respondents to the BoE’s new Market Participants Survey are calling for a much lower trajectory with rates peaking at 1.75% before falling to 1.5% in 2024 (Chart 5). Those rate levels are in the lower half of the range of longer-run neutral rate estimates from the same Market Participants Survey, between 1.5% and 2.0% (the shaded box in the chart). Chart 5UK Rate Expectations Are Too High Chart 6Recessionary BoE Forecasts, Except For GDP Combining the messages from the OIS curve and the Survey, markets are pricing in a path for the BoE Bank Rate that will become restrictive by mid-2023, with another 172bps of rate hikes. The BoE uses market pricing for future interest rates in its economic forecasts. The Bank’s models suggest that a move to raise rates to 2.5% in response to high UK inflation, as markets are discounting, would result in a severe UK downturn that would both push up unemployment from the current 3.7% to 5.4% by Q2/2025 (Chart 6). Headline inflation would plunge to 1.3% over the same period as the UK output gap widens to -2.25% of GDP from the current “excess demand” level of +0.5%. Oddly enough, the BoE is only forecasting a flat profile for real GDP growth over that entire three-year forecasting period, although there will clearly be some negative GDP prints during that period to generate such a massively disinflationary outcome. A mixed picture on UK growth Currently, the UK economy is flashing some warning signs on growth momentum. The UK manufacturing PMI was 55.8 in April, still well above the 50 level indicating growth but 9.8 pts below the cyclical peak in 2021 (Chart 7). The services PMI is in better shape at 58.9, but it did dip lower in the latest reading. The GfK consumer confidence index has fallen sharply in response to contacting real household income growth, reaching the second-lowest reading in the history of the series dating back to 1974 in April. This is a warning sign for consumer spending – retail sales fell in April for the first time in fifteen months (middle panel). Business confidence is also impacted by the high costs of both energy and labor that is squeezing profit margins. UK real investment spending is nearly contracting on a year-over-year basis, despite the robust readings on investment intentions from the BoEs’ Agents Survey of UK businesses (bottom panel).UK firms are facing higher wage costs at a time of very tight labor market and robust labor demand. The BoE estimates that UK private sector wage growth, after adjusting for compositional effects related to the pandemic, will accelerate to 5.1% by the end of Q2/2022 (Chart 8). Chart 7UK Growth Facing Inflationary Headwinds Chart 8UK Labor Market Remains Healthy Chart 9Will House Prices Signal The Peak In UK Inflation? A robust labor market and quickening wage growth is forcing the BoE to maintain a relatively hawkish bias at a time of high energy inflation, even with the growth outlook darkening in the central bank’s own forecasts. Booming house prices are also making the central bank’s job more challenging. The annual growth rate of the Nationwide UK house price index reached 12.4%, a 17-year high, in March. However, rising mortgage rates and declining household real incomes will likely begin to eat into housing demand and, eventually, help slow the rapid pace of house price growth (Chart 9, bottom panel). Summing it all up, the overall UK inflation picture, including wages and housing costs in addition to energy prices and durable goods prices, will force the BoE to deliver a few more rate hikes before year-end before reaching a peak level that is lower than current market pricing. The neutral UK interest rate is likely very low Chart 10Structurally Weak UK Growth = A Low Neutral Rate The UK economy has suffered from structurally low potential economic growth dating back to the Brexit referendum in 2016. UK businesses stopped investing in the face of the uncertainty over the UK’s relationship with Europe. There has basically been no growth in UK fixed investment over the past five years. In response, UK productivity has only grown an annualized 0.9% over that same period (Chart 10) and the OECD’s estimate of UK potential GDP growth has been cut from 2% to 1.1%. With such low potential growth, the neutral BoE policy interest rate is likely even lower than the 1.5-2% range of estimates from the BoE’s Market Participant Survey. Tighter fiscal policy also lowers the neutral UK interest rate, with the UK Office of Budget Responsibility forecasting a narrowing of the UK budget deficit of -13.6 percentage points between the 2021 peak and 2027 (bottom panel). A flat UK Gilt curve is also a sign that the neutral interest rate is quite low. The 2-year/10-year Gilt curve now sits at a mere -49bps with Bank Rate only at 1% (Chart 11). While this is modestly steeper from the near-inversion of the curve seen at the start of 2022, a very flat curve at a nominal policy rate of only 1% suggests that the neutral rate is not far from the current level. Sluggish UK equity market performance and widening UK corporate credit spreads also argue that Bank Rate may already be turning restrictive, although a lower trade-weighted pound is helping to mitigate the overall tightening of UK financial conditions. Chart 11UK Financial Conditions Are Not Restrictive (Yet) Chart 12Pressure On The BoE Will Not Peak Until Inflation Does In the end, the pressure on the BoE to tighten will not ease until UK inflation peaks. The BoE is suffering a severe credibility crisis, with its own public opinion survey showing the deepest level of public dissatisfaction with the bank since the Global Financial Crisis (Chart 12). Inflation expectations are at similar levels that prevailed during that period, although the unique nature of the current inflation upturn, fueled by global supply-chain squeezes and war-related boosts to commodity prices, will likely prevent a repeat of the relatively fast reversal of inflation expectations seen after the Global Financial Crisis. Investment Implications – Get Ready For Gilt Outperformance Chart 13Upgrade UK Gilts To Overweight With the BoE already pushing Bank Rate towards a plausible neutral range, we do not expect many more rate hikes in the UK. Our base case is that the BoE hikes 2-3 more times by year-end, pushing Bank Rate to 1.5-1.75%, before pausing. This would represent a lower peak in policy rates than currently priced in the UK OIS curve. That is a relatively dovish outcome that typically leads to positive performance for a government bond market according to our “Global Golden Rule” framework, which we will revisit in next week’s Strategy Report. For now, however, we see a strong case to turn more positive on UK Gilts, with the BoE likely to deliver fewer rate hikes than discounted (Chart 13). The BoE is also far less likely to begin reducing its balance sheet by selling its Gilt holdings back to the market. BoE Governor Bailey strongly hinted last week that such aggressive quantitative tightening (QT) was not a given, even after the Bank research staff presents its proposals to the MPC in August. A delay in QT would also be a factor boosting UK Gilt performance versus other developed economy bond markets where more aggressive reductions in central bank balance sheets are more likely, like the US and potentially even the euro area. This week, we are upgrading our recommended strategic UK weighting from underweight to overweight. In next week’s report, we will consider the proper allocation for the UK within our model bond portfolio, after reviewing potential bond return forecasts stemming from our Global Golden Rule. Bottom Line: Markets are overestimating how much additional tightening the Bank of England can deliver. We are upgrading our recommended strategic stance on UK Gilts from underweight (2 out of 5) to overweight (4 out of 5). Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The mechanical way that the UK government’s energy price regulator, Ofgem, sets price caps on retail gas and electricity costs - based on changes in wholesale energy costs implied by futures curves – means that UK household energy prices will rise by 40% in October, according to BoE estimates. GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Tactical Overlay Trades
