Sectors

Special Report

Highlights The buildup of excessive household debt in Canada over the past two decades has occurred because of outsized demand for housing, not because of the impact of constrained housing supply on house prices. Outsized demand for housing has occurred because interest rates have been persistently too low, pointing to the need for the Bank of Canada to tighten monetary policy in order to prevent even further leveraging. The burden of Canada’s household sector debt may exceed its pre-pandemic level next year given current market expectations for the path of rate hikes. This implies that the prior peak in the Canadian policy rate (1.75%) likely reflects a high-end estimate of the neutral rate of interest in Canada. Regulatory changes have occurred in recognition of Canada’s extreme levels of household debt. Although a massive decline in Canadian house prices would cause a very severe recession, it would not likely precipitate a Lehman-style collapse of the Canadian financial system. Over the next twelve months, investors should position favorably toward CAD-USD. As the Canadian policy rate approaches our estimate of the neutral rate, a short CAD position and an overweight stance towards long-maturity Canadian bonds versus US Treasurys will likely be warranted. Within a global equity portfolio, exposure to relatively high-yielding Canadian banks should not be reduced until hard evidence of a significant slowdown in the housing market emerges. Feature The outlook for monetary policy in advanced economies has shifted rapidly in a hawkish direction over the past few months. While we believe that the Fed and other central banks will end up raising interest rates this year fewer times than investors currently expect, it is clear that monetary policy will tighten in the DM world over the coming 12-18 months. This has raised the question of how high policy rates may rise before monetary policy begins to restrict economic activity. Some investors have specifically focused this question on countries like Canada, which has a highly indebted household sector and has seen house prices rise at a 7% average annual pace for the past 20 years. In this report, we explore the root cause of Canada’s extreme household debt and argue against the constrained housing supply view. Instead, we conclude that persistently low interest rates have fueled excessive housing demand and that the prior peak in the Canadian policy rate (1.75%) probably reflects a high-end estimate of the neutral rate of interest in Canada – in contrast with that of the US. Finally, we note that the regulatory changes that have occurred in recognition of the risk from excessive household debt suggest that a massive decline in Canadian house prices would not likely precipitate a Lehman-style collapse of the Canadian financial system – it would, however, clearly cause a severe recession. Over the next twelve months, investors should position favorably toward CAD-USD. As the Canadian policy rate approaches our estimate of the neutral rate, a short CAD position and an overweight stance towards long-maturity Canadian bonds versus US Treasurys will likely be warranted. Within a global equity portfolio, exposure to relatively high-yielding Canadian banks should not be reduced until hard evidence of a significant slowdown in the housing market emerges. The Root Cause Of Canada’s Extreme Household Debt Chart II-1Canadian Households Are Massively Indebted Relative to disposable income, Canadian household debt has risen substantially over the past two decades. Chart II-1 highlights that Canada’s household debt to disposable income ratio has risen by 180% since 2000, and is currently over 50 percentage points higher than that in the US, even when nonfinancial noncorporate debt is included in the latter.1 Rising Canadian household indebtedness is a problem that is well known to investors, policymakers, regulators, banks, and consumers themselves. Organizations such as the IMF have repeatedly warned that excess household debt poses a potential economic stability risk. In the years prior to the pandemic, policymakers have responded with a series of macroprudential measures designed to limit speculation and foreign ownership in the housing market and to reduce the incremental risk to the economy posed by new borrowers. When asked why Canadian households have leveraged themselves so significantly over the past 20 years, most market commentators in Canada point to insufficient housing supply as the main driver of excessive house prices. Given normal ongoing demand for housing, they argue, persistent supply-side pressure on housing prices will naturally lead to a rising stock of debt relative to income. According to this narrative, the solution to Canada’s housing crisis is centered squarely on incentives to build more homes. Raising interest rates to cool mortgage demand will simply exacerbate the housing affordability problem, while simultaneously discouraging additional residential investment needed to decrease home prices structurally. Chart II-2The Supply Of Non-Apartment Dwellings Has Indeed Declined Over Time... We hold a different perspective. We do agree that there are some limitations on the supply side that likely are unduly boosting prices of certain dwelling types. For example, the Greenbelt that surrounds Ontario’s Golden Horseshoe region - a permanently protected area of land - has likely constrained some housing activity, and Chart II-2 highlights that single detached, semi-detached, and row/townhouses have fallen significantly as a share of overall housing completions. Apartments and other dwellings now account for a clear majority of new housing construction in Canada. However, there is a great deal of evidence positioned against the view that supply-side factors are the primary cause of outsized housing inflation and, by extension, a massive increase in Canadian household debt to GDP: Based on real residential investment, the pace of housing construction in Canada has not fallen relative to GDP or the population. Chart II-3 highlights that, compared with the US, residential investment has trended higher over the past 20 years. Based on Canadian housing completion data, Chart II-4 highlights that the number of completions has generally kept pace with half of the change in Canada’s population, a ratio that is easily consistent with two or more people per household. In addition, the chart highlights that the periods when houses were completed at a below-average rate relative to population growth have not been the same as when Canadian household debt has increased relative to disposable income. Chart II-3...But Overall Real Residential Investment Has Kept Pace With Canada's GDP And Population Chart II-4Housing Supply Has Not Been The Main Driver Of Rising Canadian Indebtedness Chart II-5Prices For All Canadian Property Types Have Surged Over The Past Two Decades If the rise in Canadian household indebtedness has been caused by the increasing scarcity of single-detached, semi-detached, and row/townhouses, then we would expect to see a persistent and growing divergence between overall Canadian house prices and those of apartment/condominiums. Chart II-5 highlights that this is not the case: while apartment/condo prices have at times grown at a slower rate than overall home prices over the past 15 years (as in the period from 2011 to 2016), they have also at times grown at a faster rate. The chart clearly highlights that the Canadian housing market is driven by a common factor, and that average house price gains have not been significantly different across property types over time. Similarly, if a scarcity of housing supply was the main driver of rising house prices and household debt, we would not expect to see a significant increase in the homeownership rate. Chart II-6 highlights that the Canadian homeownership rate did rise substantially from the mid-1990s to 2016 (the last available datapoint). While it is not clear what the sustainable or “equilibrium” homeownership rate is, it is notable that the most recent datapoint was not significantly lower than the peak rate reached in the US following that country’s massive housing bubble. Finally, Chart II-7 reiterates a point we made in our June 2021 Special Report: in several economies (including Canada), interest rates have remained well below levels that macroeconomic theory would traditionally consider to be in equilibrium over the past two decades. This has occurred alongside significant household sector leveraging. Chart II-7Too-Low Interest Rates Have Fueled Rising Household Indebtedness In Canada (And Other DM Economies) Chart II-6The Canadian Homeownership Rate Has Risen Significantly, Pointing To Excess Housing Demand     These factors strongly point to rising household debt levels as being driven by demand-side rather than supply-side factors – demand that has been fueled by persistently low interest rates. How High Can The Bank Of Canada Raise Interest Rates? Over the next 12 months, investors expect the Bank of Canada (BoC) to raise interest rates by 180 basis points, in line with the Fed (Chart II-8). Over the longer term, the BoC believes that interest rates will average between 1.75% and 2.75%. In the US, the 2/10 yield curve has flattened significantly in response to the Fed’s hawkish shift, and neither the explosion in headline consumer price inflation nor the Fed’s about face have significantly raised the market’s longer-term expectations for interest rates (which are even below the Fed’s estimates). In Canada, investors expect essentially the same long-term interest rate outlook, as evidenced by 5-year / 5-year forward government bond yields (Chart II-9). Chart II-8Investors Expect A Similar Magnitude Of Tightening In Canada And The US Over The Next Year... Chart II-9...And A Similar Average Interest Rate Over The Longer Term As in the case in the US, the hawkish shift among major central banks has left investors asking how high the BoC can raise interest rates, and what implications that might have for Canadian assets – especially the CAD and long-maturity Canadian government bonds. In our view, the best way for investors to assess the impact of rising interest rates on the private sector – especially a highly indebted one – is to project the impact that an increase in interest rates will have on the debt service ratio (DSR). The burden of servicing debt, rather than the stock of debt relative to income, is the right way to measure the impact of shifting monetary policy because it considers the combined effect of changes in leverage, income, and interest rates. The primary drawback of debt service ratio analysis is that the question of sustainability must be answered empirically. In countries experiencing an ever-rising debt service ratio, it can be difficult for investors to judge where the breaking point will be. Cross-country comparisons may sometimes be helpful in this respect, but Chart II-10 highlights that BIS estimates for household debt service ratios vary widely even among advanced economies. However, in Canada, the 2017-2019 tightening cycle provides a useful framework. As we anticipated in a 2017 Special Report,2 the rise in Canadian interest rates during that period caused the household debt service ratio to exceed the level reached in 2007, which contributed to a collapse in Canadian house price appreciation to its lowest level since the global financial crisis (Chart II-11). The decline in house prices during this period was also caused by the introduction of new macroprudential measures (particularly the introduction of a minimum qualifying rate for mortgages, more commonly referred to as a mortgage “stress test” rule), but the impact of higher interest rates was likely significant. Chart II-11The Last Tightening Cycle In Canada Contributed Significantly To A Major Slowdown In Canadian House Prices Chart II-10Private Sector Debt Service Ratios Vary Significantly Across DM Countries   Chart II-11 highlights that the Canadian household debt service ratio collapsed during the pandemic, which seems to suggest that the Bank of Canada has ample room to raise interest rates. However, the decline in the DSR occurred not only because of falling interest rates, but also because of the significant excess savings amassed as a result of the pandemic. As in the US, excess savings in Canada were the result of reduced spending on services and the generation of significant excess income from government transfers (see Chart I-20 from Section 1 of this month’s report). These fiscal transfers will eventually disappear, implying that the Canadian household DSR is artificially low. Chart II-12 shows our estimate of the evolution of the overall Canadian household sector DSR based on the following assumptions: Mortgage rates rise in line with market expectations for the change in the policy rate Government transfers fall back to their pre-pandemic trend Disposable income growth ex-transfers grows in line with consensus expectations for nominal GDP growth The overall debt-to-disposable income ratio, using our estimate for total disposable income, remains flat. The chart highlights that the Canadian household sector DSR may exceed its pre-pandemic level next year, and that a 1.75% policy rate is the threshold at which the DSR will hit a new high. The implication of our projection is that the re-acceleration in household sector debt that has occurred during the pandemic, shown in Chart II-13, will again contribute to a significant slowdown in the Canadian housing market as the BoC begins to raise interest rates as in 2018/2019. It also implies that the prior peak in the Canadian policy rate probably reflects a high-end estimate of the neutral rate of interest in Canada. Chart II-12Market Expectations For The Canadian Policy Rate Imply A Record High Debt Burden Chart II-13Canadian Household Loan Growth Has Reaccelerated During The Pandemic   As we discuss below, this is likely to lead to significant implications for CAD-USD and an allocation to long-maturity Canadian government bonds, once investors begin to upwardly revise their expectations for the US neutral rate. Extreme Household Debt And Canadian Financial Stability The question of financial stability is often posed by investors when discussing Canada’s extreme household