April 30, 2014 | By Scott Minerd
So far, financial markets have failed to recognize the potential long-term seriousness of the situation in Ukraine. I suspect this may be because very few investors remember the Cold War period, and therefore, may not always place current events into a historical context. Many feel that having annexed Crimea, President Putin is satisfied with his lot and will not invade Ukraine. If history is our guide, this may be only the beginning of this crisis. It is worth remembering the initial feeling of relief in the United Kingdom after the signing of the Munich Agreement in the fall of 1938.
The belief that the situation will not get much worse is predicated on the notion that all political players ultimately act in the best economic interests of their country. The argument goes that in light of the inevitable sanctions and international isolation that would follow, Putin would not dare advance into eastern Ukraine. However, considering the strategic importance of controlling Ukraine, it can be argued that Putin is in fact acting in the long-term best interests of Russia and would be willing to suffer some short-term pain.
So what does this mean for markets? In the short-term, any “risk-off” trade in Europe will likely be positive for U.S. assets, particularly bonds. I expect to see more capital flow into the United States as a result of this ongoing conflict. Events could also slow the ongoing European economic recovery, stemming perhaps from the potential disruption to gas supplies, although it is unlikely to derail the expansion on the continent. Longer term, heightened aggression from Russia could reduce the pressure to cut the U.S. defense budget.
As the conflict in Ukraine drags on, the probability of more severe sanctions on Russia is increasing. Such sanctions could send Russia into a recession, but the impact would also be felt in Europe. In addition to potential disruptions to natural gas flows, it is likely that European exports and financial activity in Russia could fall, whether due to sanctions or to decreased Russian demand. Though not a substantial portion of European economies in aggregate, Russian exposure is meaningful in countries, such as Austria and the Netherlands. Germany’s trade linkages are also heavier than many other European countries, which may explain its reluctance to apply tighter sanctions.
Source: Haver, BIS, IMF, Guggenheim Investments. Trade data as of 12/31/2013, bank data as of 9/30/2013. Note: AT=Austria, BE=Belgium, CH=Switzerland, DE=Germany, ES=Spain, FR=France, GR=Greece, IT=Italy, NL=Netherlands, PT=Portugal, SE=Sweden, UK=United Kingdom.
This article is distributed for informational purposes only and should not be considered as investing advice or a recommendation of any particular security, strategy or investment product. This article contains opinions of the author but not necessarily those of Guggenheim Partners or its subsidiaries. The author’s opinions are subject to change without notice. Forward looking statements, estimates, and certain information contained herein are based upon proprietary and non-proprietary research and other sources. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but are not assured as to accuracy. No part of this article may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission of Guggenheim Partners, LLC. ©2014, Guggenheim Partners. Past performance is not indicative of future results. There is neither representation nor warranty as to the current accuracy of, nor liability for, decisions based on such information.
History shows that once our recession forecast model reaches current levels, aggressive policy can delay recession, but not avoid it.
Credit spreads could get tighter in this liquidity-driven rally, but history has shown that the potential for widening from here is much greater.
Rational immigration policy, not rate cuts, is the way to avoid recession.
Portfolio Manager Adam Bloch and Matt Bush, a Director in the Macroeconomic and Investment Research Group, share insights from the third quarter 2019 Fixed-Income Outlook.
Anne Walsh, Chief Investment Officer for Fixed Income, shares insights on the fixed-income market and explains the Guggenheim approach to solving the Core Conundrum.
You are now leaving this website.Guggenheim assumes no responsibility of the content or its accuracy.
Your browser does not support iframes.
2019 Guggenheim Partners, LLC. All rights reserved. Guggenheim, Guggenheim Partners and Innovative Solutions. Enduring Values. are registered trademarks of Guggenheim Capital, LLC.