In lieu of next week’s report, I will be presenting a webcast titled ‘The 5 Big Mispricings In The Markets Right Now, And How To Profit From Them’. I do hope you can join. Executive Summary Just as the railway timetables set in train the First World War, central bank timetables for aggressive rate hikes are setting in train a global recession. Demand is already cool, so aggressive rate hikes will take it to outright cold. The risk is elevated because central banks are desperate to repair their damaged credibility on fighting inflation, and it may be their last chance. Inflationary fears and hawkishness from central banks are weighing on bonds and stocks, and it may take some weeks, or months, for inflation fears to recede. But we could be approaching a turning point. By the summer, core inflation should be receding. Furthermore, the fractal structures of the sell-offs in both the 30-year T-bond and the tech-heavy NASDAQ index are approaching points of extreme fragility that have signalled inflection points. Fractal trading watchlist: 30-year T-bond, NASDAQ, FTSE 100 versus Euro Stoxx 50, Netherlands versus Switzerland, and Petcare (PAWZ). US Inflation Is Hot, But Demand Is Not Bottom Line: Tactically cautious, but long-term investors who do not need to time the market bottom should overweight bonds and overweight long-duration defensive equities versus short-duration cyclical equities – for example, overweight US versus non-US equities. Feature The First World War, the historian AJP Taylor famously argued, was “imposed on the statesmen of Europe by railway timetables.” Taylor proposed that the railways and their timetables were so central to troop mobilisation – and specifically, the German Schlieffen Plan – that a plan once set in motion could not be stopped. “Once started the wagons and carriages must roll remorselessly and inevitably to their predestined goal.” Otherwise, the whole process would unravel, and an opportunity to demonstrate military credibility would be lost that might never come again. Today, could a global recession be imposed upon us by central bank timetables for aggressive rate hikes? Just as it was difficult to unwind the troop mobilisation that led to the Great War, it will be difficult to back down from the aggressive rate hikes that the central banks have timetabled, at least in the near term. Otherwise, an opportunity to demonstrate inflation fighting credibility would be lost that might never come again. Just as the railway timetables set in train the First World War, central bank timetables for aggressive rate hikes may set in train another global recession. Unfortunately, central banks do not have precision weapons. Quite the contrary, monetary tightening is a blunt instrument which works by cooling overall demand. But demand is already cool, as evidenced by the contraction of the US economy in the first quarter. In their zeal to repair their damaged credibility on fighting inflation, the danger is that central banks take the economy from cool to outright cold. Granted, the US economy was dragged down by a drop in inventories and net exports. But even US domestic demand – which strips out inventories and net exports – is barely on its pre-pandemic trend (Chart I-1). Meanwhile, the euro area economy is still 5 percent below its pre-pandemic trend (Chart I-2). To reiterate, by hiking rates aggressively into economies that are at best lukewarm, central banks are risking an outright recession. Chart I-1US Inflation Is Hot, But Demand Is Not Chart I-2Euro Area Inflation Is Hot, But Demand Is Not Our Three-Point Checklist For A Recession Has Three Ticks My colleague Peter Berezin has created a three-point checklist for a recession: The build-up of an imbalance makes the economy vulnerable to downturn. A catalyst exposes this imbalance. Amplifiers exacerbate the downturn. Is there a major imbalance? You bet there is. The post-pandemic 26 percent overspend on durable goods in the US constitutes one of the greatest imbalances in economic history. Other advanced economies also experienced unprecedented binges on durable goods. The catalyst that is exposing this major imbalance is the realisation that durable goods are, well, durable. So, if you overspent on durables in 2020/21, then the risk is that you symmetrically underspend in 2022/23 (Chart I-3). The post-pandemic 26 percent overspend on durable goods in the US constitutes one of the greatest imbalances in economic history. Meanwhile, a future underspend on goods cannot be countered by an overspend on services because the consumption of services is constrained by time, opportunity, and biology. There is a limit to how often you can eat out, go to the movies, or go to the doctor (Chart I-4). Indeed, for certain services, an underspend will persist, because we have made some permanent post-pandemic changes to our lifestyles: for example, hybrid office/home working and more online shopping and online medical care. Chart I-3An Overspend On Goods Can Be Corrected By A Subsequent Underspend... Chart I-4...But An Underspend On Services Cannot Be Corrected By A Subsequent Overspend Finally, the amplifier that will exacerbate the downturn is monetary tightening. If central banks follow their railway timetables for aggressive rate hikes, a goods downturn will magnify into an outright recession. So, in Peter’s three-point checklist, we now have tick, tick, and tick. Inflation Is Hot, But Demand Is Not If economic demand is at best lukewarm, then what caused the post-pandemic inflation that central banks are now fighting? The simple answer is massive fiscal stimulus combined with the equally massive shift in spending to durable goods. Locked at home and flush with government supplied cash, we couldn’t spend it on services, so we spent it on goods. This created a massive shock in the distribution of demand, out of services whose supply could easily adjust downwards, and into goods whose supply could not easily adjust upwards. For example, airlines could cut back their flights, but auto manufacturers couldn’t make more cars. So, airfares didn’t collapse but used car prices went vertical! The causality from stimulus payments to durable goods spending to core inflation is irrefutable. The causality from stimulus payments to durable goods spending to core inflation is irrefutable. The biggest surges in US durable goods spending all coincided with the government’s stimulus checks (Chart I-5). And the three separate surges in month-on-month core inflation all occurred after surges in durable goods demand (Chart I-6). As further proof, core inflation is highest in those economies where the stimulus checks and furlough schemes were the most generous – like the US and the UK. Chart I-5Stimulus Checks Caused The Surges in Durable Goods Spending Chart I-6The Surges In Durable Goods Spending Caused The Surges In Core Inflation What Does All This Mean For Investment Strategy? Our high conviction view is that the pandemic’s inflationary impulse combined with the Ukraine war will turn out to be demand-destructive, and thereby ultimately morph into a deflationary impulse. Yet central banks are all pumped up to demonstrate their inflation fighting credibility. Given that this credibility is badly damaged, it may be their last opportunity to repair it before it is shattered forever. To repeat, just as the railway timetables set in train the First World War, central bank timetables for aggressive rate hikes may set in train another global recession. That said, a recession is not