debt burden. Some investors view the US subprime financial crisis as the likely template for the Canadian economy, given the fact that the US credit bubble also focused on the housing market. Despite our pessimistic assessment of the capacity of the Canadian economy to tolerate higher interest rates (unlike the US today), we do not share the view that the Canadian financial system faces a potential insolvency risk, like the US banking system did in 2008. We see two potential arguments in favor of the instability view. The first is related to the sheer concentration of debt in Canada relative to other countries. Chart II-14 highlights that the median debt-to-income ratio of indebted Canadian households is currently the second highest in the world (after Norway) among the 29 countries that the OECD tracks. This concentration measure has worsened considerably since we published our 2017 Special Report. The combination of a very high average level of debt and extremely high leverage among those who are indebted suggests that Canadian banks may be exposed to significant credit losses in the event of a serious housing market crash. Chart II-14The Degree Of Concentration In Canadian Household Debt Is A Potential Financial Stability Risk Chart II-15A Decline In The CMHC's Footprint In The Mortgage Insurance Market Is Also Concerning The second argument relates to the declining share of mortgages insured by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). The CMHC is a Crown corporation that provides mortgage-default insurance to Canadian banks. Banks must purchase such insurance when a borrower’s loan-to-value ratio exceeds 80%. The CMHC has seen increased competition from two private mortgage insurers, and Chart II-15 highlights that the number of mortgages with CHMC insurance has been steadily falling over time. In order for the CMHC to be able to reduce systemic risk during a crisis, it must be present enough in the mortgage market to be able to replace private insurers in the event of a shock that causes them to leave the market. In effect, the CMHC should be able to act as a ballast to prevent a sharp tightening in Canadian mortgage lending standards and credit provision, which could occur if banks find themselves unable to purchase mortgage insurance to cover borrowers with relatively small down payments. In this respect, the reduced footprint of the CMHC is concerning. However, these risks have to be weighed against two key structural changes that legitimately lower the systemic risk facing the Canadian banking system (or lower the impact of a major adverse housing event). The first of these changes is the introduction of the minimum qualifying rate for mortgages in Canada (the mortgage stress test), which we regard as one of the most important macroprudential policies that Canada has enacted to reduce the systemic risk of rising household debt. The stress test rules – which apply to all borrowers – force mortgage borrowers to pass the CMHC’s gross debt and total debt service ratio thresholds under the assumption of higher interest rates than borrowers will actually pay: either the contracted mortgage rate plus 2 percentage points, or 5.65% – whichever is higher. Given prevailing mortgage rates in Canada, this effectively means that new borrowers will not exceed the CMHC’s debt service thresholds until the Bank of Canada’s policy rate exceeds 2.5%. That is positive from a financial stability perspective, although it does not rule out the slowdown in household spending that we would expect if the aggregate household debt service ratio hits a new high next year in response to BoC tightening. The second important risk-reducing structural change is a significant improvement in Canadian bank capital levels. Chart II-16 highlights that Tier 1 capital has risen significantly relative to risk-weighted assets for Canadian depository institutions, and is now on par with US levels (in contrast to a typically lower level over the past decade). The IMF stress tested Canadian banks in 2019, when capital levels were lower than they are today. They found that most Canadian banks would run down conservation capital buffers in the adverse economic scenario that they modeled, subjecting them to dividend restrictions for a period of time following the adverse event. However, Canadian banks would not breach their minimum capital requirements in the scenario modeled by the IMF, which involved a 40% decline in house prices and a 2% cumulative decline in Canadian real GDP over a two year period – which is essentially what occurred in the US and Canada in 2008 and 2009 (Chart II-17). Chart II-16Canadian Bank Capital Appears Sufficient To Weather A Storm Chart II-17The IMF's Stress Tests Modeled A Repeat Of The 2008/2009 Crisis To conclude on the question of financial stability, it is clear that the magnitude and concentration of household debt implies that the impact of a serious housing market crash on the Canadian economy would be severe. But the fact that regulatory changes have occurred in recognition of this risk suggests that although a massive decline in Canadian house prices would cause a very severe recession, it would not likely precipitate a Lehman-style collapse of the Canadian financial system. Investment Conclusions Three conclusions emerge from our report. First, when considering the total experience of the past two decades, it is clear that the buildup of excessive household debt in Canada has occurred because of outsized demand for housing, not because of the impact of constrained housing supply on house prices. Outsized demand for housing has occurred because interest rates have been persistently below what traditional monetary policy rules such as the Taylor Rule would prescribe, pointing to the need for the Bank of Canada to tighten monetary policy in order to prevent even further leveraging. While US interest rates were also below what the Taylor Rule would have suggested for several years following the global financial crisis, the US household sector did not leverage itself significantly during that period because of the multi-year impact of the 2008/2009 financial crisis on US household balance sheets (Chart II-18). Canadian households did not suffer the same type of balance sheet impairment, and yet the Bank of Canada wrongly imported hyper-accommodative US monetary policy in an attempt to prevent a significant further increase in the exchange rate (which was still persistently strong for several years following the crisis). Through its actions, the Bank of Canada succeeded in staving off “Dutch Disease”, but at the cost of fueling a substantial housing and credit market bubble. Second, the fact that the Bank of Canada is likely to struggle to raise interest rates above 1.75% implies that a sizeable divergence may emerge between Canadian and US monetary policy over the coming few years if we are correct in our view that the US neutral rate is higher than the Fed currently expects. While such a divergence is not likely to occur over the coming year, Chart II-19 highlights that a 125 basis point policy rate spread – consistent with a nominal neutral rate of 1.75% in Canada and 3% in the US – last occurred in the mid-to-late 1990s, when CAD-USD ultimately declined to 0.65. Chart II-18The Bank Of Canada Staved Off "Dutch Disease", At The Cost Of Fueling A Major Housing And Credit Bubble Chart II-19Some Potentially Large Downside For CAD If US Neutral Rate Expectations Move Higher Over the coming year, we expect Canadian dollar strength rather than weakness: we are generally bearish toward the US dollar on the expectation of above-trend global growth, and our fundamental intermediate-term model suggests that CAD should strengthen. Thus, while it is too early to short the Canadian dollar, we would be inclined to turn bearish in response to rising long-term US interest rate expectations. We would draw similar conclusions for Canadian government bonds: investors should raise exposure to long-dated Canadian government bonds versus similar maturity US Treasurys as the Bank of Canada raises its policy rate toward our estimate of the neutral rate. Chart II-20Relative ROE Justifies A Valuation Premium For Canadian Banks Finally, the improvements that have been made over the past several years to dampen the impact of a housing market crash on the Canadian financial system suggests that exposure to Canadian banks should not be reduced until hard evidence of a significant slowdown in the housing market emerges. Chart II-20 highlights that the valuation premium of Canadian banks appears to be supported by a sizeable ROE advantage relative to global banks. Panel 2 highlights how composite relative valuation indicator for Canadian banks suggests that they have been persistently expensive for some time, but not extremely so. Canadian banks would certainly underperform their global peers should the adverse scenario modeled by the IMF’s 2019 stress test of the banking system to occur, especially if it implied that Canadian banks would be forced to restrict dividends for a time to bolster capital adequacy. However, we would advise investors against shorting relatively high-yielding Canadian banks as Canadian interest rates rise, until they see clear signs of Canada-specific slowdown in housing demand in response to higher rates. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Gabriel Di Lullo Research Associate   Footnotes 1 For an explanation of why we add US nonfinancial noncorporate debt to the numerator of the US household sector debt to disposable income ratio when comparing Canada to the US, please see: “Reconciling Canadian-U.S. measures of household disposable income and household debt: Update”. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy "Canada: A (Probably) Happy Moment In An Otherwise Sad Story," dated July 14, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com

Special Report

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

Executive Summary US biotech is trading at its greatest discount to the market. Ever. Much of biotech’s underperformance is due to transient factors: specifically, the sell-off in long-duration bonds; the focus on delivering a Covid vaccine; regulatory concerns; a drought in M&A; and a flood of IPOs. Overweight US biotech versus US big-tech, both tactically and structurally. Long-only investors with a time horizon of at least 2 years should go outright long biotech, especially US biotech. If, as we expect, the 30-year T-bond (price) continues to rally, then long-duration sectors and stock markets will resume their outperformance versus shorter-duration sectors and stock markets. Fractal trading watchlist: We focus on biotech, and add US banks versus consumer services, Norway versus China, Greece versus euro area, and BRL/NZD. US Biotech Is Trading At Its Greatest Discount To The Market. Ever Bottom Line: Every now and then comes a rare opportunity to buy a deeply unloved asset at a bargain basement price. We believe that now provides such an opportunity for the beaten-down biotech sector – especially the US biotech sector which is trading at its greatest discount to the market. Ever. Feature Every now and then comes a rare opportunity to buy a deeply unloved asset at a bargain basement price. We believe that now provides such an opportunity for the beaten-down biotech sector – especially the US biotech sector which is trading at its greatest discount to the market. Ever. But before we go into the specifics of biotech, let’s quickly discuss the recent action in the broader market. The Past Year Has Been All About ‘Duration’ A good way to think of any investment is to compress all its cashflows into one future ‘lump-sum payment.’ The length of time to this lump-sum payment is the investment’s ‘duration.’ And the present value of the investment is just the discounted value of this lump-sum payment, where the discount factor will depend on the required return on the investment combined with its duration.1 It follows that, all else being equal, the present value of a long-duration stock must rise and fall in line with the present value of an equally long-duration bond – because their discount factors move in lockstep. And, as we have been banging on in recent weeks, this simple observation is all you need to explain market action over the past year. For the 30-year T-bond, 2.4-2.5 percent is an important resistance level. Given that long-duration indexes such as the Nasdaq, S&P 500 and MSCI Growth have the same duration as the 30-year T-bond, they have been tracking the 30-year T-bond price one-for-one (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). Hence, when the long-duration bond rallied, these stock markets outperformed shorter-duration indexes such as the FTSE100 and MSCI Value; and when the long-duration bond sold off, they underperformed. Chart I-1The Nasdaq Has Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One Chart I-2MSCI Growth Has Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One The Russian invasion of Ukraine has catalysed a retreat in the 30-year T-bond yield from a ‘line in the sand’ at 2.4-2.5 percent, which we have previously highlighted as an important resistance level. If, as we argued in A Massive Economic Imbalance, Staring Us In The Face, the 30-year T-bond (price) continues to rally, then long-duration sectors and stock markets will resume their outperformance versus shorter-duration sectors and stock markets. US Biotech Is Trading At Its Greatest Discount To The Market. Ever Over the longer term, the bigger driver of the stock price will not be the discount factor on the future lump-sum payment; the bigger driver will be the size of the lump-sum payment itself. For any company, industry, or stock market, this expected lump-sum payment will evolve in line with current profits multiplied by a ‘structural growth multiple.’ It turns out that while current profits are updated every quarter, the structural growth multiple does not change much from quarter to quarter, year to year, or even decade to decade. Yet occasionally, it can phase-shift violently downwards when an event, or realisation, shatters the market’s lofty hopes for structural growth. Occasionally, an event or realisation shatters the market’s lofty hopes for structural growth. For example, after the dot com bubble burst it became clear that the sky-high hopes for non-US tech companies were just pie in the sky. The result was that their structural growth multiple halved, which weighed down non-US tech stocks for the subsequent 10 years (Chart I-3). Chart I-3After The Dot Com Bust, The Structural Growth Multiple For Non-US Tech Collapsed More recently, the realisation that Facebook – or Meta Platforms as it is now known – is losing subscribers was the gestalt moment that shattered hopes for its structural growth. Note that while its 2022 profits are down slightly, the Meta share price has collapsed, indicating a big hit to the structural growth multiple (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Facebook's Structural Growth Multiple Has Collapsed Conversely, there are rare occasions when a phase-shift down in a structural growth multiple is unwarranted or has gone too far. Right now, a case in point is the biotech sector, especially the US biotech sector. Relative to the relationship of the 2010s decade, US biotech’s structural growth multiple has halved (Chart I-5). The result is that US biotech is trading at the greatest valuation discount to the market (-20 percent). Ever. It is also trading at its greatest valuation discount to the broader tech sector (-35 percent). Ever (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Chart I-5US Biotech's Structural Growth Multiple Has Halved, But Is Such A Massive De-Rating Justified? Chart I-6US Biotech Is Trading At Its Greatest Ever Discount To The Market... Chart I-7...And Its Greatest Ever Discount To Big-Tech Another way of putting it is that in the post-pandemic era, while the structural growth multiple for the broader tech sector is largely unchanged, the structural growth multiple for biotech has collapsed by 40 percent (Charts I-8, I-11). Begging the question, is such a massive structural de-rating justified? Chart I-8US Tech's Structural Growth Multiple ##br##Is Unchanged... Chart I-9...But US Biotech's Structural Growth Multiple Has Collapsed Chart I-10Global Tech's Structural Growth Multiple##br## Is Unchanged... Chart I-11...But Global Biotech's Structural Growth Multiple Has Collapsed Much Of Biotech’s Underperformance Is Due To Transient Factors We have identified five culprits for biotech’s recent underperformance, but they are largely transient: The sell-off in long-duration bonds: Ironically, though the market has downgraded biotech’s structural growth, it has still behaved like a long-duration sector that has tracked the sell-off in the 30-year T-bond. Hence, if the long-duration bond rallies, it will boost biotech stocks. The focus on delivering a Covid vaccine: While biotech was developing a Covid vaccine, investors became enamoured with the sector, but once the vaccine was delivered, investors fell out of love with the sector. Yet there is more to biotech than a provider of vaccines, and as we show in the final section, the sell-off has gone too far. Regulatory concerns: In the US there has been some concern about the dilution of a biotech company’s intellectual property (IP) rights – known as March-In-Rights – if government funding or research has contributed to an innovation. In practice though, the sophistication of most innovations means that IP would remain with the innovator. There has also been concern about drug pricing reform, but as is normal in any negotiation, the opening extreme position is likely to get watered down. A drought in M&A: The focus on Covid, plus the uncertainty around regulation, has led to a drought in the M&A activity that is usually the mechanism to crystallize value. Still, for long-term investors, value is value, whether it is crystallized or not. Furthermore, the drought in M&A cannot last forever. A flood of IPOs: The more than 100 biotech IPOs in 2021 was double the usual rate, creating an oversupply and indigestion for specialist investors in the sector. But given the poor performance of the sector, the IPO flood is likely to recede through 2022-23 in a self-correction. So, we come back to the question: is it right to price a structural growth outlook for biotech worse than the overall market and much worse than for big-tech? If anything, it is big-tech that faces the much greater existential risk in the form of Web 3.0 – which will remove big-tech’s current ownership of the internet, thereby wiping out its very lucrative business model. Look out for our upcoming Special Report on this major theme. To repeat, the market is valuing US biotech at a record 40 percent discount to big-tech, and at its most unloved versus the broad market, when most of the headwinds it faces are transient. All of which leads to two investment conclusions. The market is valuing US biotech at a record 40 percent discount to big-tech, and at its most unloved versus the broad market. Overweight US biotech versus US big-tech, both tactically and structurally. Long-only investors with a time horizon of at least 2 years should go outright long biotech, especially US biotech. Fractal Trading Watchlist This week’s analysis focusses on our main theme, biotech, and we add US banks versus consumer services, Norway versus China, Greece versus euro area, and BRL/NZD. Reinforcing the arguments in the preceding sections, US biotech is deeply oversold versus broader tech, reaching a point of fractal fragility that signalled several significant turning-points through the past two decades (Chart I-12). Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to go long US biotech versus US tech, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 17.5 percent. Chart I-12US Biotech Is Deeply Oversold Versus Broader Tech   US Banks Are At Risk Of Reversal Norway's Outperformance Could End Greece's Snapback At A Resistance Point BRL/NZD At A Resistance Point Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Defined fully, the duration of an investment is the weighted-average of the times of its cashflows, in which the weights are the present values of the cashflows. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Special Report

Executive Summary US Policy Uncertainty Rises With ERP The US is witnessing a rolling political crisis that will escalate again in the 2022-24 election cycle and presents a tail-risk of constitutional fracture. However, fundamental economic, constitutional, and geopolitical factors are structurally positive. US domestic political risk is not greater than foreign geopolitical risk affecting other major markets like Europe. The US faces challenges to maintain its competitive and technological edge. But the combination of a vibrant private sector and increasingly proactive fiscal policy give reason for optimism. The 2022-24 macroeconomic and political cycles will likely cause an increase in policy uncertainty and hence the equity risk premium – but foreign markets face even greater risks. Recommendation (Tactical) Inception Level Initiation Date Stop Loss Long DXY   Feb 23/2022   Bottom Line: Go tactically long US dollar (DXY) on the anticipation that US and especially global policy uncertainty and political risk premiums will rise. Feature With President Joe Biden’s approval rating falling to a new net low of -13%, investors are starting to ask about the future of American politics once again. It is highly likely that Democrats will lose control of Congress this fall, setting up a tumultuous 2024 election cycle. With political polarization at historic highs, it is worth asking whether US policy uncertainty will inject a risk premium into US equities. Our answer is yes, uncertainty and the risk premium will rise. But the US also contains fundamental strengths, especially relative to other major markets. With geopolitical risk rising for Europe as Russia engages in new military adventures, the US market will remain attractive over the long run. Natural Advantages Any fundamental assessment of US capability should begin with its people. The US working-age population continues to grow, while that of Europe and China has started to plateau or decline (Chart 1). China’s working population is four times bigger than that of the US, so if China can manage its transition to a higher-wage economy (i.e. if it can maintain productivity growth) then it can compete for global investment capital. But the US’s continued labor force growth, despite social change and political instability, suggests that the US will not follow Japan and Europe into sluggish trend growth, unless sharp curbs on immigration are put into place. The maxim that “the people are the riches of a nation” is only true if economic opportunity and job creation are sufficient. People need access to capital to become more productive. Europe has the largest capital stock in the world, at $100,000 per capita, compared to the US’s $71,000 and China’s $33,000. But Europe’s capital stock has been flat-to-down since the Great Recession. China’s capital stock is rising rapidly and has a lot further to go given its low level. But the country also faces a difficult transition to a new economic model and a debt-deleveraging process that may slow down the pace of capital deepening in the coming years, forcing the government to step in and promote capital projects (Chart 2). Meanwhile the US’s capital stock continues to grow steadily.  Chart 1The People Are The Riches Of A Nation... Chart 2...As Long As The People Are Not Starved Of Capital Since the shale boom the US has become nearly energy self-sufficient and now produces 20% of global oil and fuel. This development is a blessing from an economic and national security perspective. But it also poses the risk of a kind of resource curse, in which the US could lack the motivation to pioneer renewable energy technology. Currently the US only produces 4% of the world’s renewable energy, a share that has been declining. Europe and China are both energy import-dependent, which is a national security vulnerability, and they will continue to invest in renewable solutions to improve their energy security (Chart 3). Russian aggression will motivate Europe to go down this path, whereas China will go down this path for fear of American strategic containment. For now, however, the US is energy self-sufficient while technologically capable of advancing in renewable energy. The US has a range of structural problems: rising income inequality, extreme political polarization, and a policy turn away from globalization over the past 20 years. However, these problems have not weighed on GDP per capita growth. Of course, the greatest strides in GDP per capita are occurring in the developing world: China and India show the most promise. But the US’s GDP per capita is still growing at an annual average rate of 3%, putting it alongside Germany and ahead of the much less developed Brazil (Chart 4). Germany did not see anywhere near as big of increases in inequality and polarization and is still generally committed to globalization, yet its GDP per capita growth is about the same as the US’s, despite faster US population growth. Chart 3North America's Natural Resource Blessing Chart 4Does Political Instability Harm Productivity? Partisanship Means Big Government None of the above benefits have been reversed by the US’s historic increase in political polarization and partisanship over the past three decades. Make no mistake, the latter trends are harmful and could weigh on US stability and productivity in coming years, primarily through deteriorating fiscal management. But so far their bad effects have been contained. The two US political parties have won control of the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives a roughly equal number of times. While Republicans have a larger regional presence, across the 50 states, and tend to perform better in the Electoral College and the Senate, this advantage is very slight judging by the number of electoral victories. Meanwhile Democrats have a larger popular presence and perform better in the House of Representatives but this advantage is also slight (Chart 5). The two parties are evenly balanced, which is one explanation for why they compete so viciously for marginal victories. But it also prevents either party from achieving absolute power and distorting or corrupting American bureaucracy and corporate structures to perpetuate single-party rule. Chart 5An Even Balance Of Power Between The Parties The size of the federal government fluctuates within a fairly low and narrow range. Federal government receipts hovered around 16% of GDP in the 1950s-60s, peaked at 20.4% in 2000, and today stand right in the middle of this post-war range at 18.5%. Major increases in revenue follow the business cycle and it is rare that Democrats manage to raise taxes enough to have a substantial impact. This point is clear from looking at periods when Democrats controlled both the House of Representatives and the White House (shaded areas in Chart 6): the large increases in tax take mostly coincide with economic growth spurts. It is conceivable that the Biden administration will raise a minimum corporate tax this year via the budget reconciliation process, but the odds of that have been falling and it will not change the pattern in this chart, which shows rising revenue relative to GDP as the economy recovers but is not likely to match what was seen in the late 1990s. From the perspective of federal government spending, the growth in the size of government is clearer, rising from the post-war 15% of GDP to today’s 25% of GDP, with a pronounced structural uptrend. Republicans rarely control both the White House and the House of Representatives and only in the 1950s did they reduce spending outright. The past two Republican administrations presided over large increases in spending, while also capping revenue via tax cuts (Chart 7). Chart 6US Federal Revenue Does Not Change Much Over Time Chart 7US Federal Spending Does Not Change Much Over Time Thus in America’s highly polarized and populist political scene, Republicans fail to cut spending while Democrats fail to increase taxes. The takeaway is that budget deficits will remain structurally large. The political outlook reinforces this point as it promises a return to congressional gridlock. Historically speaking, Biden’s net negative approval rating implies that Democrats will lose 40 seats in the House of Representatives