Oil
Executive Summary Wars Don’t Usually Affect Markets For Long We expect the war in Ukraine to stay within its borders, and therefore to have little impact on global growth. Markets will be volatile, but we recommend allocators stay invested – with some moderate hedges in place. The Fed won’t tighten as fast as markets expect, and US long rates will not rise much further this year. So, within fixed-income, we raise government bonds to neutral. Flat rates remove a positive for the Financials equity sector, which we lower to neutral. The oil price will fall back to $85 by the second half, as Saudi and others increase supply. We reduce our recommendation for Canadian equities and the CAD. Recommendation Changes Bottom Line: Stay invested in risk assets, but have some hedges. We shift from Financials to the defensive-growth IT sector, raise our weight in UK equities, and suggest long positions in cash, CHF and JPY. Recommended Allocation The war in Ukraine is likely to have only a limited impact on markets beyond the short term. As disturbing as the human tragedy is, Russia’s aims are limited to regime change in Kyiv. The European Union and US face restraints on how draconian sanctions against Russia can be, balking (so far at least) at blocking imports of Russian energy to the EU, given how much this would hurt the economy. The risk of the conflict spreading beyond Ukraine’s borders is low, limited perhaps to cyberattacks on Western targets. A Russian attack on a NATO member, such as Poland or one of the Baltic states, is extraordinarily unlikely – though Moldova and Georgia (not NATO members) might be more vulnerable at some point in the future. For more detailed analysis, please read the two reports on the Ukraine situation by our Geopolitical Service that we have made available to all BCA Research subscribers.1 Asset allocators need to look at these events dispassionately. Markets are likely to remain volatile over the coming months, as events in Ukraine unfold. But the lesson of most major conflicts is that they typically do not have a long-lasting impact on asset performance (Chart 1). There is little chance that the Ukraine war will significantly dent global growth. The only exception would be if the oil price were to rise much further to, say, $120 a barrel as some are forecasting. Certainly, in the past, a jump in the oil price has often been associated with recessions – even though the causality is unclear (Chart 2). But BCA’s Energy strategists expect to see an increase in oil supply by Saudi Arabia and Gulf states which will bring Brent crude back to $85 by the second half (from $98 now). Chart 1Wars Don't Usually Affect Markets For Long Chart 2But A Jump In Oil Prices Would Meanwhile, global growth remains robust, with all major economies expected to continue to grow well above trend this year, supported by robust consumption and capex (Chart 3). And sentiment towards equities has turned very pessimistic since the start of the year, with indicators such the US Association of Individual Investors’ weekly survey at its most bearish level since 2008 (Chart 4). These sort of sentiment levels have typically pointed to a rebound in risk assets. Chart 4Sentiment Is At Rock-Bottom Chart 3Economic Growth Still Above Trend Our advice now would be to stay invested, but with some moderate safe-haven hedges in place – largely as we have recommended since late last year. We continue to recommend an overweight in cash, but will look to allocate this to risk assets when it becomes clearer how the situation in Ukraine will pan out. The trajectory of markets over the rest of this year still largely comes down to what the Fed and other central banks will do. The hawkish turn by the Fed in December has been the driver of markets in the past two months, with the result that none of the major asset classes have produced positive returns year to-date – only inflation hedges such as commodities and gold (Chart 5). Chart 5Most Asset Classes Are Down Year-To-Date The futures market is pricing the Fed to raise rates seven times over the next 12 months, the fastest rate of predicted tightening since the early 2000s (Chart 6). We think that is a little excessive. Inflation, as we have argued previously, is likely to fade over the coming quarters, as the supply response to strong consumer demand for manufactured goods brings down the price of cars, semiconductors, shipping and other major items. The Fed may well start in March with the intention of raising rates by 25bps every meeting, but the slowing of inflation we expect, and the tightening of financial conditions already under way (Chart 7), make it unlikely that it will continue at that pace. And remember that Fed policy will need to be even more hawkish than the market is currently pricing in for it to have an incrementally negative impact on risk assets. Chart 6Market Believes Fed Will Hike Fast Chart 7Financial Conditions Have Already Tightened There are certainly risks to this scenario. The forward yield curve is pointing to inversion one year ahead, something which normally presages recession over the following 1-3 years (Chart 8). Higher prices are starting to hurt consumer confidence, though there is a big disparity between the two main US indicators (Chart 9). Chart 8Will Yield Curve Invert Within A Year? Chart 9Inflation May Be Hurting Consumer Confidence What all this boils down to is how high a level of interest rates the economy is able to withstand. The futures markets imply that, in most countries, central banks will raise rates aggressively this year, but then be forced to stop or even cut rates after that because their actions cause an economic slowdown (Table 1). Our view is that the terminal rate is much higher than what is priced by markets and projected by central banks: In the US perhaps 3-4% in nominal terms.2 Even with seven Fed hikes over the next year, the policy rate would therefore remain well below neutral – an environment in which historically equities have outperformed bonds (Chart 10). Table 1Central Banks Will Hike Aggressively – But Then Stop Soon Chart 10Even In A Year, Rates Will Be Well Below Neutral One final comment: On long-term returns. As a result of the recent moderate equity correction, strong earnings growth, and higher long-term rates, the outlook is somewhat rosier than when we published our most recent report on Return Assumptions in May 2021 – though admittedly forward long-term returns are still likely to be lower than over the past 20 years (Table 2). This is not, then, a time to turn defensive. Table 2Long-Term Return Outlook No Longer Looks So Gloomy Fixed Income: In the short-term, government bonds look oversold (Chart 11). With inflation set to peak and the Fed likely to be less hawkish than the market has priced in, we do not see the 10-year US Treasury yield rising more than another 25 basis points or so above its current level this year. Accordingly, we are changing our duration call from underweight to neutral, and raise our recommendation for government bonds within the (still underweight) fixed-income bucket to neutral. For more cautious investors, a slight increase in government bond holdings might be warranted. Within credit, investment-grade bonds still offer little pickup, despite the moderate rise in spreads this year (from 92 to 121 in the US, for example), and so we lower this asset class to underweight. We continue to prefer high-yield bonds, which in the US now imply a jump in the default rate from 1.2% over the past 12 months to 4.5% over the coming year (Chart 12). As long as the economy grows in line with our expectations, that is very unlikely. Chart 11Government Bonds Look Oversold Chart 12Will Defaults Really Jump This Much? Equities: With the economy continuing to grow above-trend, global earnings should remain robust. This will not be a classic year for equity returns, but we expect them to do better than bonds. We continue to prefer US over European equities. As was seen in the aftermath of the invasion of Ukraine, US stocks are more defensive, and European growth will continue to be under threat from higher energy prices (Chart 13). We also move our recommended portfolio a little in the defensive direction by going overweight UK equities (which have a particularly high weight in defensive growth sectors, such as a 13 point overweight in Consumer Staples); we fund this by lowering Canadian equities to underweight, given their close linkage with oil (Chart 14), and the vulnerability of the Canadian housing market to rising rates. We remain underweight EM, but Chinese stocks (which were very oversold in late 2021) have been a relative safe haven as China