inevitable. The interest rate that matters most for the economy and the markets is not the policy rate that central banks want to hike aggressively, it is the long-duration bond yield. A lower bond yield can underpin both the economy and the financial markets, just as it did during the pandemic in 2020. But to the extent that the bond market is following the real economic data, we are in a dangerous phase. Because, as is typical at an inflection point, the real data will be noisy and ambiguous. Meaning it may take some weeks, or months, for inflation fears to be trumped by growth fears. On March 10th, in Are We In A Slow-Motion Crash? we predicted: “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” That prediction proved to be spot on! Recession, or no recession, we are still in a difficult period for markets because inflationary fears and hawkishness from central banks are weighing on bonds and stocks, while buoying the US dollar. As such, tactical caution is still warranted. Fractal structures of the sell-offs in both the 30-year T-bond and the tech-heavy NASDAQ index are approaching points of extreme fragility. But we could be approaching a turning point. By the summer, core inflation should be receding. Furthermore, the fractal structures of the sell-offs in both the 30-year T-bond and the tech-heavy NASDAQ index are approaching points of extreme fragility that have reliably signalled previous inflection points (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). Chart I-7The Sell-Off In The 30-Year T-Bond Is Approaching Fractal Fragility Chart I-8The Sell-Off In The NASDAQ Is Approaching Fractal Fragility The advice for long-term investors who do not need to time the market bottom is: Bonds will ultimately rally. Overweight the 30-year T-bond and the 30-year Chinese bond. Equities will be conflicted between slowing growth which will weigh on cyclical profits, and falling bond yields which will buoy long-duration valuations. Therefore, overweight long-duration defensive sectors and markets versus short-duration cyclical sectors and markets. For example, overweight US versus non-US equities. Fractal Trading Watchlist As just discussed, the sell-offs in the 30-year T-bond and the NASDAQ are approaching points of fractal fragility that have signalled previous turning points. Hence, we are adding both investments to our watchlist. Also added to our watchlist is the outperformance of the FTSE100 versus Euro Stoxx 50, and the underperformance of Netherlands versus Switzerland, both of which are approaching potential reversals. Our final addition is Petcare (PAWZ). After a stellar 2020, Petcare gave back most of its gains in 2021. But this underperformance is now approaching a point of fragility which might provide a new entry point. There are no new trades this week, but the full watchlist of investments at, or approaching, turning points is available on our website: cpt.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Watchlist: New Additions A Potential New Entry Point Into Petcare FTSE100 Outperformance Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 Vulnerable To Reversal Netherlands Underperformance Vs. Switzerland Close To Exhaustion Chart 1The Strong Trend In The 18-Month-Out US Interest Rate Future Is Fragile Chart 2The Strong Trend In The 3 Year T-Bond Is Fragile Chart 3AUD/KRW Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 4Canada Versus Japan Is Reversing Chart 5Canada's TSX-60's Outperformance Might Be Over Chart 6US Healthcare Providers Vs. Software At Risk of Reversal Chart 7A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis Chart 8Biotech Is A Major Buy Chart 9CAD/SEK Reversal Has Started Chart 10Financials Versus Industrials To Reverse Chart 11Norway's Outperformance Could End Chart 12Greece's Brief Outperformance To End Chart 13BRL/NZD At A Resistance Point Chart 14The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Healthcare Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 15The Outperformance Of Resources Versus Biotech Has Started To Reverse Chart 16Cotton's Outperformance Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 17US Homebuilders' Underperformance Has Reached A Potential Turning Point Chart 18Switzerland's Outperformance Vs. Germany Has Started To End Chart 19The Rally In USD/EUR Could End Chart 20The Outperformance Of MSCI Hong Kong Versus China Is Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 21A Potential New Entry Point Into Petcare Chart 22FTSE100 Outperformance Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 Vulnerable To Reversal Chart 23Netherlands Underperformance Vs. Switzerland Close To Exhaustion 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 - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - 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 Fed Chair Powell is attempting to steer the US economy between the Scylla of a recession and the Charybdis of entrenched high inflation. In the benign soft-landing outcome, the economy will continue to grow well above trend while inflation abates as spending transitions from goods to services, supply chains are untangled and base effects offer arithmetic relief. Entrenched high inflation would yield the most bearish outcome as it would leave the Fed with no choice but to squash the economy to stuff the inflation genie back into the bottle. We expect that rate hikes will eventually short-circuit the expansion and the equity bull market, but not for at least another year. Disruptions from the Ukraine conflict and China’s COVID surge place the most bullish case out of reach but the bearish end of the continuum is overly defeatist. The biggest threats to our constructive view are worsening Russia-Ukraine shortages, a conflict with Russia beyond Ukraine, new COVID obstacles and a consumer retreat. The Rates Market Thinks The Fed's Overly Ambitious Bottom Line: We continue to recommend overweighting equities and credit over our cyclical 6-12-month timeframe, but risks are heightened and we will change course if conditions dictate. Feature As telegraphed, the Fed began its rate hiking campaign at last week’s FOMC meeting. It lifted its target range for the fed funds rate 25 basis points (bps) from 0 – 0.25% to 0.25 – 0.5%. In addition to making the nearly unanimously expected 25-bps hike, it indicated that the median FOMC participant expects the funds rate to rise by 25 bps at each of the year’s six remaining meetings and by 87.5 bps in 2023, though Chair Powell stressed the projections are merely a baseline expectation subject to change as economic conditions evolve. Both projections slightly exceeded market expectations going into the meeting. After it ended, the fed funds rate implied by the December 2022 futures contract rose 15 bps to align with the median FOMC voter and the rate implied by the December 2023 fed funds contract rose 18 bps, though it remains about a quarter-point hike shy of the median FOMC projection (Chart 1). Chart 1It Looks Like The Fed Can Only Surprise Hawkishly Chart 2The Dots Turn More Hawkish Widening the lens to consider the entire distribution of projected rate hikes (the Fed’s dots), and considering the mean value instead of the median, the dots get slightly more ambitious, revealing that disappointingly high inflation readings would prod the committee to ramp up the pace of its 2022 hikes. Seven of the sixteen FOMC participants expect at least 200 bps of hikes in 2022, with the mean funds rate projection nudging up to 2.05% (Chart 2, top panel). The rates market has the funds rate topping out between 2½ and 2⅝%, about one 25-bps hike below the average participant’s 2.81% and 2.75% year-end 2023 (Chart 2, middle panel) and 2024 (Chart 2, bottom panel) projections. With five FOMC voters expecting a terminal rate of 3% or above, there is scope for an upside surprise if inflation comes in hotter or lasts longer than anticipated. The other changes in the Summary of Economic Projections related to the committee’s GDP and inflation outlook. Participants marked down their median real 2022 GDP growth projection to 2.8% from 4% while increasing their headline and core PCE price index projections about one-and-a-half percentage points to 4.3% and 4.1%, respectively. 