and 4 seats in the Senate this fall. It is unlikely that Democratic fortunes will improve much between now and this November given that midterm elections almost always punish the ruling party and midterm voters tend to make up their minds early in the year. Moreover the ruling party’s ailments are not easily reversed: headline inflation is running at 7.5%, crime and immigration are growing at historic rates, while foreign policy challenges will likely feed the narrative that the Biden administration is weak on the global stage. The likelihood of congressional gridlock from 2022-24 (and maybe beyond) entails that future increases in fiscal spending will be automatic, through lack of entitlement reform, rather than through grandiose new spending programs, which will not pass into law. As such, “Big Government” is back but it is still “limited government” in the US tradition – i.e. limited big government. Neither party has a blank check or dominates for long. And if anything a period of fiscal normalization (or pseudo-normalization) is on the horizon. Constitutional And Geopolitical Advantages The balance of the parties is not accidental but essential to the American constitutional system. This system is based on the tradition of “mixed” or “balanced” constitutionalism, which developed in ancient Greece and Rome and came to the Americas via the United Kingdom. The system can be discussed in philosophical or ideological terms but it is rooted in real, physical, institutional power. The tradition begins with great philosophers like Plato and Aristotle but is perhaps best illustrated by the Greek historian Polybius. Polybius observed a violent historical cycle that ceaselessly shifted from despotism to oligarchy to the tyranny of the masses to anarchy and finally back to despotism. He argued that the Roman constitution, by mingling the different social classes (the leaders, the elite, and the masses), could produce a durable constitutional order that would prolong the time period until the state decayed and collapsed. We call this the “Polybius Solution” (Diagram 1). Diagram 1The Polybius Solution The US constitution is successful because, like several of the oldest European constitutions, it mixes the different social classes and sources of power so that the leaders, elites, and masses each have a share in the political system and no single group can predominate and overwhelm the others. It is an extra benefit that the US constitution is one of the longest continually operating constitutions in the world, since the long fortification of the system in practice helps provide sociopolitical and economic stability, whereas the ideas themselves are not well taught or understood (Table 1). The fact that the constitution is written in a single document is useful but not decisive, as the British constitution similarly provides stability over long periods of change and upheaval both at home and abroad. Table 1The Balanced Constitution Investors should not mistake this constitutional system merely for a set of preferential ideas. Opinions change very easily. But it is physically difficult for ruling classes to take away rights and privileges that the masses of people have been given. Thus the mixture of constitutional powers is based in political realism, not idealism. The US constitution operates not because Americans are more well-meaning, educated, civic-minded, altruistic, or enlightened than others. It operates because the oligarchy is not powerful enough to disenfranchise the democracy, while the democracy is not powerful enough to purge the oligarchy. The government leaders themselves (the president, the lawmakers, the career bureaucrats, etc) are not powerful enough to suspend term limits and stay in power forever. Nor have they been able to ally with either the oligarchy or the democracy closely enough to permanently exclude the other one from its share of power within the system. There is a clear and present danger that the constitutional system could come under too much strain and fracture amid recent power struggles among the American social classes. The struggles between the classes have intensified since the fall of the Soviet Union (which deprived America of a common enemy) and especially the Great Recession (which provoked populist democratic movements). Some fear that a president could turn into an autocrat and refuse to yield power, others fear that the oligarchic faction could steal elections or manipulate the legal system, others fear that the democratic faction could steal elections or ride roughshod over legal procedures. Of these risks, the risk of autocracy is the lowest, while the risk of institutional corruption or electoral manipulation or majoritarian rule-breaking are the highest. Certainly political risk and policy uncertainty will rise from current levels over the 2022-24 election cycle, which promises to be extremely disruptive. However, there are three reasons to hold the baseline view that the US political structure will remain stable enough to sustain economic productivity over the coming years, despite enormous upheaval on the cyclical level of politics. The US remains secure from invasion, while provoked to meet rising geopolitical challenges. Neither Canada nor Mexico poses a fundamental threat to US national security – the US is capable of militarizing the borders, however undesirable – and the US is inaccessible to more distant enemies due to the tyranny of distance across the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Yet the resurgence of Russia and the rise of China are likely to present common external rivals around which America’s elites will attempt to galvanize public opinion to maintain national security and keep themselves in office. Because elections still tend to swing on historically critical regions, such as the Midwestern heartland, politicians will need to pursue some degree of economic nationalism to stay in power (Map 1). Map 1USA: Splendid Isolation? The US continues to benefit from a “brain drain” of talented foreign immigrants and will keep that door open if and when it curbs immigration more broadly. Immigration flows into the US are typically robust according to various indicators, including the numbers of newly naturalized citizens, which is itself an indicator of the US’s abiding advantages (Chart 8). The global pandemic caused a decline that is quickly rebounding. Immigration is one of the major outstanding sources of power struggle between the US political factions. It will become a centerpiece of the 2022-24 election cycle. The outcome is unclear. But general American attitudes toward immigration are not hostile, while elite attitudes favor immigration. Therefore whatever government policy finally emerges, it will likely preserve the US’s national interest of continuing to import global talent . Chart 8People Voting With Their Feet The US’s chronic trade imbalance generated a new policy consensus in favor of strengthening American competitiveness. The US pursued a policy of globalization and de-industrialization for decades but it became untenable in the wake of the Great Recession, which spawned a populist backlash. The Biden administration has largely coopted the Trump administration’s hawkish approach to trade. While US trade and current account deficits will remain very large for the foreseeable future, reflecting a fundamental imbalance of savings relative to investment (Chart 9), nevertheless the US will undertake targeted policies to improve supply chain resilience and domestic high-tech competitive edge. The Congress’s likely passage of the American Competes Act of 2022 exemplifies the new bipartisan consensus around the need to invest in American industrial and technological capabilities so as to better compete with great powers overseas (Table 2). Chart 9US Competitiveness Waning? Table 2US Bipartisan Consensus On Restoring Competitiveness By contrast, other regions face greater geopolitical threats to their homelands and greater difficulties coping with hypo-globalization. Europe’s strategic vulnerability to Russia will dampen investment sentiment and risk appetite. Russia’s economic trajectory has suffered since 2014 and its ongoing conflict with the West will result in isolation and lower productivity. China will see rising tensions with its neighbors due to its economic transition, emerging protectionism, and its need to become more assertive for the sake of supply security. By contrast the US is relatively insulated. Investment Takeaways The US’s economic, constitutional, and geopolitical advantages are structural positives. Rising domestic policy uncertainty over the 2022-24 election cycle might overshadow these positives temporarily, but they are likely to persist over the long run. Increasing geopolitical risks abroad suggest that domestic American policy uncertainty is likely to be overrated. Great power competition – stemming from geopolitical risks – will fuel capital spending among the major nations as well as research and development investments. In this respect the United States faces challenges to maintain its competitive edge. But it is still the leader and the combination of a vibrant private sector and an increasingly proactive public sector are positive (Chart 10). Are the US’s structural advantages already priced? To a great extent, yes. The US equity risk premium today stands at 300 basis points, compared to 660 in Europe and 570 in China. And yet global geopolitical risk, highlighted by Russia’s escalating conflict with the West, suggest that this divergence can get worse before it gets better. We expect the 2022-24 election cycle to cause an increase in policy uncertainty and the political risk premium. But as things stand the increase in uncertainty and risk premiums abroad will be even greater (Chart 11). Chart 10US Investing In The Future? Chart 11US Stocks Priced The Good News?       Matt Gertken Senior Vice President Chief US Political Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)   Table A2Political Risk Matrix Table A3US Political Capital Index Chart A1Presidential Election Model Chart A2Senate Election Model Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Footnotes  

Executive Summary Russian Invasion Scenarios And Likely Equity Impact The Ukraine crisis is escalating as predicted. We maintain our odds: 65% limited incursion, 10% full-scale invasion, 25% diplomatic de-escalation. Russia says it will take “military-technical” measures as its demands remain unmet, while the US says an invasion is imminent. Fighting has picked up in the Donbas region. Our Ukraine decision tree highlights that the key to a last-minute diplomatic resolution is a western renunciation of defense cooperation with Ukraine after a verified Russian troop withdrawal. The opposite is occurring as we go to press. Stay long gold, defensives over cyclicals, and large caps over small caps. Stay long cyber security stocks and aerospace/defense stocks relative to the broad market. Trade Recommendation Inception Date Return LONG GOLD (STRATEGIC) 2019-12-06 27.6% Bottom Line: Our 75% subjective odds of a partial Russian re-invasion of Ukraine appear to be materializing. At the same time, we are not as optimistic about an imminent solution to the US-Iran nuclear problem. A near-term energy price spike is negative for global growth so we recommend sticking with our defensive tactical trades. Feature Chart 1Ukraine: Don't Be Complacent Fears about a heightened war in Ukraine fell back briefly this week before redoubling. Russian President Vladimir Putin showed a willingness to pursue diplomacy but then western officials refuted Russian claims that it was reducing troops around Ukraine. US President Biden said Russia is highly likely to invade Ukraine in the next few days. The Russian foreign ministry sent a letter reiterating Russia’s earlier threat that it will take unspecified “military-technical” actions given that its chief demands have not been met by the United States. A worsening security outlook as we go to press will push the dollar up against the euro, the euro up against the ruble, will lead to global equities falling (with US not falling as much as ex-US), and global bond yields falling (Chart 1). To assess the situation we need to weigh the signs of escalation against those of de-escalation. What were the signs of de-escalation? First, the Russian Defense Ministry claimed it is reducing troop levels near Ukraine, although NATO and the western powers have not verified any drawdown. An unspecified number of troops were said to return to their barracks in the Western and Southern Military Regions, according to Russian Defense Ministry spokesman General Igor Konashenkov. A video showed military units and hardware pulling back from Crimea. Officials claimed all troops would leave Belarus after military drills ended on February 20.1 Second, the Kremlin signaled that diplomacy has not been exhausted. In a video released to the public, Putin met with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. He asked whether there was still a chance “to reach an agreement with our partners on key issues that cause our concern?” Lavrov replied, “there is always a chance.” Putin replied, “Okay.” Then, after speaking with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in Moscow, Putin said: "We are ready to work further together. We are ready to go down the negotiations track.”2 Third, the Ukrainians are supposedly restarting efforts to implement the 2015 Russia-imposed ceasefire, under pressure from Germany and France. Ukraine’s ruling party is expected to introduce three bills to the Rada (parliament) that would result in implementing the terms of the Russian-imposed 2015 ceasefire, the so-called Minsk II Protocols. Ukraine is supposed to change its constitution to adopt a more federal system that grants autonomy to the two Russian separatist regions in the Donbas, Donetsk and Luhansk. Ukraine is also supposed to hold elections.3 The caveats to these three points are already clear: The US said Russia actually added 7,000 troops to the buildup on the Ukrainian border. Without Russia’s reducing troops, the US and its allies cannot offer major concessions. The US cannot allow itself to be blackmailed as that would encourage future hostage-taking and blackmail. Putin’s offer