started to stimulate, and so we continue with our neutral position for now. Chart 13Higher Energy Prices Threaten Europe Chart 14Canadian Stocks Move With The Oil Price Chart 15Financials Not So Attractive If Rates Don't Rise Our view that long-term rates have limited upside this year makes us more cautious on Financials stocks, which are closely correlated with rates, and so we cut this sector to neutral (Chart 15). A period of slowing growth points towards a preference for defensive growth, and so we raise our recommended weight in the IT sector to overweight from neutral. It is tempting to think of this sector as being composed of ridiculously overvalued speculative internet names, but it is in fact dominated by established hardware and software titans with deep competitive moats (Table 3). While the sector is not exactly cheap, its risk premium over bonds is quite reasonable by historical standards (Chart 16). Table 3Tech Sector Is Not Made Up Of Speculative Stocks Chart 16Tech Is Not Unreasonably Priced Chart 17Relative Rates Suggest Some Upward Pressure On USD Currencies: A neutral position on the US dollar still makes sense. Short-term rates are likely to rise somewhat faster in the US, relative to expectations, than in Europe or Japan (Chart 17). Nevertheless, the USD is expensive, and long-dollar is a consensus trade – reasons why the dollar has risen by less than 1% year-to-date on a trade-weighted basis, despite all the higher rate expectations and geopolitical shocks. Investors looking for hedges against downside risk might look to the Japanese yen, which is particularly cheap, and the Swiss franc. By contrast, the Canadian dollar, like Canadian equities, is closely linked to the oil price and a fallback in the Brent price would be negative; we move underweight. We also raise the CNY to neutral, since it may become a safe haven currency in the current geopolitical situation, though the Chinese authorities won’t let it rise too much since that would slow the economy. Commodities: China’s stimulus remains somewhat halfhearted (Chart 18). Although the credit and fiscal impulse has bottomed, we expect to see it rebound only moderately, with just minor cuts in interest rates and the reserve ratio. This will stabilize Chinese growth, but not cause a boom as in 2020, 2016 or 2013. The rise in industrial commodities prices, therefore, is likely to be limited from here. For oil, as mentioned above, we expect to see Brent crude return to around $85 by the second half, as new supply comes onto the market. Gold has done well, as expected, in the face of a major geopolitical event. But it is expensive by historical standards, vulnerable to a rise in real (as opposed to nominal rates) as inflation eases (Chart 19), and faces cryptocurrencies as a rival. We keep our neutral, as a hedge against the tail-risk of much higher inflation, but would not chase the price at this level. Chart 18China's Stimulus Isn't Enough To Help Metals Prices Chart 19Rising Real Rates Are Negative For Gold Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Reports, “Russia Takes Ukraine: What Next?” dated February 24, 2022, and "From Nixon-Mao To Putin-Xi," dated February 25, 2022. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy, “The New Neutral” dated January 14, 2022. Recommended Asset Allocation Model Portfolio (USD Terms)
Executive Summary Risk Premium Abates, But Does Not Disappear The risk premium in crude oil and natural gas prices is abating, and we expect that to continue. In the immediate aftermath of Russia's invasion, Brent crude oil traded close to $105/bbl on Thursday. At the urging of China's Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin suggested he is prepared to enter negotiations with Ukraine in Minsk to discuss the latter's neutrality. Whether Ukraine is amenable to negotiations framed in this manner remains to be seen. Nothing has changed in supply-demand balances for oil or natgas. Markets are tight, and more supply is needed. In this highly fluid situation, we project Brent crude oil will average $100.00/bbl in 1Q22; $90.30/bbl in 2Q22; $85.00/bbl in 3Q22; and $85.00/bbl in 4Q22 (see Chart). Our estimate for 2023 Brent averages $85.00/bbl. Upside risk dominates in the near term. We expect the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Kuwait, the only members of OPEC 2.0 with the capacity to increase and sustain higher production, to lift output by 1.75mm b/d. The Iran nuclear deal likely gets a boost from the Russian invasion, which will hasten the return of ~ 1.0mm b/d of production in 2H22, perhaps sooner. We also expect the US, and possibly the OECD, to release strategic petroleum reserves, but, as typically is the case, this will have a fleeting impact on markets and pricing. These supply increases will return prices closer to our base case forecast, which we raise slightly to $85/bbl from 2H22 to end-2023. If we fail to see an increase in core-OPEC production, or the US shales, or if Iranian barrels are not returned to export markets, oil prices have a good chance of moving to $140/bbl, as can be seen in the accompanying Chart. Bottom Line: We remain long commodity-index exposure (S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF), along with equity exposure to oil and gas producers via the XOP ETF.
Executive Summary Oil-Price Risk Skewed Upward The $10-$15/bbl risk premium in Brent prices will dissipate over the next month. Russia's best outcome is to follow the off-ramp offered by the US. President Biden's call to KSA's King Salman last week will result in higher oil output from the Kingdom, the UAE and Kuwait, in return for deeper US defense commitments. The Biden administration and Iran are in a hurry to get a deal done: The US wants lower oil prices, and Iran needs the revenue. Our Brent forecasts for 2022 and 2023 are revised slightly to $81.50 and $79.75/bbl, respectively, reflecting supply-demand adjustments. Price risks are tilted to the upside: A miss on any of the above assumptions will keep prices above $90/bbl, and push them higher. Bottom Line: Oil demand will remain robust this year and next. To keep prices from surging from current levels into demand-destruction territory, additional supply is needed. Most of this will come from KSA, the UAE and the US shale-oil producers. We expect prices to fall from current prompt levels this year and next. This will support sovereign budgets and oil producers' free cashflow goals. We remain long the XOP ETF. Feature The $10-$15/bbl risk premium in Brent crude oil prices will dissipate, as the following supply-side events are ticked off: 1) Russia gets on the off-ramp offered by the US last week to de-escalate the threat of another invasion of Ukraine by withdrawing its troops from the border;1 2) OPEC 2.0's core producers – the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Kuwait – increase supply in return for deeper US security commitments; 3) Iran restores its remaining 1.0 – 1.2mm b/d of production to the market, following the restoration of its nuclear deal with Western powers; and 4) US shale-oil producers step up production in response to higher WTI prices. Politics, Then Economics The first three assumptions above are political in nature, requiring a bargain be struck among contending interests to resolve. We do not believe Russia's endgame is to jeopardize its future oil and gas exports to the West, particularly to the EU (Chart 1). The US is warning that another invasion of Ukraine will put the use of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to deliver gas to Germany at risk.2 It also is worthwhile noting NATO is aligned with the US on this stance. Russia derived 40-50% of its budget revenues from oil and gas production, and ~ 67% of its export revenue from oil and gas over the decade ended in 2020.3 Of course, only President Putin can determine whether oil and gas sales can be diversified enough – e.g., via higher shipments to China – to offset whatever penalties the West imposes. But, in a game-theoretic sense, the stakes are very high, and taking the US off-ramp is rational. Chart 1Russia's Critical Exports: Oil + Gas We expect the second assumption to play out in the near term, following US President Joe Biden's call to KSA's King Salman last week. The outreach stressed the US commitment to defend KSA and, presumably, its close allies in the Gulf (the UAE and Kuwait).4 KSA already has increased its production to 10.15mm b/d under the OPEC 2.0 agreement to restore 400k b/d beginning in August 2021. We estimate the coalition had fallen behind on this effort by ~ 1mm b/d, as only KSA, the UAE and Kuwait presently have the capacity to lift production and sustain it (Table 1). KSA's reference production level agreed at OPEC 2.0's July 2021 meeting will rise to 11.5mm b/d in June, up 500k b/d from its current level (Table 2). This means KSA could flex into another 850k b/d between now and the end of May; and another 500k b/d after that. The UAE's and Kuwait's reference production levels will rise 330k and 150k b/d in June to 3.5mm b/d and 3.0mm b/d, respectively. Markets will need these incremental volumes as demand continues to recover and non-core OPEC 2.0 production continues to fall (Chart 2). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) To Dec23 Table 2Baseline Increases For Core OPEC 2.0 Our third assumption reflects our reading of the signaling by Iran over the past few weeks, which indicate growing confidence a deal with the US to restore the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is in the offing.5 The politics here converge with the economics: the Biden Administration wants to increase oil supply ahead of mid-term elections in the US to keep gasoline prices under control; Iran needs to increase its revenues. Both sides get an immediate need satisfied. However, the risks to KSA and its Gulf allies will increase as Iran's revenues grow, because it will be able to fund proxy-war operations against the Gulf states. This is why deepening the US defense commitment to the region is critical to KSA and its allies. The last assumption reflects our view US E+P companies are being incentivized to lift production by high prompt and deferred prices. We continue to expect these companies – particularly those in the US shales, where the majority of the production increase will occur – to husband their capital resources closely, and to continue to prioritize shareholder interests. As capital availability declines – primarily due to reduced investor interest in investing in hydrocarbon production – these firms will have to focus on reducing operating costs and increasing productivity over the next decade to fund growth. Relative to 2021, we expect US oil production to increase 0.85mm b/d this year and by 0.53mm b/d in 2023 relative to this year, as producers respond to higher prices (Chart 3). Chart 2Increased Core OPEC 2.0 Production Becoming Critical Chart 3US Oil Production Will See Another Up Leg Supply-Demand Balances Are Tight Global oil demand growth this year is reduced slightly in our balances – going to 4.5mm b/d from 4.8mm b/d, mostly reflecting our assessment of slowing growth as central banks remove monetary accommodation. We lifted next year's growth estimate slightly, to 1.7mm b/d. These estimates still leave our growth expectations above the major data providers, the highest of which is OPEC's 4.2mm b/d estimate. We continue to expect DM demand to level off this year and next, and EM demand to retake its position as the global demand growth engine (Chart 4). The supply side remains tight, with average global crude oil and liquid fuels production estimated at 101.5mm b/d for 2022 and 102.8mm b/d for next year. With demand expected to average 101.5mm b/d this year and 103.2mm b/d next year, markets will remain balanced but tight (Chart 5). This means inventories will continue to be strained, leaving little in the way of a cushion to absorb unexpected supply losses (Chart 6). Chart 4EM Demand Retakes Growth-Engine Role Chart 5Markets Remain Balanced But Tight... Chart 6...Keeping Pressure On Inventories Markets Remain Balanced But Tight Our supply-demand analysis indicates markets will remain balanced but tight, with inventories under pressure until supply increases. This will predispose markets to higher price volatility, as low inventories force prices to ration supply. This will increase the backwardation in the Brent and WTI curves, which will bolster the convenience yield in both of these markets (Chart 7).6 We expect implied volatility to remain elevated, as a result (Chart 8). Chart 7Backwardation Will Keep Convenience Yield Elevated Chart 8High Volatility Will Persist Because of these low inventory values, Brent prices for 2022 are higher than our previous estimate. By 2023, the effects of increased supply from KSA, UAE, Kuwait – albeit a marginal increase – and the US kick in to reduce prices. As supply increases, the risk premium currently embedded in Brent prices will decline, pushing them to our forecasted levels for 2022 and 2023 of $81.50/bbl and $79.75/bbl, respectively. For 1H22, we expect Brent prices to average $87.20/bbl, and in 2H22 we're forecasting a price of $75.80/bbl on the back of increased production. Next year, higher output will keep prices close to $80/bbl, with 1H23 Brent averaging $79.85 and 2H23 averaging $79.70/bbl. Word Of Caution Our analysis is predicated on strong assumptions regarding the incentives of oil producers taking a rational view of the need for stability and supply in markets. The bottom panel of Chart 9 provides an indication of how tenuous markets are if our assumptions are mistaken, and core OPEC 2.0 does not increase production, Iranian barrels are not returned to the market, or the US shale supply response is less vigorous than we expect. The highest price trajectory occurs when all of our assumptions prove wrong, which takes Brent prices above $140/bbl by the end of 2023. It goes without saying this is non-trivial. But we'll say it anyway: This is non-trivial. We can reasonably expect feedback loops in such a case – e.g., US and Canadian production kicks into high gear, and once-idled North Sea are brought back into service. However, this takes time, and will cause demand destruction on a global scale. Chart 9Scenarios For Oil Prices Investment Implications Oil markets will remain tight and volatile until additional supplies are forthcoming. We are expecting core OPEC 2.0 to lift output by 3.2mm b/d this year, and for the US Lower 48 production to average 9.8mm b/d. The US production increase will be led by higher shale-oil output, which we expect to average 7.4mm b/d this year and 7.8mm b/d in 2023. Given the tight markets we expect, we remain long the XOP ETF, and commodity index exposure in the form of the S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF, an optimized version of the S&P GSCI. Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish Marketed volumes of US natural gas are expected to hit a record high of just under 107 Bcf/d next year as prices stabilize close to $4/MMBtu, in the EIA's latest estimate. This is up from just over 104 Bcf/d of marketed production this year, which itself was a 3 Bcf/d increase over 2021 levels. Almost all of this will come from the Lower 48 (97%). We expect US LNG exports to increase on the back of rising production and further investment in export terminals. Most of this will be shipped to Europe, in our estimation, as EU states seek to diversify LNG sources in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine standoff currently underway. LNG imports accounted for roughly one-fifth of all natural gas supplied to the UK and EU-27 in 2020, according to the EIA, which notes, "Growing volumes of flexible LNG supplies, primarily from the United States, contributed to the notable increases in LNG imports to Europe from 2019 to 2021." Wide price differentials can be expected to support the flow of LNG to Europe from the US (Chart 10). Base Metals: Bullish Iron ore prices took a hit after China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) stated its intentions to stabilize iron ore markets, crack down on speculation and false price disclosures after prices in 2022 rallied sharply last week. Authorities believe price strength is coming from speculation and hoarding, which is adding to inflationary pressures. However, fundamental factors have been, and likely will keep iron ore prices buoyed. Based on past steel inventory levels and seasonal patterns, steel production will increase and more than double current inventory levels by end-March. Monetary policy easing, and the push by China’s steel industry to become carbon-neutral over the next five years are additional fundamental factors supporting iron ore prices. Precious Metals: Bullish The January print for US CPI jumped 7.5% year-on-year, beating estimates as headline inflation rose to a 40-year high. Markets are expecting around five interest increases this year (Chart 11). BCA’s US Bond Strategy expects rate hikes will be around 100 – 125 bps this year. Gold prices initially fell on the possibility of increasing rate hikes and a hawkish Fed, but in the second half of last week settled at subsequently higher prices on each day. Apart from increased inflation demand, this was likely due to markets’ fear of the possibility of an ultra-hawkish Fed, which could tighten US financial conditions and see a rotation out of US equity markets into safe-haven assets or into other markets ex-US, both of which will be bullish for gold. Chart 10 Chart 11 Footnotes 1 Please see Background Press Call by a Senior Administration Official on the President’s Call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, released by the US White House on February 12, 2022. 