2023 and 2024 real GDP growth forecasts were unchanged while inflation expectations were bumped a little higher. The FOMC’s outlook has dimmed slightly, though it is still calling for a soft landing with the economy growing at an above-trend rate and supporting full employment while inflation eases to near its target level. You Can’t Get There From Here Any central bank’s long-run projections will show the economy moving toward its desired target conditions. One probably wouldn’t toil as a central banker if s/he didn’t think the bank’s tools would work and couldn’t say it out loud (even when voting anonymously) if s/he doubted that they might. An investor should therefore never place too much stock in the FOMC’s projections for key economic indicators two and three years out. “[A]ppropriate[ly] firming … monetary policy” is easier said than done, even in the best of times. Related Report US Investment StrategyThe Last Line Of Inflation Defense (Is Holding Fast) The combination of monetary and fiscal largesse almost certainly staved off a COVID recession, at the cost of fostering some asset-market excesses while quite possibly overstimulating aggregate demand over the intermediate term. The Fed is now left to confront the aftermath with blunt policy tools that work with long and variable lags. It is always a tall order to steer an economy smoothly through the ups and downs of the business cycle; sticking the landing after the pandemic’s emergency monetary and fiscal routines involves a much higher degree of difficulty. Chair Powell put on a brave face in his post-meeting press conference, but he and his colleagues are embarking on this rate hiking cycle under less-than-ideal conditions. “In hindsight, yes, it would have been appropriate to move [to hike rates] earlier. … No one wants to have to put really restrictive monetary policy on in order to get inflation back down. So, frankly, [we] need … [to] … get rates back up to more neutral levels as quickly as we practicably can and then mov[e] beyond [neutral], if [it] turns out to be appropriate.” Bottom Line: Having to move as quickly as is practicable implies that the committee and financial markets might be in for some white-knuckle moments in the months ahead. Soft landings are more common in theory than in practice and it will be especially hard to pull one off now. A Recession Is Not Likely … A narrow margin for error does not mean the Fed is walking a tightrope over two negative extremes, however, and we believe the risks of a growth shortfall are modest. We share Powell’s view that “the probability of a recession within the next year is not particularly elevated.” Aggregate demand is strong and will be supported by households’ and businesses’ fortified balance sheets while the labor market has strength to burn. We think the chair had it just right when he said, “all signs are that this is a strong economy and, indeed, one that will be able to flourish … in the face of less accommodative monetary policy.” Our simple recession indicator, built from components that have reliably provided advance warning, reinforces Powell’s conclusion. The 3-month/10-year segment of the yield curve is not yet close to inverting1 (Chart 3). The year-over-year change in the Conference Board’s Leading Economic Index is way above the zero line that has signaled past recessions (Chart 4). The fed funds rate is nowhere near its equilibrium/neutral level, which we judge to be north of 3%, and it is highly unlikely to get there by the end of the year (Chart 5). Ex-the pandemic, recessions over the last 50-plus years have only occurred when all three components sound the alarm; not one is flashing red now and not one is likely to do so during 2022. Chart 3Recessions Occur When The Yield Curve Inverts, ... Chart 4... The Year-Over-Year Change In The LEI Turns Negative ... Chart 5... And The Target Fed Funds Rate Is Above Its Equilibrium Level … But Inflation Is A Pressing Concern The Fed is right to take action to try to stem inflation, which has found especially fertile soil. Extraordinary monetary and fiscal stimulus have given demand a persistent tailwind; social distancing funneled spending to goods while rolling global COVID surges slowed production and hampered transport, crimping supply; and domestic COVID infections limited labor force participation, tightening the labor market and exerting upward pressure on wages. Just when COVID was finally relaxing its grip, Russia invaded Ukraine, taking major sources of crude oil, natural gas, wheat, corn and several base metals offline while creating new cargo and shipping bottlenecks. The Omicron variant’s emergence in China could bring new supply disruptions. The upshot is that the Ukraine invasion and COVID’s Asian revival could keep inflation elevated, obscuring mitigating factors like a consumption shift from goods to services (Chart 6), diminishing shipping backlogs (Chart 7), increasing labor force participation and more forgiving year-over-year comparisons (base effects). Upside inflation surprises could open the door to a faster pace of rate hikes than markets have already discounted, especially if stubbornly high inflation begins to push up longer-run inflation expectations. Despite their recent rise, long-run expectations remain well anchored for now (Chart 8), while households’ sizable savings cushion better positions them to withstand higher prices. Chart 6A Transitory Inflation Catalyst Chart 7Shipping Bottlenecks Had Been Easing Chart 8Long-Run Inflation Expectations Are Still Manageable Financial Market Impacts Equities took heart from Powell’s talk of the Fed’s commitment to prevent high inflation from becoming entrenched, but his comments were not uniformly reassuring. He specifically called out the red-hot labor market, a key pillar of the favorable growth outlook, as a source of concern. “[I]f you take a look … at today’s labor market, what you have is 1.7-plus job openings for every unemployed person (Chart 9). So that’s a very, very tight labor market, tight to an unhealthy level, I would say.” The Phillips Curve trade-off between growth and inflation still applies after all, but after a dozen years when policymakers and investors were able to ignore it, equity multiples, credit spreads and Treasury yields may no longer account for it. They seem to still be discounting a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too environment in which growth, even when it’s above trend, is continuously goosed by accommodative policy. Chart 9Too Tight For The Fed Chair There’s also the issue that the Fed’s tools are not suited to fine-tuning economic outcomes. One does not have to be a card-carrying Austrian to harbor some skepticism about central bankers' ability to make targeted tweaks. “[I]n principle, … the idea is we’re trying to better align demand and supply[.] [I]n the labor market, … if you were just moving down the number of job openings so that they were more like one to one, you would have less upward pressure on wages. You would have a lot less of a labor shortage. … And basically across the economy, we’d like to slow demand so that it’s better aligned with supply. … Of course, the plan is to restore price stability while also sustaining a strong labor market. That is our intention, and we believe we can do that. But we have to restore price stability.” It’s a happy circumstance when attaining a goal doesn’t involve a sacrifice, but no pain, no gain is adulthood’s default condition. To paraphrase Powell’s press conference guidance, price stability with