of talks is apparently separate from its “military-technical” response to the West’s failure to meet its three core demands on NATO. Russia’s three core demands are no further NATO enlargement, no intermediate-range missiles within threatening range, and withdrawal of NATO forces from eastern Europe to pre-1997 status. Putin reiterated that these three demands are inseparable from any negotiation and that Russia will not engage endlessly without resolution. Yet the West has consistently rejected these demands. Then came the Foreign Ministry statement pledging Russia’s military-technical response. So talks that focus on other issues – like missile defense and military transparency – are a sideshow. Ukraine is reiterating its desire to join NATO and will struggle to implement the Minsk Protocol. The Minsk format is not popular in Ukraine as it grants influence and recognition to the breakaway ethnic Russian regions. Ostensibly President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has sufficient strength in the Rada to change the constitution, given the possibility of assistance from opposition parties that oppose war or favor Russia. But passage or implementation could fail. The Russian Duma has also advised Putin to recognize the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics as independent countries, which Putin is not yet ready to do, but could do if Ukraine balks, and would nullify the Minsk format.4 Of Russia’s three core demands, investors should bear in mind the following points: Ukraine is never going to join NATO. One of the thirty NATO members will veto its membership to prevent war with Russia. Therefore Russia is either making this demand knowing it will fail to justify military action, or driving at something else, such as NATO defense cooperation with Ukraine. Even if NATO membership is practically unrealistic, the US and NATO are providing Ukraine with arms and training, making it a de facto member. The quality and quantity of western defense cooperation is not sufficient to threaten Russia’s military balance so far but it could grow over time and Russia is insisting that it stop. While there is also a broader negotiation over Europe’s entire security system, immediate progress depends on whether the US and its allies stop trying to turn Ukraine into a de facto NATO ally. NATO is not going to sacrifice all of the strategic, territorial, and military-logistical gains it has made since 1997. Especially not when Russia is attempting to achieve such a dramatic pullback by military blackmail. But NATO could reduce some of the most threatening aspects of its stance if Russia reciprocates and there is more military transparency. Similarly, the US and Russia have a track record of negotiating missile defense deals so this kind of agreement is possible over time. The problem, again, hinges on whether agreement can be found over Ukraine. The opposite looks to be the case. Based on the above points, Diagram 1 provides a “Decision Tree” that outlines the various courses of action, our subjective probabilities, and the sum of the conditional probabilities for each final scenario. Diagram 1Russia-Ukraine Decision Tree, February 9, 2022 We start with the view that there is a 55% chance that the status quo continues: the West will not rule out Ukraine’s right to join NATO and will not halt defense cooperation. If this is true, then the new round of talks will fail because Russia’s core security interests will not be met. However, we also give a 25% chance to the scenario in which Ukraine is effectively barred from NATO but not defense cooperation. This may be the emerging scenario, given Chancellor Scholz’s point that Ukrainian NATO membership is not on the agenda and the White House’s claim that it will not pressure states to join NATO. Basically, western leaders could provide informal assurances that Ukraine will never join. But then the matter of defense cooperation must be resolved in the next round of talks. Given that the US and others have increased arms transfers to Ukraine in recent months and years (with US providing lethal arms for the first time in 2018), it seems more likely (60/40) that they will continue with arms transfers. After all, if they halt arms, Russia can invade anyway, but Ukraine will have less ability to resist. We allot a 15% chance to a scenario in which the US and its allies halt defense cooperation, even if they officially maintain NATO’s “open door” policy. If the Russians withdraw troops in this scenario, then a lasting reduction of tensions will occur. Again, while allied defense cooperation has been limited so far, it is up to Russia whether it poses a long-term threat. Finally, we give a 5% chance that the US and NATO will bar Ukraine from membership and halt defense cooperation. This path would mark a total capitulation to Russia’s demands. So far the allies have done nothing like this. They have insisted on NATO’s open door policy and have continued to transfer arms. No one should be surprised that tensions are escalating. De-escalation could still conceivably occur if Russia verifiably withdraws troops, if Ukraine moves to implement the Minsk II protocol, and if the US and its allies pledge to halt defense cooperation with Ukraine. The first step is for Russia to reduce troops, since that enables the US and allies to make major concessions when they are not under duress. If the US and NATO guarantee they will halt defense cooperation, given that Ukraine is practically unlikely to join NATO, then Russia may not be as concerned with Ukraine’s implementation of Minsk. As we go to press, none of these conditions are falling into place. The security situation is deteriorating rapidly. Bottom Line: Russia is likely to stage a limited military intervention into Ukraine (75%). The odds of a diplomatic resolution at the last minute are the same (25%). A full-scale invasion of all of Ukraine remains unlikely (10%). Market Reaction To Re-Escalation Chart 2 highlights the global equity market response to the Russian invasion of Crimea in 2014, which should serve as the baseline for assessing the market reaction to any renewed attack today. Stocks fell and moved sideways relative to bonds for several months, cyclicals (except energy) underperformed defensives, small caps briefly rose then collapsed against large caps, and value stocks rose relative to growth stocks. The takeaway was to stay invested over the cyclical time frame, prefer large caps, and prefer value. The difference today is that cyclicals and small caps are already performing worse against defensives and large caps than in 2014, while value has vastly outstripped growth (Chart 3). The implication is that once war breaks out, cyclicals and small caps have less room to fall whereas value has limited near-term upside. Chart 2Market Response To Crimea Invasion, 2014​​​​​​ Chart 3Market Response 2022 Versus 2014​​​​​​ If we look closely at global equity gyrations over the past week – when the Ukraine story moved to front and center – we see that stocks are falling relative to bonds, cyclicals are flat relative to defensives, small caps are rising relative to large caps, and value is flat relative to growth but may have peaked (Chart 4). In the short term the geopolitical dynamic will move markets so we expect cyclicals, small caps, and value to underperform. Commodity prices and the energy sector are initially benefiting from tensions as expected – oil prices and energy equities spiked amid the tensions (Chart 5). But assuming war materializes, Russia will at least cut off natural gas flowing through Ukraine, cutting off about 20% of Europe’s natural gas supply and triggering a bigger price shock. Ultimately, however, this price shock will incentivize production, destroy global demand, and drive energy prices down. Chart 4Global Equities Just Woke Up To Ukraine​​​​​​ Chart 5Global Energy Sector Just Woke Up To Ukraine​​​​​ Thus we expect energy price volatility. Russia will keep shipping energy to Europe to finance its military adventures. Europe will be loath to slap sanctions on critical energy supplies, assuming Russia’s military action is limited. The Saudis may or may not increase production to prevent demand destruction – in past Russian invasions they have actually reduced production once prices started to fall. A temporary US-Iran nuclear deal could release Iranian oil to the market, though that is not what we expect in the short run (discussed below). Bottom Line: Tactically investors should favor bonds over stocks, the US dollar and US equities over global currencies and equities (especially European), defensive sectors over cyclicals, large caps over small caps, and growth over value stocks. Is Ukraine Already Priced? Not Yet. Chart 6Crisis Events And Peak-To-Trough Market Drawdown The peak-to-trough equity drawdown – in geopolitical crises that are comparable to a Russian invasion of Ukraine – range from 11%-14% going back to 1931. The following research findings are derived from a list of select events, from the Japanese invasion of China to the German invasion of Poland to lesser invasions, all the way down to Russia’s seizure of Crimea in 2014. We used the S&P 500 as it is the most representative stock index over this long period of time. The fully updated and broader list of geopolitical crises can be found in Appendix 1. Geopolitical crises tend to trigger an average 10% equity decline, smaller than economic crises or major terrorist attacks (Chart 6). The biggest geopolitical shocks to the equity market occur when an event is a truly global event, as opposed to regional shocks. Interestingly Europe-only shocks have seen some of the smallest average drawdowns at around 8% (Chart 7). An expanded Ukraine war would be limited to Europe. The average equity selloff is largest, at 14%, if both the US and its allies are directly involved in the geopolitical event. But the range is 11%-14% regardless of whether the US or its allies are involved (Chart 8). Ukraine is not an official ally, which is one reason the markets will tend to play down a larger war there. However, the market is underrating the fact that Ukraine’s neighbors are NATO members and will have a powerful interest in supporting the Ukrainian militant insurgency, which could lead to unexpected conflicts that involve NATO member-state’s citizens. Chart 7Geopolitical Crises And Markets: Where Is The Crisis?​​​​​​ Chart 8Geopolitical Crises And Markets: Who Are The Players?​​​​​​ Chart 9Russian Invasion Scenarios And Likely Equity Impact The Russians have as many as 150,000 troops on the border with Ukraine, according to President Biden’s latest speech. The Ukrainian active military numbers 215,000. This ratio is not at all favorable for a full-scale invasion. The Russians are contemplating a limited action directed at teaching Ukraine a lesson or encroaching further onto Ukrainian territory, especially coastal territory. History suggests that a limited incursion will produce a 10% total equity drawdown, whereas a full-scale invasion would produce 13% or more (Chart 9). Still, investors should view 11%-14% as the appropriate range for a geopolitically induced crisis. The S&P has fallen by 9% since its peak on January 3, 2022. But Russia has not invaded yet. If war breaks out, there is more downside, given high uncertainty. Markets could still be surprised by the initial force of any Russian military action. The US will impose sweeping sanctions immediately. The Europeans will modify their sanctions according to Russia’s actions, a key source of uncertainty. If a diplomatic resolution is confirmed – with Russia withdrawing troops and the US and its allies cutting defense cooperation with Ukraine – then the market may continue to rally. However, there are other reasons to be cautious: especially inflation and monetary policy normalization, with the Federal Reserve potentially lifting rates by 50 basis points in March. Bottom Line: Stocks can fall further given that investors do not yet know the magnitude of the Russian military action or the US and European sanctions response. However, a buying opportunity is around the corner once this significant source of global uncertainty is clarified. New Iran Deal Is Neither Guaranteed Nor Durable A short note is necessary on the situation with Iran, another major risk this year, which falls under our third 2022 key view: oil-producing states gain geopolitical leverage. The implication is that the Iran risk will not be resolved quickly or easily. The global economy could suffer a double whammy of energy supply shock from Ukraine and energy supply risk in the Middle East this year. The US-Russia showdown is connected to the US-Iran nuclear negotiation. Russia took Crimea in 2014 in part because it saw an opportunity to exact a price from the United States, which sought Russia’s assistance in negotiating the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. Today a similar dynamic is playing out, in which Russian diplomats cooperate on Iranian talks while encroaching on Ukraine. The Russians do not have an interest in Iran achieving a deliverable nuclear weapon and thus will offer some limited cooperation to this end. Their pound of flesh is Ukraine. According to media reports, the Iranian negotiations have seen some positive developments over the past month. US interest in rejoining the 2015 deal: The Biden administration has an interest in preventing Iran from reaching “breakout” levels of uranium enrichment and triggering a conflict in the region that would drive up oil prices ahead of the midterm election. It is going to be hard for Biden to remove sanctions in the context of Russian aggression but it is likely he would do it if the Iranians recommit to complying with the 2015 restrictions on their nuclear program. Iranian interest in rejoining the 2015 deal: The Iranians have an interest in convincing President Biden to remove sanctions to improve their economy and reduce the risk of social unrest. They are demanding the removal of all sanctions, not only those levied by President Trump. They also know that rejoining the 2015 deal itself is not so bad, since it starts expiring in 2025 and does not limit their missile production or support of militant proxies in the region. However, note that the Iranian regime has suppressed domestic