2 Please see Long-Term EU Gas Volatility Will Increase, which we published on February 3, 2022 for further discussion. The EU is a huge market for Russia supplies Germany with 65% of its gas. Approximately 78% of total natural gas exports (pipeline + LNG) from Russia went to the EU in 2020. 3 Please see Russia’s Unsustainable Business Model: Going All In on Oil and Gas, published on January 19, 2021 by the Hague Centre for Strategic Studies (HCSS). 4 Please see Readout of President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.’s Call with King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud of Saudi Arabia, released on February 7, 2022. The readout noted, " issues of mutual concern, including Iranian-enabled attacks by the Houthis against civilian targets in Saudi Arabia." Energy security also was discussed, which we read as code for a deal to increase production in return for a deepening of US defense commitments. This line is followed closely by Gulf media – e.g., It took Biden a year to realize Saudi Arabia’s vital regional role, published by arabnews.com on February 13, 2022, which notes: "If Putin decides to invade Ukraine, the Saudis are the only ones who could help relieve the unsteady oil markets by pumping more crude, being the largest crude exporter in the OPEC oil production group. The White House emphasized that both leaders further reiterated the commitment of the US and Saudi Arabia in ensuring the stability of global energy supplies. 5 Please see Iran 'is in a hurry' to revive nuclear deal if its interests secured -foreign minister, published by reuters.com on February 14, 2022. 6 Please see our November 4, 2021 report entitled Despite Weaker Prices Crude Oil Backwardation Will Persist for additional discussion of convenience yields and volatility. Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed in 2021
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)
Highlights The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), Iraq, the UAE and Kuwait – the OPEC 2.0 states capable of increasing production this year – will have to step up for coalition members unable to lift output, including Russia. US shale-oil output also will have to increase to cover demand. The COVID-19 omicron variant has proven to be less severe than anticipated, which likely will translate into a faster recovery in oil demand than was expected in December. One risk looms large: China's zero-COVID policy greatly reduced virus transmission in the country; however, this also reduced natural antibody protection in its population. This is exacerbated by a lack of mRNA vaccine availability. Faltering supply and strong demand will keep inventories tight, reducing buffers to supply shocks – e.g., the Kirkuk–Ceyhan Oil Pipeline explosion this week. We are returning our Brent forecast for 2022 to $80/bbl; for 2023, we continue to expect $81/bbl (Chart of the week). Our forecast assumes OPEC 2.0 will increase supply so as to keep Brent prices below $90/bbl. US shale-oil output also is expected to rise. We continue to see oil-price risk skewed to the upside. Still, demand-destruction from high prices or widespread omicron-induced lockdowns remain clear risks to our outlook. Feature Given the relatively mild symptoms associated with the COVID-19 omicron variant, global oil demand likely will continue to recover lost ground and return to trend sooner than expected. Faltering supply from OPEC 2.0 member states means prices will remain elevated, and perhaps push higher. On the back of these fundamentals, we are restoring our Brent price forecast to $80/bbl for this year, and $81/bbl for 2023. This is the consensus view, and we find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of sharing it. Presently, the oil market is bulled up, expecting high prices this year and next, with Brent forecasts clustering in the $80-$85/bbl range out to 2025.1 Some headline-grabbing forecasts call for $100-plus prices, as top OPEC 2.0 producers – e.g. Russia, Angola and Nigeria– continue to strain in their efforts to restore production, and demand remains buoyant (Chart 2). A consensus usually emerges after most market participants have adjusted their positioning to reflect a commonly held view. This usually is a temporary equilibrium. The market typically finds the highest-pain price trajectory required to shatter the consensus view – e.g., selling off because widely held demand expectations are too high or supply expectations are too low, and vice versa. Ultimately, a fundamental shock destabilizes the consensus, and prices move higher or lower to reflect the new reality. The biggest risks to our price forecast are demand destruction from high prices or widespread omicron-induced lockdowns.2 To keep prices from finding a new equilibrium above $90/bbl, a policy response from OPEC 2.0 to increase production will be required. In addition, US shale-oil output will have to increase. This is not to say we are dismissing above-consensus price realizations: Inventories will continue to draw hard as long as the level of supply remains below demand. This will leave little in the way of buffer stocks to even out price spikes, as the Ceyhan pipeline explosion demonstrated earlier this week.3 Geopolitical tensions are high in eastern Europe as Russia and the West square off, and in the Persian Gulf as Iran squares off against GCC states and the US.4 These structural and geopolitical risks leave markets exposed to volatile price spikes. OPEC 2.0 Falters Our forecast is contingent on the core OPEC 2.0 member states ex-Russia – KSA, Iraq, the UAE and Kuwait – increasing production by an average of ~ 3.34mmb/d in 2022 and 2.76 mmb/d in 2023 relative to 2021. Most of the increases comes from KSA, Iraq and UAE (Chart 3). In addition, we expect US shale-oil producers to increase their average output by 0.6mm b/d this year, and 1.07mm b/d in 2023 relative to 2021 (Chart 4). In 2022, US crude oil supply reaches 11.7mm b/d, and in 2023 it goes to 12.13mm b/d in our estimates. The slower increase in US output this year largely is a function of the delay we expect in assembling rigs and crews to significantly lift production from current levels. These production increases are needed to make up for ongoing downgrades of OPEC 2.0 member states' ability to increase output, including Russia, where we expect crude oil production to remain flat at a little over 10mm b/d this year on average (Table 1). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) To Dec23 Back in July 2021, the coalition agreed to restore 400k b/d of production taken off the market in the wake of COVID-19 demand destruction. Thus far, the coalition has only managed to restore ~ 1.86mm b/d of the 2mm b/d pledged for August to December 2021, according to the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies (OIES). For this year, the OIES notes OPEC 2.0 "will struggle to return more than 2 mb/d of withheld supplies in 2022, compared to the headline target of 3.76 mb/d."5 Our view rests on a policy call at the end of the day: We believe OPEC 2.0 – KSA in particular – is well aware of the demand-destruction potential high nominal prices and a strong USD pose, particularly as the US Fed is embarking on a rate-hike program to accompany the quantitative-tightening measures recently adopted. Absent a concerted effort to raise production by the core OPEC 2.0 states ex-Russia and the US shale producers, prices could move above $86/bbl as supply tightens and demand continues to rise. This can be seen in The Chart of the Week (the dashed brown curve depicting our estimate for prices without higher production). Importantly, even if such a concerted effort emerges, a failure to resolve the Iran nuclear talks with the US and its allies this year would keep more than 1mm b/d of production from returning to the market. This would push average Brent prices this year and next to or above $90/bbl. Oil Demand Recovery To Continue Provided we do not see widespread lockdowns resulting from the rapid transmission of the omicron variant, we expect global demand to grow close to 4.8mm b/d this year and 1.6mm b/d in 2023 (Chart 5). This reflects our view that – baring too-high prices or another full-scale COVID-induced lockdown