full employment would be really nice, but if push comes to shove, price stability has to take precedence. The tight monetary policy needed to restore lost price stability would constitute a major headwind for risk assets and the economy. It would spell the end of the equity and credit bull markets while ushering in the next recession. It is our view that the perception that price stability sacrifices are inevitable is still far away enough that risk assets have roughly nine to twelve good months ahead of them, although we hold it with less conviction than we did before Russia attacked Ukraine and Omicron reached China. Both events have the potential to hasten the end of monetary accommodation and drive investors to reconsider their terminal (peak) fed funds rate expectations. We do not expect that investors will revisit their terminal rate expectations until they can glean some empirical evidence of how the economy behaves when the funds rate exceeds 2.25%. If it takes the FOMC at least a year to get to that level, we expect that any major repricing of longer-term Treasury yields is over a year away. The bottom line is that we remain constructive on financial markets and the US economy over our six-to-twelve-month cyclical timeframe, but the clock is ticking and European fighting and Asian COVID infections are threats to our view. We believe that the decline in equity prices and the widening of high-yield credit spreads adequately compensate investors for the increased potential pitfalls, but we remain vigilant and are maintaining our tactically cautious ETF portfolio positioning until some of the clouds lift. Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 We use the 3-month/10-year segment instead of the more common 2-year/10-year because the 3-month bill is a cleaner proxy for short rates than the 2-year note, which embeds estimates of the Fed’s future actions. 2s/10s also fail to measure up empirically, inverting even earlier than the habitually premature 3-month/10-year.
Highlights Our top five “black swan” risks for 2022: Social unrest in China; Russian invasion of all of Ukraine; unilateral Israeli strikes on Iran; a cyber attack that goes kinetic; and a failure of OPEC 2.0. Too early to buy the dip on Russian assets: President Biden says Putin will probably “move in” and re-invade Ukraine, Russian embassy staff have been evacuating Ukraine, the US and UK have been providing more arms to Ukraine, and the US is warning of a semiconductor embargo against Russia. Talks resume in Geneva on Friday. Tactically investors should take some risk off the table, especially if linked to Russia and Europe. Stay short the Russian ruble and EM Europe; stay short the Chinese renminbi and Taiwanese dollar; stay long cyber security stocks; and be prepared for oil volatility. Convert tactical long equity trades to relative trades: long large caps versus small caps, long defensives versus cyclicals, and long Japanese industrials versus German industrials. Feature Chart 1Recession Probability And Yield Curve The 2/10-year yield curve is flattening and now stands at 79 bps, while the implied probability of a recession over the next 12 months troughed at 5.9% in April 2021, and as of December 2021 stood at 7.7% (Chart 1). Apparently stagflation and recession are too high of a probability to constitute a “black swan” risk for this year. Black swans are not only high impact but also low probability. In this year’s annual “Five Black Swan” report, the last of our 2022 outlook series, we concentrate on impactful but unlikely events. These black swans emerge directly from the existing themes and trends in our research – they are not plucked at random. The key regions are highlighted in Map 1. Black Swan #1: Major Social Unrest Erupts In China China’s financial problems are front and center risks for investors this year. They qualify as a “Gray Rhino” rather than “Black Swan” risk.1 It is entirely probable that China’s financial and property sector distress will negatively impact Chinese and global financial markets in 2022. What investors are not expecting is an eruption of social unrest in China that fouls up the twentieth national party congress this fall and calls into question the Communist Party’s official narrative that it is handling the pandemic and the underlying economic transition smoothly. Social unrest is a major risk around the world in the face of the new bout of inflation. Most of the democracies have already changed governments since the pandemic began, recapitalizing their political systems, but major emerging markets – Russia, India, Turkey, Brazil – have not done so. They have seen steep losses of popular support for both political leaders and ruling parties. There is little opinion polling from China and people who are surveyed cannot speak openly. It is possible that the government’s support has risen given its minimization of deaths from the pandemic. But it is also possible that it has not. Beijing’s policies over the past few years have had a negative impact on the country’s business elite and foreign relations. There are disgruntled factions within China, though the current administration has a tight grip over the main organs of power. Since President Xi is trying to clinch his personal rule this fall, sending China down a path of autocracy that proved disastrous under Chairman Mao Zedong, it is possible he will face surprise resistance. China’s economic growth is decelerating, clocking in at a 4.0% quarter-on-quarter growth rate at the end of last year. While authorities are easing policy to secure the recovery, there is a danger of insufficient support. Private sentiment will remain gloomy, as reflected by weak money velocity and a low propensity to spend among both businesses and households (Chart 2). The government will continue to be repressive in the lead up to the political reshuffle. At least for the first half of the year the economy will remain troubled. Structurally China is ripe for social unrest. It suffers from high income inequality and low social mobility, comparable to the US and Brazil, which are both struggling with political upheaval (Chart 3). Chart 2China's Private Sector Still Depressed In addition China is keeping a stranglehold over Covid-19. This “Zero Covid” policy minimizes deaths but suppresses economic activity. Strict policy has also left the population with a very low level of natural immunity and the new Omicron variant is even more contagious than other variants. Hence the regime is highly likely to double down to prevent an explosive outbreak. The service side of the economy will continue to suffer if strict lockdowns are maintained, exacerbating household and business financial difficulties (Chart 4). Yet in other countries around the world, government decisions to return to lockdowns have sparked unrest. Chart 4Zero Covid Policy: Not Sustainable Beyond 2022 China’s “Misery Index” (unemployment plus inflation) is rising sharply. While misery is ostensibly lower than that of other emerging markets, China’s unemployment data is widely known to be unreliable. If we take a worst-case scenario, looking at youth unemployment and fuel prices, misery is a lot higher (Chart 5). The youth, who are having the hardest time finding jobs, are also the most likely to protest if conditions become intolerable (Chart 6). Of course, if social unrest is limited to students, it will lack support among the wider populace. But it is inflation, not youth activism, that is the reason for China’s authorities to be concerned, as inflation is a generalized problem that affects workers as well as students. Chart 5China's Misery Index Is Higher Than It Looks Chart 6China's Troubled Youth Why would protesters stick their necks out knowing that the Communist Party will react ferociously to any sign of instability during President Xi Jinping’s political reshuffle? True, mainland