instability since Trump’s “maximum pressure” sanctions, and the economy is improving on oil prices, so the threat of social unrest is not forcing Iran to accept a deal today. Also note that Iran is making demands that cannot be met: Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian is asking the US to provide guarantees that the US will not renege on the deal again, for example if the Republicans return to the White House in 2025. President Biden cannot provide these guarantees. The voting margins are too thin for a “political statement,” promising that the US will not renege on a deal, to pass Congress. While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi might be willing to provide such a statement to the Iranians, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer probably will not – he opposed the originally 2015 deal. Even if Congress gave Iran guarantees, the fact remains that the GOP could win the White House in 2025, so the current, hawkish Iranian leadership cannot be satisfied on this front. Furthermore, even if Biden pulls back sanctions and Iran complies with the 2015 deal for a brief reprieve, Iran’s underlying interest is to obtain a deliverable nuclear weapon to achieve regime survival in the future. Iran faces a clear distinction between Ukraine, which gave up nukes and is now being dismembered (like Libya and Iraq), and North Korea, which now has a deliverable nuclear arsenal and commands respect from the US on the national stage. Moreover if the Republicans take back power in 2025, Iran will want to have achieved or be close to achieving a deliverable nuclear weapon. The Biden administration is weak at home and facing a crisis with Russia, which may present a window of opportunity for Iran to make a dash for the nuclear deterrent. Still, we acknowledge the short-term risk to our pessimistic view: It is possible that Iran will rejoin the deal to gain sanctions relief. In this case about 1-1.2 million barrels per day of Iranian crude will hit the global market. The implication, depending on the size of the energy shock, is that Brent crude prices will fall back to the $80 per barrel average that our Commodity & Energy Strategy expects. We also agree with our Commodity & Energy Strategist that global oil production will pick up in the face of supply risks that threaten to destroy demand. Bottom Line: We doubt Iran will rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal quickly. We expect energy prices to continue spiking in the short term due to Ukraine and any setbacks in the Iran negotiations. Yet we also expect oil producers around the world to increase production, which will sow the seeds for an oil price drop. Our tactical trade recommendations rest on falling oil prices and bond yields in the short run. Investment Takeaways Stay long gold. Stay long global defensive equity sectors over cyclicals. Favor global large caps over small caps. Stay long cyber security stocks and aerospace/defense stocks relative to the broad market. Stay long Japanese industrials relative to German and long yen. Stay long British stocks relative to other developed markets excluding the US, and long GBP-CZK. Favor Latin American equities within emerging markets, namely Mexican stocks and Brazilian financials relative to Indian stocks.   Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      See "Russia Announces Troop Withdrawal," Russia Today, February 15, 2022, rt.com; "Ukraine crisis: Russian claim of troop withdrawal false, says US," BBC, February 17, 2022, bbc.com. 2     David M. Herszenhorn, “On stage at the Kremlin: Putin and Lavrov’s de-escalation dance,” Politico, February 14, 2022, politico.eu. 3     "Scholz says Zelensky promised to submit bills on Donbass to Contact Group," Tass, February 15, 2022, tass.com; "Scholz in Kyiv confirms Germany won’t arm Ukraine, stays mum on Nord Stream 2," February 15, 2022, euromaidanpress.com. 4     "Kiev makes no secret Minsk-2 is not on its agenda — Russian Foreign Ministry," Tass, February 17, 2022, tass.com; Felix Light, "Russian Parliament Backs Plan To Recognize Breakaway Ukrainian Regions," Moscow Times, February 15, 2022, themoscowtimes.com. Appendix 1: Geopolitical Events And Equity Market Impact Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)

Executive Summary Bull Markets In Malaysian Stocks Are Fully Dependent On Profit Growth The conditions for a major rally/outperformance in Malaysian equities are absent. Profits have been the primary driver of Malaysian equity prices historically, and the corporate earnings outlook is mediocre. Domestic demand is facing headwinds from tightening fiscal policy as well as from impaired credit channels.  Muted wage growth and deflating house prices are sapping consumer confidence. This will dent domestic demand going forward. This backdrop is bullish for bonds. Malaysian bonds offer value, as real bond yields are among the highest in Emerging Asia. The yield curve is far too steep given the growth and inflation outlook.  The Malaysian ringgit is cheap and has limited downside. Bottom Line: We recommend equity investors implement a neutral stance toward Malaysia in overall EM and Emerging Asian equity portfolios. Absolute return investors should avoid this bourse for now. Fixed-income investors, on the other hand, should stay overweight Malaysia in both EM domestic (local currency) and sovereign credit portfolios. In the rate markets, investors should continue receiving 10-year swap rates or bet on yield curve flattening. Feature Chart 1Malaysian Equity Underperformance May Be Late, But It’s Not Yet Time To Overweight Malaysian stocks are still in search of a stable bottom in absolute terms. Relative to their EM and Emerging Asian counterparts however, a bottom has been forming over the past year (Chart 1). So, could Malaysia’s prolonged underperformance be coming to an end?  Our analysis suggests caution. The underlying reasons behind this market’s substantial and protracted underperformance – dwindling earnings both in absolute terms and relative to its peers – are yet to show any signs of a reversal.  While cheap, the ringgit is also negatively impacted by the meager corporate profits generated by Malaysian firms. Investors would do well to stay neutral on this bourse for now in EM and Emerging Asian equity portfolios. Fixed income investors, however, should continue to stay overweight Malaysia in both EM domestic (local currency) and sovereign credit portfolios. Also, Malaysia’s yield curve is too steep and offers value given the sluggish cyclical growth outlook. It’s All About Profits Chart 2 shows that the bull and bear markets in Malaysian stocks have been all about the rise and fall in earnings per share (EPS). Stock multiples, the other possible driver of the equity prices, have been remarkably flat over the past two decades, with only brief periods of fluctuations around the GFC and COVID-19 pandemic. The same can be said about Malaysia’s relative performance vis-à-vis EM and Emerging Asian stocks. The trajectory of the relative stock performance was set by the relative earnings (Chart 3). Chart 3Malaysia’s Relative Performance Is Also Dictated By Relative Corporate Profits Chart 2Bull Markets In Malaysian Stocks Are Fully Dependent On Profit Growth Thus, it is reasonable to expect that for this bourse to usher in a new bull market in absolute terms, Malaysian firms need to grow their earnings sustainably. And in order to outperform the rest of the EM stocks, Malaysian earnings need to grow at a faster clip than their peers. The question therefore is, are there signs of profit recovery in Malaysian companies in absolute and relative terms? The short answer is no. Bottom-up analysts do not expect any change in the downward trend in Malaysia’s relative profits over the coming 12 months. This outlook is corroborated by our macro analysis, as is outlined below. Sluggish Growth  Malaysian profits are languishing in large part because of subdued topline growth. While profit margins are returning to pre-pandemic levels – thanks to cost cutting – subdued sales are causing the corporate profits to stay low. Chart 4Malaysian Domestic Demand Is Subdued Malaysian gross output as of Q4 last year was barely at pre-pandemic levels. The weak recovery is most evident in the dismal level of capital investments. Gross fixed capital formations – in both real and nominal terms – are still a good 15% below their pre-pandemic levels (Chart 4, top two panels). Apathy among businesses in ramping up productive capacity indicates a lack of confidence in consumer demand going forward. Consumption is indeed weak: Unit sales for passenger vehicles continue to be sluggish, and commercial vehicle sales are not faring any better. Consumer sentiment has ticked down in the latest survey indicating retail sales might decelerate (Chart 4, bottom two panels) Consistently, industrial production in consumer goods-related industries is struggling to surpass previous highs, even though strong export demand has provided a fillip to sales. In more domestic-oriented industries such as construction goods, the weakness is palpable (Chart 5). Meanwhile, unemployment rates have fallen marginally, but are still higher than they were before the pandemic. As a result, wages remain subdued. The resulting weak household income is contributing to depressed consumption. With mediocre household income growth, demand for houses has also slowed meaningfully. This is reflected in dwindling property unit sales. The advent of the pandemic and the resulting loss of household income have further aggravated the situation. In fact, prices of certain types of dwelling units, such as semi-detached houses and high-rise apartments, are deflating outright (Chart 6, top panel). Falling house prices weigh on consumer sentiment and discourage future consumption. Chart 6Contracting House Prices Is Hurting Real Estate Sector And Denting Consumer Confidence Chart 5Weak Domestic Demand Is A Headwind To Industrial Production What’s more, the housing sector does not expect an early recovery in sales and prices either. This is evident in the very depressed level of new construction starts (Chart 6, bottom panel). As such, this sector is likely to remain a drag on Malaysia’s post-pandemic recovery. Fiscal And Credit Headwinds Going forward, the recovery will face other headwinds worth noting. One of them is a restrictive fiscal policy. This is because the “statutory debt” ceiling of the government – at 60% of GDP – has already been reached (Chart 7, top panel). This ceiling for statutory debts was fixed by lawmakers as part of a stimulus bill (COVID-19 Act) passed in 2020; and leaves little room for additional fiscal stimulus. Indeed, the IMF estimates that the ‘fiscal thrust’ this year will be negative at 2% of GDP (Chart 7, bottom panel). The country’s credit channel is also compromised. The reason is that Malaysian banks are still saddled with unresolved NPLs. These NPLs are a legacy of a very rapid expansion of bank loans following the GFC. In just five years (2009 -2014), bank credit doubled in nominal terms to 1500 billion ringgit or from 95% of GDP to 125% (Chart 8, top panel). Such fast deployment of credit was bound to cause significant misallocation of capital. And yet banks were averse to recognize impaired loans in any good measure. In fact, during the years of rapid credit growth, banks were recognizing ever fewer amounts in absolute terms as impaired loans. They were also setting aside ever lower amounts as loan loss provisions (Chart 8, second panel). Chart 7Fiscal Policy Will Stay Constrained As Statutory Debt Has Hit The Ceiling Chart 8Both Demand And Supply Of Bank Credit In Malaysia Remains Compromised While bad debt recognition and provisions have risen modestly over the past year, Malaysia’s reported NPL ratio remained under 1.5% of loans (Chart 8, third panel). Loan loss provisions have been equally meager. This indicates that banks’ balance sheets are far from clean. In reality, Malaysian borrowers never went through any deleveraging process following their last credit binge. The bank credit-to-GDP ratio remains at around the same level as it was in 2015 (125% of GDP). By comparison, during Malaysia’s previous deleveraging phase, bank credit was shed from 150% of GDP to 90% (1998 - 2008). Borrowers already saddled with large amounts of debt are much less likely to borrow more to invest and/or consume. This is therefore going to cap credit demand. Chart 9Banks Are Piling Up On Government Securities By Shunning Loans As for banks, an increase in impaired loans makes them reticent to engage in further lending. Instead, they seek to accumulate safer assets such as government bonds. In fact, this is what Malaysian banks have been doing. They have ramped up their holdings of government securities materially since 2015 at the expense of loans and advances (Chart 9, top panel).   After the pandemic-related slowdown in the economy, banks’ loan books are now probably more encumbered with impaired loans.  As such, banks are even less likely to ramp up their loan books in any major way. That will be yet another headwind to economic recovery (Chart 9, bottom panel).    Value In Fixed Income The headwinds to growth do not entail a bullish outlook for Malaysian equities. The outlook for Malaysian local currency bonds, however, is promising. A tightening fiscal policy amid weak domestic demand and subdued inflation is a bullish cocktail for domestic bonds. There is a good chance that Malaysian bond yields will roll over. At a minimum, they will rise less than most other EM countries or US Treasuries. Notably, Malaysia offers one of the highest real yields (nominal yield adjusted for core inflation) in Emerging Asia (Chart 10, top panel). Given the country’s mediocre growth outlook, odds are high that Malaysian local bonds will outperform their EM / Emerging Asian peers (Chart 10, bottom panel). Chart 10Malaysian Bonds Offer One Of The Best Values In Emerging Aisa Chart 11Steep Yield Curve Indicate Value In Bond Space; But Spell Trouble For Bank Stocks The Malaysian swap curve is also far too steep given the country’s macro backdrop. Going forward, the 10-year/1-year swap curve is set to flatten from its decade-steep level of 130 basis points (Chart 11, top panel). That means investors should continue receiving 10-year swap rates. On a related note, a fall in bond yields will not augur well for Malaysian stocks in general, and bank stocks in particular. The middle panel of Chart 11 shows that bank stocks struggle in absolute terms whenever bond yields decline. Incidentally, at 38% of total, banks are by far the largest sector in the MSCI Malaysia Index. And in recent months bank stocks have been propelling the Malaysian market (Chart 11, bottom panel). Should the bourse begin to miss the tailwind from rising bond yields, Malaysian equity performance will be hobbled.    