in a key market like China – demand resumes its return to trend. It is important to point out that the increase in oil demand we expect is being driven by economic growth, which means consumers likely can withstand high prices, just as long as they do not become excessive – i.e., entrenched above $90/bbl in our view. Chart 5Global Oil Demand Forecast Remains Steady Chart 6OPEC 2.0 Production Policy Kept Supply Below Demand In our base case model, we continue to see markets remaining balanced (Chart 6) – assuming we get the policy calls right – and OECD oil inventories falling (Chart 7). Even with an uptick in inventories, which presently are 31.5mm barrels above the 2010-14 average, days-forward-cover for the OECD will remain low (Chart 8). Chart 7Crude Inventories Continue To Draw Investment Implications The consensus view calls for oil prices to remain at current elevated levels, and to perhaps push higher. We share that view – and have maintained it for some time – which gives us pause. A consensus not only reflects a shared view. It likely reflects broad similarities in the way market participants are positioned in their capex, investment and trading outlooks. This is inherently unstable. We expect oil prices to remain elevated, and have returned our 2022 Brent forecast to $80/bbl on average. Our 2023 forecast for Brent remains $81/bbl. We continue to recommend positions that benefit from tightening markets in which forward curves are backwardated and likely to remain so. Even if we see production increasing – from the OPEC 2.0 core producers ex-Russia and the US shales – we still expect forward Brent and WTI curves to remain backwardated (prompt-delivery prices exceed deferred-delivery prices). We remain long the S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF to express this view. If we fail to see production increase to keep prices from breaching and sustaining levels above $90/bbl, long index exposure will post higher gains. The risk to our view is two-fold: 1) High prices leading to demand-destruction, which is made more acute when the USD is strong; and 2) widespread omicron-induced lockdowns, which could once again reduce consumption and lead to global supply-chain gridlock. High prices leading to demand destruction, or another round of lockdowns would force us to reconsider our positioning. Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Paula Struk Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy paula.struk@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish It's very early days, but EU experts are reviewing a draft plan leaked to the media earlier this month, which could result in gas- and nuclear-powered generation being included among sustainable energy sources, and suitable to bridge the global energy transition to renewable power. The draft of the common classification system for EU funding of sustainable economic activities, or taxonomy, apparently states gas plants can earn a “transitional” label if they meet several criteria, including an emissions limit of 270g of CO2e/kWh, or if their annual emissions average 550kg CO2e/kW or less over 20 years. This criterion would be applied to judging environmental performance of a gas plant over 20 years, but offers no guarantee that its emissions would drop over time. The chair of the expert panel said draft rules for nukes raised questions over "whether a plant can guarantee its green credentials today, if its obligation to manage nuclear waste – one of the main environmental concerns about the fuel – does not kick in until as late as 2050," according to euractiv.com, which broke the story earlier this month. Base Metals: Bullish Indonesia has become more restrictive with exports of raw commodities in order to attract more downstream investments and to play a bigger role in producing finished goods. Of these commodities, Indonesia’s supply of nickel, relative to the world is the highest, constituting ~ 38% of total global nickel supply. In 2020, the nation banned nickel ore exports, and is now considering a progressive export tax on low nickel content products such as ferronickel and nickel pig iron. This tax could reduce foreign investment in Indonesia’s nickel mines and global supply, which would, all else equal, support prices. These developments arrive on the back of low nickel inventories, which helped prices of the key battery metal reach a 10-year high last week (Chart 9). Precious Metals: Bullish In 2021, gold ETFs were hit by outflows of ~ $9 billion, the main reason the yellow metal was unable to reach its 2020 high above the $2,000/oz mark (Chart 10). For this year, we expect a supportive gold market, as real interest rates will remain weak despite the Fed’s hawkish tilt to lift nominal interest rates higher. In line with BCA’s Foreign Exchange Strategy service, we expect the USD to fall over the 12-18 month horizon, which will also bolster gold. Chart 9 Footnotes 1 Please see Column: Oil prices expected to rise with big variation in projections: Kemp, published by reuters.com on January 19, 2022. 2 High nominal oil prices and a strong USD compound the former demand-destruction risk. The latter risk of wide-spread omicron-induced lockdowns is elevated in China at present. Its success in shutting down the transmission of earlier COVID-19 mutations has reduced the amount of antibodies to the virus in the population. This is compounded by a lack of mRNA vaccine production and distribution, which leaves the country at risk to wide-spread omicron transmission. In states with large shares of the population carrying COVID-19 antibodies – e.g., the UK – omicron is less of a risk and is on course to becoming endemic. Please see 2022 Key Views: Past As Prelude For Commodities and Endemic COVID-19 Will Spur Commodities' Next Leg Higher which we published on December 16, 2021 and January 13, 2022 for discussions. 3 Oil flows are expected to return to normal in short order. Please see Halted Iraq-Turkey flows to resume within hour: Botas, published by argusmedia.com on January 19, 2022. 4 Please see Russia/Ukraine: Implications From Kazakhstan and Geopolitical Charts For The New Year published by BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy service on January 7 and 14, 2022, respectively, for discussions. 5 Please see Key Themes for the Global Energy Economy in 2022 published by the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies on January 18, 2022. Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed in 2021
Highlights The neutral rate of interest in the US is 3%-to-4% in nominal terms or 1%-to-2% in real terms, which is substantially higher than the Fed believes and the market is discounting. The end of the household deleveraging cycle, rising wealth, stronger capital spending and homebuilding, and a structurally looser fiscal stance have all increased aggregate demand. In addition, deglobalization and population aging are depleting global savings, raising the neutral rate in the process. A higher neutral rate implies that monetary policy is currently more stimulative than widely perceived. This is good news for stocks, as it reduces the near-term odds of a recession. The longer-term risk is that monetary policy will stay too loose for too long, causing the US economy to overheat. This could prompt the Fed to raise rates well above neutral, an outcome that would certainly spell the end of the secular equity bull market. Investors should overweight stocks in 2022 but look to turn more defensive in late 2023. We are taking partial profits on our long December-2022 Brent futures trade, which is up 17.3% since inception. We are also closing our short meme stocks trade. AMC and GME are down 53% and 47%, respectively, since we initiated it. The Neutral Rate Matters At first glance, the neutral rate of interest – the interest rate consistent with full employment and stable inflation – seems like a concept only an egghead economist would care about. After all, unlike actual interest rates, the neutral rate cannot be observed in real time. The best one can do is deduce it after the fact, something that does not seem very relevant for investment decisions. While this perspective is understandable, it is misguided. The yield on a long-term bond is largely a function of what investors expect short-term rates to be over the life of the bond. Today, investors expect the Fed to raise rates to only 1.75% during this tightening cycle, a far cry from previous peaks in interest rates (Chart 1). Chart 2Investor Worries That The Fed Will Tighten Too Much Has Led To A Flattening Of The Yield Curve Chart 1Expected Rate Hikes Are A Far Cry From Previous Peaks In Interest Rates Far from