Chinese do not have the propensity to political activism that flared up in protests in Hong Kong in recent years. Also the police state will move rapidly to repress any unrest. Yet the entire focus of Xi Jinping’s administration, since 2012, has been the restoration of political legitimacy and prevention of popular discontent. Xi has cracked down on corruption, pollution, housing prices, education prices, and has announced his “Common Prosperity” agenda to placate the low and middle classes.2 The regime has also cracked down on the media, social media, civil society, and ideological dissent to prevent political opposition from taking root. If the government were not concerned about social instability, it would not have been adopting these policies. Disease, often accompanied by famines or riots, has played a role in the downfall of six out of ten dynasties, so Beijing will not be taking risks for granted (Table 1). Table 1Disease And Downfall Of Chinese Dynasties Social instability would have a major impact as it would affect China’s stability and global investor sentiment toward China. Western democracies would penalize China for violations of human rights, leaving China even more isolated. Bottom Line: Investors should stay short the renminbi and neutral Chinese equities. Foreign investors should steer clear of Chinese bonds in the event of US sanctions. After the party congress this fall there will be an opportunity to reassess whether Xi Jinping will “let a hundred flowers bloom,” thus improving the internal and external political and investment environment, but this is not at all clear today. Black Swan #2: Russia Invades All (Not Just Part) Of Ukraine US-Russia relations are on the verge of total collapse and Russian equities have sold off, in line with our bearish recommendations in reports over the past two years. Russia’s threat of re-invading Ukraine is credible. Western nations are still wishy-washy about the counter-threat of economic sanctions, judging by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s latest comments, and none are claiming they will go to war to defend Ukraine.3 Russia is looking to remove the threat of Ukraine integrating militarily and economically with the West. The US and UK are providing Ukraine with defense weaponry even as Russia specifically demands that they cease to do so. President Putin may choose short-term economic pain for long-term security gain. The consensus view is that if Russia does invade, it will undertake a limited invasion. But what if Russia invades all of Ukraine? To be clear, a full invasion is unlikely because it would be far more difficult and costly for Russia. It would go against Putin’s strategy of calculated risk and limited conflict. Table 2 compares Russia and Ukraine in size and strength, alongside a comparison of the US and Iraq in 2002. This is not a bad comparison given that Ukraine’s and Iraq’s land area and active military personnel are comparable. Table 2Russia-Ukraine Balance Of Power 2022 Compared To US-Iraq 2002 Russia would be biting off a much bigger challenge than the US did. Ukraine’s prime age population is 2.5 times larger than Iraq’s in 2002, and its military expenditure is three times bigger. The US GDP and military spending were 150 and 250 times bigger than Iraq’s, while Russia’s GDP and military spending are about ten times bigger than Ukraine’s today. Iraq was not vital to American national security, whereas Ukraine is vital to Russia; Russia has more at stake and is willing to take greater risks. But Ukraine is in better shape to resist Russian occupation than Iraq was to resist American. The point is that the US invasion went smoothly at first, then got bogged down in insurgency, and ultimately backfired both in political and geopolitical terms. Russia would be undertaking a massive expense of blood and treasure that seems out of proportion with its goal, which is to neutralize Ukraine’s potential to become a western defense ally and host of “military infrastructure.” However, there are drawbacks to partial invasion. The remainder of the Ukrainian state would be unified and mobilized, capable of integrating with the western world, and willing to support a permanent insurgency against Russian troops in eastern Ukraine. Russia has forces in Belarus, Crimea, and the Black Sea, as well as on Ukraine’s eastern border, giving rise to fears that Russia could attempt a three-pronged invasion of the whole country. In short, it is conceivable that Russian leaders could make the Soviet mistake of overreaching in the military aims, or that a war in eastern Ukraine could inadvertently expand into the west. If Russia tries to conquer all of Ukraine, the global impact will be massive. A war of this size on the European continent for the first time since World War II would shake governments and populations to their bones. The borders with Poland, Romania, the Baltic states, Slovakia, Hungary, Finland and the Black Sea area would become militarized (Map 2). NATO actions to secure its members and fortify their borders would exacerbate tensions with Russia and fan fears of a wider war. Trade flows would become subject to commerce destruction, affecting even neutral nations, including in the Black Sea. Energy supplies would tighten further, sending Russia and probably Europe into recession. The disruption to business and travel across eastern Europe would be deep and lasting, not only due to sanctions but also due to a deep risk-aversion that would affect foreign investors in the former Soviet Union and former Warsaw Pact. Germany would be forced to quit sitting on the fence, as it would be pressured by the US and the rest of Europe to stand shoulder to shoulder in the face of such aggression. Finland and Sweden would be much more likely to join NATO, exacerbating Russia’s security fears. Russia would suffer a drastic loss of trade, resulting in recession, and its currency collapse would feed inflation (Chart 7). Chart 7Inflation Poses Long-Term Threat To Putin Regime Ultimately the consequences would be negative for the Putin regime and Russia as a result of recession and international isolation. But in the short run the Russian people would rally around the flag and support a war designed to prevent NATO from stationing missiles on their doorstep. And their isolation would not be total, as they would strengthen ties with China and conduct trade via proxy states in the former Soviet Union. Bottom Line: A full-scale invasion of all of Ukraine is highly unlikely because it would be so costly for Russia in military, economic, and political terms. But the probability is not zero, especially because a partial re-invasion could lead to a larger war. While global investors would react in a moderate risk-off matter to a limited war in eastern Ukraine, a full-scale war would trigger a massive global flight to safety as it would call into question the entire post-WWII peace regime in Europe. Black Swan #3: Israel Attacks Iran The “bull market in Iran tensions” continues as there is not yet a replacement for the 2015 nuclear deal that the US abrogated. Our 2022 forecast that the UAE would get caught in the crossfire was confirmed on January 17 when Iran-backed Houthi rebels expanded their range of operations and struck Abu Dhabi (Map 3). The secret war is escalating and US-led diplomacy is faltering. Iran is not going to give up its nuclear program. North Korea achieved nuclear arms and greater military security and is now developing first and second strike capabilities. Meanwhile Ukraine, which faces another Russian invasion, exemplifies what happens to regimes that give up nuclear arms (as do Libya and Iraq). Iran appears to be choosing the North Korean route. While we cannot rule out a minor agreement between President Biden and Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, we can rule out a substantial deal that halts