Finally, investors should stay overweight in Malaysian sovereign credit. The country’s orthodox fiscal policy has accorded a defensive nature to this market. As such, periods of global risk-off witness Malaysian sovereign spreads fall relative to their EM counterparts, as they did in 2015 and again in 2020. In the months ahead, rising US inflation and a slowdown in Chinese property markets could cause another such period. That will lead Malaysian sovereign US dollar bonds to continue outperforming their EM peers. What’s With The Ringgit? Chart 12Malaysia Has Not Been Able To Benefit From A Cheap Currency The Malaysian currency is cheap, both in nominal and real terms (Chart 12, top panel). As such, it will likely be one of the most resilient currencies in EM this year. That said, the ringgit has been cheap for a while now (since 2015), and yet the Malaysian economy does not seem to have benefitted much all these years. The inability to take advantage of a cheap currency points to a fundamental malaise in the Malaysian economy: Loss of manufacturing competitiveness, as explained in our previous report on Malaysia. Perhaps equally worryingly, the country has not been able to attract much in the way of capital inflows. What this implies is that global investors did not find Malaysian assets attractive enough despite the benefits of a significantly cheaper currency (Chart 12, bottom panel). A major reason investors have not found the country attractive is because the return on capital on Malaysian assets has continued to deteriorate relative to the rest of the world. The upshot of the above is that, should Malaysian firms be able to improve their profits going forward, Malaysian stocks’ relative performance would get a boost from both higher relative earnings and a stronger currency. However, given the sluggish business cycle outlook as explained above, a sustainable rally in Malaysian stocks or currency is not imminent. Investment Conclusions Chart 13Malaysian Relative Stock Valuations Are On The Cheaper Side Equities: Malaysian stocks have cheapened. Both in terms of P/E ratio and P/book ratio, they are at the lower end of the spectrum relative to their EM counterparts (Chart 13). Yet, given the mediocre growth outlook, we recommend that dedicated EM and Emerging Asian equity portfolios stay neutral on this market for now. Absolute return investors should stay on the sidelines in view of the worsening risk outlook in global markets, and wait for a better entry point later in the year. For local asset allocators in Malaysia, it is too early to overweight stocks relative to bonds over a cyclical horizon. Even though the equity risk premium in general has been much higher since the advent of the pandemic, stocks have struggled to outperform bonds in a total return basis over the past two years. That will likely be the case for several more months given the country’s growth outlook and rising global risks. Fixed Income: Malaysian domestic bonds will outperform their overall EM / Emerging Asian peers. So will Malaysian sovereign credit. Fixed income investors should overweight them in their respective EM / Emerging Asian portfolios. In the rate markets, investors should continue receiving 10-year swap rates. Finally, Malaysian yield curves are set to flatten. Investors should position for a narrowing of the 10-year/1-year yield curve, which is at a decade-high level of 180 basis points. Rajeeb Pramanik Senior EM Strategist rajeeb.pramanik@bcaresearch.com

Executive Summary The recent 26 percent overspend on durable goods constitutes one of the greatest imbalances in economic history. An overspend on goods is corrected by a subsequent underspend; but an underspend on services is not corrected by a subsequent overspend. This unfortunate asymmetry means that the recent overspend on goods at the expense of services makes the economy vulnerable to a downturn. And the risk is exacerbated by central banks’ intentions to hike rates in response to inflation. As the spending on durable goods wanes, so too will monthly core inflation and the 30-year T-bond yield. As the 30-year T-bond rallies, so too will other long-duration bonds, long-duration stocks, long-duration sectors, and long-duration stock markets such as the S&P 500 versus short-duration stock markets such as the FTSE 100. Fractal trading watchlist: We focus on emerging markets, add financials versus industrials, and review tobacco versus cannabis, CAD/SEK, and biotech. If A 26 Percent Overspend On Goods Is Not A Massive Economic Imbalance, Then What Is? Bottom Line: As the spending on durable goods wanes, so too will monthly core inflation and the 30-year T-bond yield. Go overweight long-duration bonds, long-duration stocks, and long-duration stock markets such as the US versus non-US. Feature My colleague Peter Berezin recently wrote that recessions tend to happen when: “1) the build-up of imbalances makes the economy vulnerable to downturn; 2) a catalyst exposes these imbalances; and 3) amplifiers exacerbate the slump.” Peter is spot on. Using this checklist, I would argue that right now: There is a massive imbalance that makes the economy vulnerable to a downturn. Specifically, a 26 percent overspend on durable goods constitutes one of the greatest imbalances in economic history – the 26 percent overspend on durables refers to the US, but other advanced economies have experienced similar binges on goods. The catalyst that exposes this massive imbalance is the realisation that durables are, well, durable. They last a long time. So, if you front-end loaded many of this year’s purchases into last year, then you will not buy them this year. If you overspent by 26 percent in 2021, then the risk is that you symmetrically underspend by 26 percent in 2022. If central banks hike rates into this demand downturn, they will amplify and exacerbate the slump. A Massive Imbalance In Spending Makes The Economy Vulnerable To A Downturn Much of the recent overspend on goods was spending displaced from the underspend on services which became unavailable in the pandemic – such as eating out, going to the movies, and going to in-person doctor’s appointments. Raising the obvious question, can a future underspend on goods be countered by a future overspend on services? The answer is no. The consumption of services is constrained by time, opportunity, and biology. For example, there is a limit on how often you can eat out, go to the movies, or go to the doctor. If you are used to eating out and going to the movies once a week, and the pandemic prevented you from doing so for a year, that does not mean you will eat out and go to the movies an extra 52 times for the 52 times you missed! Rather, you will quickly revert to your previous pattern of going out once a week. This constraint on services spending means that the underspend will not become a symmetric overspend. In fact, the underspend on certain services will persist. This is because we have made some permanent changes to our lifestyles – for example, hybrid office/home working and more online shopping and online medical care. Additionally, a small but significant minority of people have changed their behaviour, shunning services that require close contact with strangers. To repeat the crucial asymmetry, an overspend on goods is corrected by a subsequent underspend; but an underspend on services is not corrected by a subsequent overspend (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). Therefore, the recent massive overspend on goods at the expense of services makes the economy vulnerable to a downturn, and the risk is exacerbated by central banks’ intentions to hike rates in response to inflation. These hikes will prove to be overkill, because inflation is set to cool of its own accord. Chart I-1An Overspend On Goods Can Be Corrected By A Subsequent Underspend...   Chart I-2...But An Underspend On Services Cannot Be Corrected By A Subsequent Overspend   Durables Are Driving Inflation, And Inflation Is Driving The 30-Year T-Bond The recent binge on goods really comprises three mini-binges, which peaked in May 2020, January-March 2021, and October 2021. With a couple of months lag, these three mini-binges have caused three mini-waves in core inflation. To see the cause and effect, it is best to examine the evolution of inflation granularly – on a month-on-month basis – which removes the distorting ‘base effects.’ The mini-binges in goods lifted the core monthly inflation rate to an (annualised) 7 percent in July 2020, 10 percent in April-June 2021, and 7 percent in January 2022 (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Spending On Durables Is Driving Inflation Worryingly, the sensitivity of inflation has increased in each new mini-binge in goods spending, possibly reflecting more pressure on already-creaking supply chains as well as more secondary effects. Nevertheless, the key driver of the mini-waves in core inflation is the demand for durables, and as that demand wanes, so will core inflation. As monthly core inflation eases back, so too will the 30-year T-bond yield. What about the 30-year T-bond yield? Although it is a long-duration asset, its yield has recently been tracking the short-term contours of core inflation. So, when monthly inflation reached an (annualised) 10 percent last year, the 30-year T-bond yield reached 2.5 percent. At the more recent 7 percent inflation rate, the yield has reached 2.35 percent. It follows that as monthly core inflation eases back, so too will the 30-year T-bond yield (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Inflation Is Driving The 30-Year T-Bond Get The 30-Year T-Bond Right, And You’ll Get Most Things Right For the past year, the story of stocks has been the story of bonds. Or to be more precise, the story of long-duration stocks has been the story of the 30-year T-bond. Through this period, the worry du jour has changed – from the Omicron mutation of SARS-CoV-2 to an Evergrande default to Facebook subscriber losses and now to Russia/Ukraine tensions. Yet the overarching story through all of this is that the long-duration Nasdaq index has tracked the 30-year T-bond price one-for-one (Chart I-5). And the connection between S&P 500 and the 30-year T-bond price is almost as good (Chart I-6). Chart I-5Get The 30-Year T-Bond Right, And You'll Get The Nasdaq Right Chart I-6Get The 30-Year T-Bond Right, And You'll Get The S&P 500 Right The tight short-term connection between long-duration stocks and the 30-year T-bond makes perfect sense. The cashflows of any investment can be simplified into a ‘lump-sum’ payment in the future, and the ‘present value’ of this payment will move in line with the present value of an equal-duration bond. So, all else being equal, a long-duration stock will move one-for-one in line with a long-duration bond. The story of long-duration stocks has been the story of the 30-year T-bond. ‘Value’ stocks and non-US stock markets which are over-weighted to value have a shorter-duration. Therefore, they have a much weaker connection with the 30-year T-bond. It follows that if you get the 30-year T-bond right, you’ll get most things right: The performance of other long-duration bonds (Chart I-7). The performance of long-duration growth stocks (Chart I-8). The performance of ‘growth’ versus ‘value’ (Chart I-9). The performance of growth-heavy stock markets like the S&P 500 versus value-heavy stock markets like the FTSE100 (Chart I-10). Of course, the corollary is that if you get the 30-year T-bond wrong, you’ll get most things wrong. Observe that the 1-year charts of long-duration bonds, growth stocks, growth versus value, and S&P 500 versus FTSE100 are indistinguishable. Proving once again that investment is complex, but it is not complicated! Chart I-7Get The 30-Year T-Bond Right, And You'll Get The 30-Year German Bund Right Chart I-8Get The 30-Year T-Bond Right, And You'll Get Growth Stocks Right   Chart I-9Get The 30-Year T-Bond Right, And You'll Get Growth Versus Value Right Chart I-10Get The 30-Year T-Bond Right, And You'll Get S&P 500 Versus FTSE100 Right Our expectation is that as the spending on durable goods wanes, so too will monthly core inflation and the 30-year T-bond yield. Go overweight long-duration bonds, long-duration stocks, long-duration sectors, and long-duration stock markets such as the US versus non-US. Fractal Trading Watchlist This week we focus on emerging markets, add financials versus industrials, and review tobacco versus cannabis, CAD/SEK, and biotech. Emerging markets (EM) have been a big underperformer through the past year, but it may be time to dip in again, at least relative to value-heavy developed market (DM) indexes. Specifically, MSCI Emerging Markets versus MSCI UK has reached the point of fractal fragility that signalled previous major turning-points in 2014, 2018, and 2020 (Chart I-11). Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to go long MSCI EM versus UK (dollar indexes), setting the profit-target and symmetrical stop-loss at 10 percent.  Chart I-11Time To Dip Into EM Again, Selectively Financials Versus Industrials Is Approaching A Turning-Point CAD/SEK At A Top Awaiting A Major Entry-Point Into Biotech Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area   Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations I   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations III    