worrying that the Fed will keep rates too low for too long in the face of high inflation, investors are worried that the Fed will tighten too much. This is the main reason why the yield curve has flattened over the past three months and the 20-year/30-year portion of the yield curve has inverted (Chart 2). Secular Stagnation Remains The Consensus View Why are so many investors convinced that the Fed will be unable to raise rates all that much over the next few years? The answer is that most investors have bought into the secular stagnation thesis, which posits that the neutral rate of interest has fallen dramatically over time. The secular stagnation thesis comes in two versions: The first or “strong form” describes an economy that needs a deeply negative – and hence unattainable – nominal interest rate to reach full employment. Japan comes to mind as an example. The country has had near-zero interest rates since the mid-1990s; and yet it continues to suffer from deflation. The second or "weak form" describes the case where a country needs a low, but still positive, interest rate to reach full employment. Such an interest rate is attainable by the central bank, and hence creates a goldilocks outlook for investors where profits return to normal, but asset prices continue to get propped up by an ultra-low discount rate. The “weak form” version of the secular stagnation thesis arguably describes the United States. Post-GFC Deleveraging Pushed Down The Neutral Rate One can think of the neutral rate as the interest rate that equates aggregate demand with aggregate supply at full employment. If something causes the aggregate demand curve to shift inwards, a lower real interest rate would be required to bring demand back up (Chart 3). Like many other countries, the US experienced a prolonged deleveraging cycle following the Global Financial Crisis. The ratio of household debt-to-GDP has declined by 23 percentage points since 2008. The need for households to repair their balance sheets weighed on spending, thus necessitating a lower interest rate. Admittedly, corporate debt has risen over the past decade, with the result that overall private debt has remained broadly stable as a share of GDP (Chart 4). However, the drag on aggregate demand from declining household debt was not offset by the boost to demand from rising corporate debt. Whereas falling household debt curbed consumer spending, rising corporate debt did little to boost investment spending. This is because most of the additional corporate debt went into financial engineering – including share buybacks and M&A activity – rather than capex. In fact, the average age of the private-sector capital stock has increased from 21 years in 2010 to 23.4 years at present (Chart 5). Chart 4Household Debt Has Fallen From Its Highs, While Corporate Debt Has Risen Since The GFC Chart 5The Average Age Of Capital Stock Has Been Increasing Buoyant Consumer And Business Spending Will Prop Up The Neutral Rate Today, the US economy finds itself in a far different spot than 12 years ago. Households are borrowing again. Consumer credit rose by $40 billion in November, the largest monthly increase on record, and double the consensus estimate (Chart 6). Banks are easing lending standards across all consumer loan categories (Chart 7). Chart 6Big Jump In Consumer Credit Chart 7Banks Are Easing Lending Standards For All Consumer Loans Chart 8Net Worth Has Soared Over The Past Two Years Meanwhile, years of easy money have pushed up asset prices, a dynamic that was only supercharged by the pandemic. We estimate that household wealth rose by 145% of GDP between the end of 2019 and the end of 2021 – the largest two-year increase on record (Chart 8). A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that this increase in wealth could boost aggregate demand by 5%.1 Reacting to the prospect of stronger final demand, businesses are ramping up capex (Chart 9). After moving sideways for two decades, capital goods orders have soared. Surveys of capex intentions remain at elevated levels. Against the backdrop of empty shelves and warehouses, inventory investment should also remain robust. Residential investment will increase (Chart 10). The homeowner vacancy rate has dropped to a record low, as have inventories of new and existing homes for sale. Homebuilder sentiment rose to a 10-month high in December. Building permits are 11% above pre-pandemic levels. Amazingly, homebuilders are trading at only 7-times forward earnings. We recommend owning the sector. Chart 9Investment Spending Will Stay Strong Chart 10US Housing Will Remain Well Supported Fiscal Policy: Tighter But Not Tight Chart 11Chinese Credit Impulse Seems To Be Bottoming As in most other countries, the US budget deficit will decline over the next few years, as pandemic-related measures roll off and tax receipts increase on the back of a strengthening economy. Nevertheless, we expect the structural budget deficit to remain 1%-to-2% of GDP larger in the post-pandemic period, following the passage of the infrastructure bill last November and what is likely to be a slimmed down social spending package focusing on green energy, universal pre-kindergarten, and health insurance subsidies. The shift towards structurally more accommodative fiscal policies will play out in most other major economies. In the euro area, spending under the Next Generation EU recovery fund will accelerate later this year, with southern Europe being the primary beneficiary. In Japan, the government has approved a US$315 billion supplementary budget. Matt Gertken, BCA’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist, expects Prime Minister Kishida to pursue a quasi-populist agenda ahead of the upper house election on July 25th. China is also set to loosen policy. The Ministry of Finance has indicated that it intends to “proactively” support growth in 2022. For its part, the PBoC cut the reserve requirement ratio by 50 basis points on December 6th. The 6-month credit impulse has already turned up (Chart 11). More Than The Sum Of Their Parts Chart 12The Labor Share Typically Rises When Unemployment Falls As discussed above, the end of the deleveraging cycle, rising household wealth, stronger capital spending and homebuilding, and a structurally looser fiscal stance have all increased aggregate demand in the US. While each of these factors have independently raised the neutral rate of interest, taken together, the impact has been even greater. For example, stronger consumption has undoubtedly incentivized greater investment by firms eager to expand capacity. Strong GDP growth, in turn, has pushed up asset prices, leading to even more spending. Furthermore, a tighter labor market has propped up wage growth, especially among low-wage workers. Historically, labor’s share of overall national income has increased when unemployment has fallen (Chart 12). To the extent that workers spend more of their income than capital owners, a higher labor share raises aggregate demand, thus putting upward pressure on the neutral rate. The Retreat From Globalization Will Push Up The Neutral Rate… Chart 13The Ratio Of Global Trade-To-Output Has Been Flat For Over A Decade Globalization lowered the neutral rate of interest both because it shifted the balance of power from workers to businesses; and also because it allowed countries such as the US, which run chronic current account deficits, to import foreign capital rather than relying exclusively on domestic savings. The era of hyperglobalization has ended, however. The ratio of global trade-to-manufacturing output has been flat for over a decade (Chart 13). Looking out, the ratio could decline as geopolitical tensions between China and the rest of the world continue to simmer, and more companies shift production back home in order to gain greater control over the supply chains of essential goods. … As Will Population Aging Chart 14Most Of The Deceleration In US Potential Real GDP Growth Has Already Taken Place Aging populations can affect the neutral rate either by dragging down investment demand or by reducing savings. The former would lead to a lower neutral rate, while the latter would lead to a higher rate. As Chart 14 shows, most of the decline in US potential GDP growth has already occurred. According to the Congressional Budget Office, real potential GDP growth fell from over 3% in the early 1980s to about 1.9% today, mainly due to slower labor force growth. The CBO expects potential growth to edge down to 1.7% over the next few decades. In contrast, the depletion of national savings from an aging population is just beginning. Baby boomers are leaving the labor force en masse. They