Iran’s nuclear and missile progress. Here’s why: Any day now Iran could reach nuclear “breakout capacity,” with enough highly enriched uranium to construct a nuclear device (Table 3).4 Table 3Iran’s Violations Of 2015 Nuclear Deal Since US Exit Within Iran’s government, the foreign policy doves have been humiliated and kicked out of office while the hawks are fully in control. No meaningful agreement can be reached before 2024 because of the risk that the US will change ruling parties again and renege on any promises. Iran is highly incentivized to make rapid progress on its nuclear program now. The US will not be able to lead the P5+1 coalition to force Iran to halt its program because of its ongoing struggles with Russia and China. China is striking long-term cooperation deals with Iran. Israel has a well-established record of taking unilateral action, specifically against regional nuclear programs, known as the “Begin Doctrine.”5 Israel’s threats are credible on this front, although Iran is a much greater operational challenge than Iraq or Syria. Iran’s timeline from nuclear breakout to deliverable nuclear weapon is 12-24 months.6 Iran’s missile program is advanced. Missile programs cannot be monitored as easily as nuclear activity, so foreign powers base the threshold on nuclear capability rather than missile capability. Iran had a strong incentive to move slowly on its nuclear and missile programs in earlier years, to prevent US and Israeli military interference. But as it approaches breakout capacity it has an incentive to accelerate its tempo to a mad dash to achieve nuclear weaponization before the US or Israel can stop it. Now that time may have come. The Biden administration is afraid of higher oil prices and Israeli domestic politics are more divided and risk-averse than before. And yet Iran’s window might close in 2025, as the US could turn aggressive again depending on the outcome of the 2024 election. Hence Iran has an incentive to make its dash now. The US and Israel will restate their red lines against Iranian nuclear weaponization and brandish their military options this year. But the Biden administration will be risk-averse since it does not want to instigate an oil shock in an election year. Israel is more likely than the US to react quickly and forcefully since it is in greatest danger if Iran surprises the world with rapid weaponization. Here are the known constraints on unilateral Israeli military action: Limited Israeli military capability: Israel would have to commit a large number of aircraft, leaving its home front exposed, and even with US “bunker buster” bombs it may not penetrate the underground Fordow nuclear facility.7 Limited Israeli domestic support: The Israeli public is divided on whether to attack Iran. The post-Netanyahu government recently came around to endorsing the US’s attempt to renegotiate the nuclear deal. Limited US support: Washington opposes Israeli unilateralism that could entangle the US into a war. Israel cannot afford to alienate the US, which is its primary security guarantor. Iranian instability: The Iranian regime is under economic distress due to “maximum pressure” sanctions. It is vulnerable to social unrest, not least because of its large youth population. These constraints have been vitiated in various ways, which is why we raise this Israeli unilateralism as a black swan risk: Where there’s a will, there’s a way: If Israel believes its existence will be threatened, it will be willing to take much greater operational risks. It has already shown some ability to set back Iran's centrifuge program beyond the expected.8 Israeli opinion will harden if Iran breaks out: If Iran reaches nuclear breakout or tests a nuclear device, Israeli opinion will harden in favor of military strikes. Prime Minister Naftali Bennett has an incentive to take hawkish actions before he hands the reins of government over to a partner in his ruling coalition as part of a power-sharing agreement. The ruling coalition is so weak that a collapse cannot be ruled out. US opposition could weaken: Biden will have to explore military options if talks fail and Iran reaches nuclear breakout capacity. Once the midterms are over, Israel may have even more freedom to act, while a gridlocked Biden may be looking to shift his focus to foreign policy. Iranian stability: Iran’s social instability has not resulted in massive unrest or regime fracture despite years of western sanctions and a global recession/pandemic. Yet now energy prices are rising and Iran has less reason to believe sanction regimes will be watertight. From Israeli’s point of view, even regime change in Iran would not remove the nuclear threat once nuclear weapons are obtained. Finally, while Israel cannot guarantee that military strikes would successfully cripple Iran’s nuclear program and prevent weaponization, Israel cannot afford not to try. It would be a worse outcome to stand idly by while Iran gets a nuclear weapon than to attack and fail to set that program back. Hence the likeliest outcome over the long run is that Iran pursues a nuclear weapon and Israel attacks to try to stop it, even if that attack is likely to fail (Diagram 1). Diagram 1Game Theory: Will Israel Attack Iran? Bottom Line: A unilateral Israeli strike is unlikely but would have a massive impact, as 21% of global oil and 26% of natural gas flows through the Strait of Hormuz, and conflict could disrupt regional energy production and/or block passage through the strait itself. Black Swan #4: Cyber Attacks Spill Into Real World Investors are very aware of cyber security risks – it holds a respectable though not commanding position in the ranks of likely crisis events (Table 4). Our concern is that a cyber attack could spill over into the real world, impairing critical infrastructure, supply chains, and/or prompting military retaliation. Table 4Cyber Events Underrated In Consensus View Of Global Risks Russian attacks on US critical infrastructure by means of ransomware gangs disrupted a US fuel pipeline, meat-packing plant, and other critical infrastructure in 2021. Since then the two countries have engaged in negotiations over cyber security. The Russian Federal Security Bureau has cracked down on one of the most prominent gangs, REvil, in a sign that the US and Russia are still negotiating despite the showdown over Ukraine.9 Yet a re-invasion of Ukraine would shatter any hope of cooperation in the cyber realm or elsewhere. Russia is already using cyberattacks against Ukraine and these activities could expand to Ukraine’s partners if the military conflict expands. Should the US and EU impose sweeping sanctions that damage Russia’s economy, Russia could retaliate, not only by tightening energy supply but also by cyber attacks. Any NATO partners or allies would be vulnerable, though some states will be more reactive than others. Interference in the French election, for example, would be incendiary. The key question is: if Russia strikes NATO states with damaging cyber attacks, at what point would it trigger Article V, the mutual defense clause? There are no established codes of conduct or red lines in cyber space, so the world will have to learn each nation’s limits via confrontation and retaliation. Similar cyber risks could emerge from other conflicts. China is probably not ready to invade Taiwan but it has an interest in imposing economic costs on the island ahead of this fall’s midterm elections. Taiwan’s critical role in the semiconductor supply chain means that disruptions to production would have a global impact. Israel and the US have already used cyber capabilities to attack Iran and set back its nuclear program. These capabilities will be necessary as Iran approaches breakout capacity. Yet Iran could retaliate in a way that disrupts oil supplies. North Korea began a new cycle of provocations last September, accelerated missile