Executive Summary Foreign And Domestic Politics Won't Stop The Fed Investors woke up to the Ukraine risk this week. It is not yet resolved. Stay defensive. Market reactions to Ukraine suggest investors will favor defensive sectors and growth stocks in the short term, with the notable exception of the energy sector. External risks will not dissuade the Fed from hiking rates in the face of 6% core inflation. Later the Fed might adjust to foreign crises but the stock market faces more downside in the interim. Polarization is reviving ahead of the midterm elections, which will usher in gridlock. Gridlock is disinflationary, reinforcing a tactically defensive market positioning despite our cyclical House View. Bottom Line: Biden’s external risks are not yet subsiding. The Fed will hike rates even in the face of external supply shocks. Stay tactically defensive. Feature Our three key views for the year are: gridlock, executive power, and foreign policy. First, Congress will become gridlocked even prior to the midterm elections. Second, President Biden will have to shift to executive power to achieve policy objectives. Third, Biden’s focus will be forced to engage in foreign policy more than he would prefer due to rising external risks. The Ukraine crisis – covered extensively in our Geopolitical Strategy – is the most pressing external risk but it is not the only one that we think will trouble markets this year. We expect politically induced volatility to persist all year. The cyclical investment view should be driven by the underlying macroeconomic reality. But that macro reality will change if external risks materialize and cause greater supply disruptions or if they alter the US midterm election outlook. We maintain our tactically defensive positioning for now. Mr. Market Wakes Up To Ukraine Risk The reason for the crisis is the historic Russian military buildup on all sides of Ukraine, in the face of US defense cooperation with Ukraine, not the “hysterical” American propaganda over the risk of war. When and if Russian forces withdraw, the crisis will melt away. But for now, Russia’s reported withdrawal of some troops is contradicted by movements of other troops as well as the fact that the Russian navy has effectively blocked off the Black Sea. Investors must judge by capabilities, not intentions, and Russia still has the capability to stage a limited attack at present so investors should maintain a defensive or cautious approach. In this context investors are rightly bidding up the US dollar and bidding down US equities in absolute terms (albeit not relative to European equities). Bond yields have not responded much to the external risk due to the high rate of inflation, which is pushing yields up (Chart 1). If Russia re-invades, stocks and bond yields will fall at least temporarily and the dollar will rise higher. When Russia initially invaded Ukraine eight years ago, in February 2014, the US stock-to-bond ratio moved sideways for several months but cyclicals outperformed defensives. Energy stocks rallied, until the oil crash in summer 2014. Small caps underperformed large caps, yet value outperformed growth stocks (Chart 2). Small caps likely suffered from risk-off sentiment and expectations of a drag on global growth, while value benefited from gently rising interest rates at that time. Chart 1Ukraine Crisis Escalates Chart 2Market Response To Crimea Invasion, 2014 Comparing the situation today, the difference is that cyclicals are trailing defensives and small caps are trailing large caps even more than they were in 2014. Yet value stocks have performed far better against growth now than then, in accordance with higher inflation and bond yields (Chart 3). Further escalation of the Ukraine crisis should drive investors to favor defensives, large caps, and growth stocks on a tactical time frame, even though this decision runs against our BCA House View on a cyclical time frame. The past week’s market moves reinforce the 2014 experience in general, with the stock-to-bond ratio faltering and cyclicals falling back (Chart 4). Small caps and value have benefited but these charts suggest that a negative hit to global growth will hurt small caps, while value is overextended relative to growth in the short term. The market only really began to discount the risk of a new war in Europe this past week, specifically on Friday, February 11 and Monday, February 14. Chart 3Market Response 2022 Versus 2014 Chart 4US Equities Just Woke Up To Ukraine There is not yet a solid diplomatic solution as we go to press on Tuesday, February 15, but some positive signs are fueling a rebound in risk assets. Fade these improvements in risk appetite until Russia makes its decision on whether to use military force and, if so, until Europe makes its decision on whether to impose crippling sanctions.  Bottom Line: Tactically stay long growth stocks versus value, but prepare to switch back to overweighting value if the Ukraine crisis abates. The Energy Sector Response To Ukraine So Far Commodity prices and the energy sector are naturally benefitting from rising supply risks. But there is a risk that they will suffer later if a war breaks out and generates a supply shock and energy price shock that weigh on European and global growth. Russia will likely maintain energy production to help pay for its military adventures. The Saudis could increase production to prevent demand destruction. It is also possible that a US-Iran nuclear deal could release Iranian oil to the market. The global economy can handle gradually rising energy prices but maybe not a sharp supply shock. Oil prices are rising on signs of escalating tensions and energy sector equities are generally outperforming the broad market and other cyclical sectors. Domestically oriented small cap energy stocks are rising relative to large caps, suggesting that the market does not believe that global growth will suffer greatly from any conflict. Apparently investors do believe that US energy companies will benefit from shipping more fossil fuels abroad (Chart 5). Bottom Line: Cyclically stay long small cap energy stocks versus their large cap brethren. Chart 5US Energy Sector Just Woke Up To Ukraine Peak-To-Trough Drawdowns Amid Geopolitical Crises The peak-to-trough equity drawdown amid major geopolitical crises ranges from 11%-15%, depending on the magnitude and nature of the crisis (Chart 6). In this case, the US will not be directly involved in any war in Ukraine, but US NATO allies will be right next door and providing aid to Ukraine. For “limited incursion” scenarios we looked at over a dozen crises, from the Berlin Blockade of 1949 to the Russian invasion of Crimea in 2014. The peak-to-trough drawdown averages 10%. For an unlimited or “full-scale” invasion, we looked at the S&P500 reaction to major invasions at the dawn of World War II as well as significant wars in the twentieth century, down to the US invasion of Iraq and NATO’s intervention in Libya in 2011. The peak-to-trough equity drawdown averaged 13%. Chart 6Range Of US Equity Peak-To-Trough Drawdowns Amid Geopolitical Crisis Given that the S&P500 has fallen by 8% since its peak on January 3, 2022, investors should be prepared for more downside. Health care stocks and consumer staples are outperforming the broad market this year so far, though they are underperforming energy where the supply squeeze is happening (Chart 7). The magnitude of war and sanctions will determine whether energy ultimately falls in expectation of demand destruction. Bottom Line: It is too soon to buy the dip in the S&P 500. Stay long health stocks relative to the broad market. Chart 7Health Care And Consumer Staples Will The Fed Respond To External Risks? No. Over the past year, we have argued with investors who tried to differentiate the current bout of inflation from the inflation of the 1970s by arguing that there is no energy supply shock. We argued that an energy shock could transpire by pointing to external risks such as Russia and Iran. While the Biden administration will likely prove risk-averse, for fear that higher prices at the pump will weigh on the Democratic Party in the midterm elections, what about the Federal Reserve? During the Arab oil embargo of late 1973, and the Iranian revolution of 1979, the Federal Reserve continued to hike interest rates, responding to domestic inflation and rising bond yields. Foreign supply shocks threatened to push up inflation, so the Fed was not deterred from hiking rates (Chart 8). When the US itself engages in war, the Fed might react differently (Chart 9). Chart 8The Fed Responds to Oil Shocks by Hiking Rates But... Chart 9... US At War Could Trigger Looser Monetary Policy In 1990, the Fed cut the policy rate once after the US entered the Iraq war, then kept rates flat for a few months before cutting more at the end of the year. Bond yields were falling due to recession. In 2001, the Fed was already cutting rates due to the business cycle and the September 11 terrorist attacks reinforced that process. In 2003, the Fed cut rates after the beginning of the Iraq war and did not start hiking rates until mid-2004 when the initial phase of the war ended. The implication is that Fed Chair Alan Greenspan accommodated both the war and the 2004 presidential election. Most external risks will not prevent the Fed from hiking rates, especially during an inflation bout when the nature of the external risk may be an energy supply disruption that pushes up prices. However, while we do not doubt that the Fed could hike by 50bps in March, we doubt that the consensus of 175bps in hikes in 2022 will pan out. The combination of initial hikes, fiscal drag, and foreign growth shocks would temper the Fed’s enthusiasm. Bottom Line: Stocks face more downside risk in this environment.   Bipartisanship And The Return Of Gridlock Polarization and partisanship are recovering. The Philadelphia Fed “Partisan Conflict Index” is now only 0.6% below its 2020 peaks as the midterm election approaches (Chart 10). Interestingly, one of our key views from last year – bipartisan reform – is still taking place beneath the surface. Our 2022 view of gridlock has not yet fully set in. Congress is stealthily cooperating on fiscal spending, the US Postal Service, women’s issues, public servants’ stock trading, and an attempt to revise the Electoral Count Act. Congress is also passing a bipartisan bill to make the US more economically competitive with China and impose sanctions against Russia. Chart 10Foreign And Domestic Politics Won't Stop The Fed The only area where bipartisanship is not happening is Biden’s “Build Back Better” reconciliation bill, which even lacks sufficient support from moderate Democratic senators due to high inflation. Passage is still possible in a partisan, watered-down, and deficit-neutral form. These developments show that Republican lawmakers are demonstrating some pragmatic governing ability and will use their voting records to make a case in the midterms, while pinning the blame for inflation, crime, immigration, and any foreign crises on Democrats. As such they reinforce the market consensus that Republicans are likely to take back Congress this fall. Thus while last year’s bipartisanship is spilling into the current legislative session, gridlock is rapidly approaching. When investors look to the second half of the year and beyond, they should expect to see legislative cooperation dry up, especially if Republicans only take the House and not the Senate. Bottom Line: Gridlock will freeze fiscal policy, which is non-inflationary or disinflationary for 2022-24. As such the midterm election is not fully priced. Midterm dynamics will support an overweight or at least neutral stance toward defensives and growth stocks. Investment Takeaways Tactically stay long defensives, notably health care, and growth stocks. Cyclically remain invested in the bull market – and stay long energy small caps. The chief risks to these views would be a speedy diplomatic resolution to the Ukraine and Iran conflicts or a dramatic revival of the Democratic Party’s popular support ahead of the midterm election. Diplomacy would remove risks to global growth, whereas a Democratic comeback would boost inflation expectations.   Matt Gertken Senior Vice President Chief US Political Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Table A2Political Risk Matrix Table A3US Political Capital Index Chart A1Presidential Election Model Chart A2Senate Election Model Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Footnotes  

Chart 1 Today, we are downgrading the overall Consumer Discretionary index to underweight by reducing our allocation in two key industry groups: Retailing and Consumer Durables & Apparel. We remain constructive on Consumer Services, i.e., the Travel Complex (Hotels & Cruises, Restaurants, and Airlines). Consumer spending is shifting from goods to services, for which there is still strong pent-up demand (Chart 1). While consumers still sit on $2.2 trillion in excess savings, their sentiment is in a downward trend. High inflation and negative real wage growth are cutting into middle-class Americans’ disposable income: For many high costs of food and gas crowd out discretionary spending.  Empirical analysis supports our reasoning. Performance of the S&P Retailing and the S&P Consumer Durables & Apparel industry groups has been strongly inversely correlated with consumer sentiment and inflation (Charts 2 and 3). With inflation high and intransigent, stimulus checks in a rear-view window, and consumers worried about their finances, these industries have been underperforming, and will continue doing so.  Chart 2 Chart 3 Even if inflation abates, thanks to unclogging of supply chain bottlenecks and tighter monetary policy, we will need to see an inflection in consumer sentiment and positive real wage growth to change our stance. Bottom Line: We downgrade the S&P Retailing and the S&P Consumer Durables & Apparel indexes to below benchmark. Those downgrades also push the overall S&P Consumer Discretionary into an underweight basket. Appendix Table 1 Table 2

Special Report

Dear Client, This week, the US Bond Strategy service is hosting its Quarterly Webcast (February 15 at 10:00 AM EST, 15:00 PM GMT, 16:00 PM CET). In addition, we are sending this Quarterly Chartpack that provides a recap of our key recommendations and some charts related to those recommendations and other areas of interest for US bond investors. Please tune in to the Webcast and browse the Chartpack at your leisure, and do let us know if you have any questions or other feedback. To view the Quarterly Chartpack PDF please click here. Best regards, Ryan Swift, US Bond Strategist