hold over half of US household wealth, considerably more than younger generations (Chart 15). As baby boomers transition from net savers to net dissavers, national savings will fall, leading to a higher neutral rate. The pandemic has accelerated this trend insomuch as it has caused about 1.2 million workers to retire earlier than they would have otherwise (Chart 16). Chart 16Number Of Retired People Jumped During The Pandemic To What Extent Are Higher Rates Self-Limiting? Some commentators contend that any effort by central banks to bring policy rates towards neutral would reduce aggregate demand by so much that it would undermine the rationale for why the neutral rate had increased in the first place. In particular, they argue that higher rates would drag down asset prices, thus curbing the magnitude of the wealth effect. While there is some truth to this argument, its proponents overstate their case. History suggests that stocks tend to brush off rising bond yields, provided that yields do not rise to prohibitively high levels (Table 1). Table 1As Long As Bond Yields Don’t Rise Into Restrictive Territory, Stocks Will Recover Chart 17The Equity Risk Premium Remains High The last five weeks are a case in point. Both 10-year and 30-year Treasury yields have risen nearly 40 bps since December 3rd. Yet, the S&P 500 has gained 2.7% since then. Keep in mind that the forward earnings yield for US stocks still exceeds the real bond yield by 552 bps, which is quite high by historic standards. The gap between earnings yields and real bond yields is even greater abroad (Chart 17). Thus, stocks have scope to absorb an increase in bond yields without a significant PE multiple contraction. Investment Implications Our analysis suggests that the neutral rate of interest in the US is substantially higher than widely believed. How much higher is difficult to gauge, but our guess is that in real terms, it is between 1% and 2%. This is substantially higher than survey measures of the neutral rate, which peg it at close to 0% in real terms (Chart 18). It is also significantly higher than 10-year and 30-year TIPS yields, which stand at -0.73% and -0.17%, respectively (Chart 19). The neutral rate has also increased in other economies, although not as much as in the US. Chart 18Both The Fed And Investors Have Lowered Their Estimate Of The Neutral Rate Chart 19Long-Term Real Rates Remain Depressed If the neutral rate turns out to be higher than the consensus view, then monetary policy is currently more stimulative than widely perceived. That is good news for stocks, as it would reduce the near-term odds of a recession. Hence, we remain positive on stocks over a 12-month horizon, with a preference for non-US equities. In terms of sector preferences, we maintain our bias for banks over tech. The longer-term risk is that monetary policy will stay too easy, causing the economy to overheat. This could prompt the Fed to raise rates well above neutral, an outcome that would certainly spell the end of the secular equity bull market. Such a day of reckoning could be reached by late 2023. Two Trade Updates We are taking partial profits on our long December-2022 Brent futures trade by cutting our position by 50%. The trade is up 17.3% since inception. Bob Ryan, BCA’s Chief Commodity Strategist, still sees upside for oil prices, so we are keeping the other half of our position for the time being. We are also closing our short meme stocks trade. AMC and GME are down 53% and 47%, respectively, since we initiated it. While the outlook for both companies remains challenging, there is an outside chance that they will find a way to leverage their meme status to create profitable businesses. This makes us inclined to move to the sidelines. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 In line with published estimates, we assume that households spend 5 cents of every one dollar increase in housing wealth, 2 cents of every dollar increase in equity wealth, 10 cents out of bank deposits, and 2 cents out of other assets. Of the 145% of GDP in increased household net worth between the end of 2019 and the end of 2021, 19% stemmed from higher housing wealth, 52% from higher equity wealth, 12% from higher bank deposits, and 17% from other categories. View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores
Highlights Data from the UK revealed it is tantalizingly close to declaring COVID-19 an endemic virus, indicating Britain likely will exit the pandemic ahead of other states soon. The UK is a bellwether market regarding its public-health response to the coronavirus. Some 95% of its population is estimated to carry COVID-19 antibodies (Chart of the Week). Other states – e.g., the US, the EU – have followed the UK with a lag, which we expect will continue. While the Fed's reassurance it will be able to hike rates without disrupting labor markets no doubt encourages markets – and boosted commodity prices – we believe the return to economic normalcy that would be ushed in by endemicity will release pent-up consumer demand for goods and services. This will spur commodity demand. If COVID-19 becomes endemic in enough economies globally, it also would fuel inflation, and inflation expectations.1 Given the tight supplies of industrial commodities – chiefly oil, natural gas and base metals – our assessment of upside price risk is higher now than it was at year-end 2021. We remain long broad-based commodity exposure via the COMT ETF, the PICK ETF, and the S&P GSCI index. Feature Fed Chair Powell's confidence that the US central bank will raise rates and keep inflation under control without destabilizing labor markets stole the show earlier this week. The media credited Powell's remarks for the burst of enthusiasm that lifted commodities as an asset class higher. While none would gainsay the Fed's importance to commodity markets, we would point out the approaching endemicity of COVID-19 in the UK – and the likely follow-on from the US and other large commodity-consuming states – is of equal, if not greater, moment. The UK has been out in front on its public-health response to the COVID-19 pandemic and has become a bellwether in the northern hemisphere; the US will follow. This week, the UK's Office for National Statistics (ONS) reported ~ 95% of England's population tested positive for antibodies to COVID-19 via infection or vaccination in the week beginning 29 November 2021. Similar results were reported for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This is generally observed in all age cohorts tracked by ONS.2 According to David Heymann of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, "population immunity seems to be keeping the virus and its variants at bay, not causing serious illness or death in countries where population immunity is high."3 In a briefing hosted by Chatham House this week, Heymann observed, “And probably, in the UK, it’s the closest to any country of being out of the pandemic if it isn’t already out of the pandemic and having the disease as endemic as the other four coronaviruses” currently in circulation, which are responsible for roughly a quarter of common colds.4 Based on UK government data, the ratios of hospitalizations and deaths to COVID-19 cases has been falling precipitously (Chart 2). This is encouraging, given the sharp increase in cases driven by the rapid spread of the omicron mutant, which appears to be rolling over. Medical experts in the UK suggest the data also point to a possible peaking in the omicron surge. This would lighten the load on hospitals, as well as reduce death rates attributed to the coronavirus (Chart 3).5 Return To Normal? Nothing will return commodity markets to economic normalcy faster than endemicity. If this stays on track over the next month or so, it will spur commodity demand sooner rather than later, as pent-up consumer demand for goods and services is discounted by trading markets. If, as the data appear to indicate, the UK's transition from pandemic to endemic COVID-19 is followed by other states like the US and EU a few months later, we would expect a renewed leg up in the post-pandemic commodities rally. This would be apparent in futures contracts, which already are pricing commodity deliveries a month or more hence. Such a turn of events would force us to accelerate our time table for oil-demand recovery, which we expect will come in 2H22. This could restore our $80/bbl forecast for 2022, and lift our 2023 expectation. We also would have to revisit our copper and base metals view, and bring forward the timing of the copper-price rally we expect will lift COMEX refined copper to $4.80/lb and $6.00/bbl in 2022 and 