tests over the past four months, and is dissatisfied with the unfinished diplomatic business of the Trump administration. In the wake of the last global crisis, 2010, it staged multiple military attacks against South Korea. South Korea may be vulnerable due to its presidential elections in May. The semiconductor or electronics supply chain could be interrupted here as well as in Taiwan. Bottom Line: There is no code of conduct in cyber space. As geopolitical tensions rise, and nations test the limits of their cyber capabilities, there is potential for critical infrastructure to be impaired. This could exacerbate supply chain kinks or provoke kinetic responses from victim nations. Black Swan #5: OPEC 2.0 Falls Apart The basis of the OPEC 2.0 cartel is Russian cooperation with Saudi Arabia to control oil supply and manage the forward price curve. Backwardation, when short-term prices are higher than long-term, is ideal for these countries since they fear that long-term prices will fall. In a world where Moscow and Riyadh both face competition from US shale producers as well as the green energy revolution, cooperation makes sense. Yet the two sides do not trust each other. Cooperation broke down both in 2014 and 2020, sending oil prices plunging. Falling global demand ignited a scramble for market share. Interestingly, Russian military invasions have signaled peak oil price in 1979, 2008, and 2014. Russia, like other petro-states, has greater room for maneuver when oil revenues are pouring in. But high prices also incentivize production, disincentivize cartel discipline, and trigger reductions in global demand (Chart 8). Chart 8Russian Invasions And Oil Price Crashes Broadly speaking, Saudi oil production rose modestly during times of Russian military adventures, while overall OPEC production was flat or down, and Russian/Soviet production went up (Chart 9). Chart 9Saudi And OPEC Oil Production During Russian Military Adventures Since 2020, we have held that OPEC 2.0 would continue operating but that the biggest risk would come in the form of a renewed US-Iran nuclear deal that freed up Iranian oil exports. In 2014, the Saudis increased production in the face of the US shale threat as well as the Iranian threat. This scenario is still possible in 2022 but it has become a low-probability outcome. Even aside from the Iran dynamic, there is some probability that Russo-Saudi cooperation breaks down as global growth decelerates and new oil supply comes online. Bottom Line: The world’s inflation expectations are elevated and closely linked to oil prices. Yet oil prices hinge on an uneasy political agreement between Russia and Saudi Arabia that has fallen apart twice before. If Russia invades Ukraine, or if US withdraws sanctions on Iran, for example, then Saudi Arabia could make a bid to expand its market share and trigger price declines in the process. Two Bonus Black Swans: Turkey And Venezuela Turkey lashes out: Our Turkish Political Capital Index shows deterioration for President Recep Erdogan’s political capital across a range of variables (Table 5). With geopolitical pressures increasing, and domestic politics heating up ahead of the 2023 elections, Erdogan’s behavior will become even more erratic. His foreign policy could become aggressive, keeping the lira under pressure and/or weighing on European assets. Table 5Turkey: Erdogan’s Political Capital Wearing Thin Venezuela’s Maduro falls from power: Venezuelan regime changes often follow from military coups. These coups do not only happen when oil prices collapse – sometimes the army officers wait to be sure prices have recovered. Coup-throwers want strong oil revenues to support their new rule. An unexpected change of regimes would affect the oil market due to this country’s giant reserves. Bottom Line: Turkey’s political instability could result in foreign aggression, while Venezuela’s regime could collapse despite the oil price recovery. Investment Takeaways We are booking profits on our tactical long trades on large caps and defensive sectors. We will convert these to relative trades: long large caps over small caps, and long defensives over cyclicals. We also recommend converting our tactical long Japan trade into long Japanese industrials / short German industrials equities. If US-Russia diplomacy averts a war we will reconsider. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 “Gray Rhino” is a term coined by author Michele Wucker to describe large and probable risks that people neglect or avoid. For more, see thegrayrhino.com. 2 Xi Jinping recently characterized the “common prosperity” agenda as follows: “China has made it clear that we strive for more visible and substantive progress in the well-rounded development of individuals and the common prosperity of the entire population. We are working hard on all fronts to deliver this goal. The common prosperity we desire is not egalitarianism. To use an analogy, we will first make the pie bigger, and then divide it properly through reasonable institutional arrangements. As a rising tide lifts all boats, everyone will get a fair share from development, and development gains will benefit all our people in a more substantial and equitable way.” See World Economic Forum, “President Xi Jinping’s message to The Davos Agenda in full,” January 17, 2022, weforum.org. 3 Chancellor Scholz, when asked whether Germany would avoid using the Nord Stream II pipeline if Russia re-invaded Ukraine, said, "it is clear that there will be a high cost and that all this will have to be discussed if there is a military intervention against Ukraine.” He was speaking with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg. See Hans Von Der Burchard, “Scholz: Germany will discuss Nord Stream 2 penalties if Russia attacks Ukraine,” Politico, January 18, 2022, politico.eu. 4 For the Begin Doctrine, see Meir Y. Soloveichik, “The Miracle of Osirak,” Commentary, April 2021, commentary.org. 5 The estimate of 12-24 months to mount a nuclear warhead on a missile has been cited by various credible sources, including David Albright and Sarah Burkhard, “Highlights of Iran’s Perilous Pursuit of Nuclear Weapons,” Institute for Science and International Security, August 24, 2021, isis-online.org, and Eric Brewer and Nicholas L. Miller, “A Redline for Iran?” Foreign Affairs, December 23, 2021, foreignaffairs.com. 6 See Edieal J. Pinker, Joseph Szmerekovsky, and Vera Tilson, “Technical Note – Managing a Secret Project,” Operations Research, February 5, 2013, pubsonline.informs.org, as well as “What Can Game Theory Tell Us About Iran’s Nuclear Intentions?” Yale Insights, March 17, 2015, insights.som.yale.edu. 7 See Josef Joffe, “Increasingly Isolated, Israel Must Rely On Nuclear Deterrence,” Strategika 35 (September 2016), Hoover Institution, hoover.org. 8 The sabotage of the Iran Centrifuge Assembly Center at the Natanz nuclear facility in July 2020 “set back Iran’s centrifuge program significantly and continues to do so,” according to David Albright, Sarah Burkhard, and John Hannah, “Iran’s Natanz Tunnel Complex: Deeper, Larger Than Expected,” Institute for Science and International Security, January 13, 2022, isis-online.org. For a recent positive case regarding Israel’s capabilities, see Mitchell Bard, “Military Options Against Iran,” Jewish Virtual Library, American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, January 2022, jewishvirtuallibrary.org. 9 For the FSB and REvil, see Chris Galford, “Russian FSB arrests members of REvil ransomware gang following attacks on U.S. infrastructure,” Homeland Preparedness News, January 18, 2022, homelandprepnews.com. For the Colonial Pipeline and JBS attacks, and other ransomware attacks, see Jonathan W. Welburn and Quentin E. Hodgson, “How the United States Can Deter Ransomware Attacks,” RAND Blog, August 9, 2021, rand.org. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)