With geopolitical tensions on the rise, portfolio construction practitioners need a framework for making sense of the cacophony of geopolitical risks with the eye towards generating investment-relevant insights.

Unlike the annexation of Crimea in 2014, the 2022 Russia-Ukraine crisis is occurring in an inflationary macro context. As in 2014, increasing exposures to wheat and gold to hedge against the risk of higher inflation is a strategy that should perform strongly.

We are at the threshold of an epic bull market buoyed by the emerging Buenos Aires Consensus and desensitisation to Covid-19. But beware, inflation will eventually re-emerge.

Investors should make no mistake. The key pillars of Trump's campaign are de-globalisation, higher fiscal spending, and protecting entitlements at current levels. What are the investment implications?

Five years after the Euro crisis, it's not just Europe we’re concerned about from a populist perspective but also the US and UK. Why is this is a real risk for investors?

Geopolitical tensions between China, the US, and countries of South East Asia are growing. Most investors dismiss the region as a risk. But we are at a precipice of a left-tail risk event.

What are the investment implications of a potential Trump presidency? In the short term, we think it could be positive for equities and negative for bonds, but negative for US equities in the medium term.

The Brexit referendum is a major break in the 70 years of European integration. What's next for the UK? Who is next to exit? What does this mean for broader global stability? And - most importantly - what are investment implications?

Investors are not accounting for the structural shifts taking place in East Asia that raise the probability of market-negative events. Asia- or EM-dedicated investors should hedge their risks by exposure to DM assets.

We expect the US election to start mattering to markets at the end of August, once the two candidates are chosen. Policy uncertainty will rise and the US equity risk premium with it.

2016 has started poorly for the global economy - and horribly for markets. A number of negative themes are ascendant, whereas the positive ones are either pausing or petering out.

If Paris is not an anomaly, and the frequency or magnitude of terrorist attacks against soft targets in G7 cities increases, what will be the geopolitical, economic and investment consequences?

The influx of refugees and economic migrants from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East appears as broad-based as the ancient migrations that defined Europe throughout history. Europe needs migrants from a purely economic perspective.

EM policymakers have wasted their commodity-fueled Goldilocks Era and are sitting at a crossroads. Without a dramatic policy shift, EM are a value trap, if not an outright bubble.

The media continues to obsess about IS - but the far more investment-relevant development in the Middle East is the sudden return of Libyan crude to the market.

If geopolitics is far more important in considering investment markets today, how do we integrate geopolitics into portfolio construction?