2023, respectively, on average.6 These industrial commodities would see demand increase amid extremely tight supply conditions. Oil markets are tightening on the back of OPEC 2.0's production discipline, and the inability of many member states to fully restore the 400k b/d every month it signed on for beginning in August of last year, owning to production shortfalls outside the core producers of the coalition (Chart 4). Copper, the base-metals bellwether, remains very tight, as seen in balances (Chart 5) and inventories (Chart 6). Chart 4OPEC 2.0s Strategy Works Chart 5Coppers Physical Deficits Will Persist... Chart 6Globally, Exchange Warehouses Tighten China's zero-COVID-19 policy, which has resulted in numerous lock-downs at the local level, has yet to dent oil demand, which, for the time being, is hovering ~ 16mm b/d. We will be updating our oil balances and price forecasts next week, and will have a more extensive analysis of supply-demand balances then. Return Of Speculative Interest Expected With Endemicity Hedge funds have been reducing their exposure to the industrial commodities over the past year, which suggests they either have better alternatives for investing, or did not believe the rallies in commodities over the past year were durable, given the repeated demand shocks visited upon these markets by COVID-19 (Chart 7). We expect that once the pandemic becomes endemic, hedge funds will return to these markets. All the same, given the higher likelihood of price rallies in these markets, we would expect hedge funds to be cited as a cause of higher prices, as typically happens when markets take a sharp leg higher. Regular readers of our research are aware that this generally is not the case – hedge funds follow the news; they don't lead it. This past week we revisited earlier research to see if hedge-fund involvement in commodity markets causes the prices to go up or down to any meaningful degree. And, again, we found no relationship between hedge-fund positioning and the level of commodity prices.7 The presumed influence of hedge funds has been a persistent feature of futures markets in the post-GFC world, following the collapse of commodity prices along with financial markets in 2008. An entire literature has sprung up to explore the influence of these funds on commodity price formation. Below we highlight a few representative articles consistent with our results. Büyüksahin and Harris (2011) show hedge funds and other speculators follow prices – they do not lead them – based on the Granger-causality testing they performed on oil prices and speculative positioning.8 Brunetti et al (2016) argue hedge funds' trading stabilizes markets – i.e., they provide a bid when markets are selling off and an offer when markets are well bid – while swap-dealer trading is uncorrelated with price volatility.9 Knittel and Pindyck (2016) found speculation has reduced volatility in prices since 2004, including during the 2007-08 price run-up.10 Using a straightforward supply-demand-inventory model, they examined cash and storage markets to determine whether speculation had any effect on them or on convenience yields based on cash-vs-futures spreads. They concluded: "We found that although we cannot rule out that speculation had any effect on oil prices, we can indeed rule out speculation as an explanation for the sharp changes in prices beginning in 2004. Unless one believes that the price elasticities of both oil supply and demand are close to zero, the behavior of inventories and futures-spot spreads are simply inconsistent with the view that speculation has been a significant driver of spot prices. If anything, speculation had a slight stabilizing effect on prices." Investment Implications Assuming the UK remains a bellwether for DM economies with reasonably effective vaccine programs, or which have experienced an omicron surge, markets could be close to exiting the COVID-19 pandemic and entering a phase in which the coronavirus is endemic. This would be bullish for demand. And given the extended tightness on the supply side for industrial commodities in particular, it could presage another leg up in prices as economic normalcy returns. We continue to favor broad-based commodity exposure via the COMT ETF, the PICK ETF, and the S&P GSCI index. Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish US LNG baseload and peak liquification capacity is expected to rise ~ 13% this year to 11.4 Bcf/d and 13.8 Bcf/d (on a December-to-December basis), based on the EIA's latest estimates. The agency's forecast for LNG exports is up 17.3% to 11.5 Bcf/d this year, and 12.1 Bcf/d in 2023. With these increases in baseload and peak export capacity, the US is set to become the largest exporter of LNG in the world this year, in the EIA's estimation. This will be integral to US foreign policy, particularly in markets where the US competes with Russia for export sales, in our estimation. Within North America, US pipeline gas exports to Mexico and Canada are expected to average just under 9 Bcf/d this year, a 5% increase vs. 2021, and 9.2 Bcf/d in 2023. Base Metals: Bullish In China, seasonally low production, as stainless-steel firms undergo maintenance, and the upcoming Winter Olympics in February are keeping steel production subdued. To compound this supply shortage, tight raw material markets, particularly that of iron ore and nickel are buoying steel prices. Heavy rainfall in southern-eastern Brazil is curtailing iron ore production in the region. After Australia, Brazil is the second largest iron ore exporter to China. Nickel prices hit a 10-year high on Tuesday on the back of falling inventories. An LME outage also precipitated the price rise. Dwindling inventories point to increasing demand for the metal as electric vehicle companies ramp-up production and sales this year, particularly in China, where the government stated it will remove EV subsidies by the end of 2022. According to The China Passenger Car Association, EV sales in the country will double to 6 million this year. Precious Metals: Bullish Based on the December FOMC minutes, the markets are now pricing in a more hawkish tilt from the Fed, and expect an initial rate hike by March. The Fed may also shrink its balance sheet soon after the initial rate hike, in line with its expectation the U.S. economy will recover faster this time around. While higher nominal interest rates and tighter monetary policy will increase the opportunity cost of holding gold (Chart 8), the commodity-driven inflation we expect this year – especially if COVID-19 becomes endemic across major economies – will buoy demand for the yellow metal as an inflation hedge. An endemic virus this year will also boost physical gold demand from China and India. Footnotes 1 Please see More Commodity-Led Inflation On The Way, which we published on 9 December 2021. 2 Please see Coronavirus (COVID-19) latest insights: Antibodies, published by the ONS on December 23, 2021. 3 Please see Covid-19: UK ‘closest of any country in northern hemisphere to exiting pandemic’, published on January 11, 2022 by msn.com. 4 Please see What four coronaviruses from history can tell us about covid-19, published by newscientist.com on April 29, 2020. 5 Please see Omicron may be headed for a rapid drop in US and Britain, published by msn.com on January 11, 2022 published by msn.com. 6 Please see 2022 Key Views: Past As Prelude For Commodities, which we published on December 16, 2021. 7 We ran cointegrating regressions – using DOLS and ARDL models – to check for any equilibrium between prices and hedge fund positioning and found none. We looked at the post-GFC period from 2010 to now, since this is the data the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) provides for hedge funds and tested whether hedge-fund positions (in the form of open interest) explained prices vs. the alternative (i.e., prices explain hedge-fund positioning). We again found prices explain position (and not vice versa) for crude oil, natural gas, copper and gold. 8 Please see Büyüksahin, Bahattin and Jeffrey H. Harris (2011),"Do Speculators Drive Crude Oil Futures Prices?" The Energy Journal, 32:2, pp. 167-202. This paper used unique data sets provided by the CFTC. 9 Please see Brunetti, Celso, Bahattin Büyüksahin, and Jeffrey H. Harris (2016), "Speculators, Prices, and Market Volatility," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 51:5, pp. 1545-74. 10 Please see Knittel, Christopher R. and Robert S. Pindyck (2016), "The Simple Economics of Commodity Price Speculation," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics 8:2, pp. 85–110. Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed In 2021