Developed Countries

BCA Research is proud to announce a new feature to help clients get the most out of our research: an Executive Summary cover page on each of the BCA Research Reports. We created these summaries to help you quickly capture the main points of each report through an at-a-glance read of key insights, chart of the day, investment recommendations and a bottom line. For a deeper analysis, you may refer to the full BCA Research Report. Executive Summary Risk Premium In EU Gas Prices​​ Regardless of whether Russia invades all, part of or none of Ukraine again, its current standoff with the West will force the EU to reconfigure its gas markets to assure reliability of supplies, and remove geopolitical supply disruptions. We expect the EU's renewable energy taxonomy scheduled for release Wednesday will include natgas as a sustainable fuel, which will help build more diversified sources of supply and deeper spot and term markets.  Success here will increase market share of natgas in EU power generation. In the short run (1-2 years), neither the EU nor Russia can afford Gazprom's pipeline supplies to be significantly curtailed. Over the medium term (3-5 years), alternative supplies from US and Qatari LNG exports will be required to deepen EU gas-market liquidity and supply. Longer term (i.e., beyond 2025), EU energy markets will remain volatile as the renewable-energy transition progresses. High and volatile natgas prices will translate into persistent EU inflation – particularly food prices, because of higher fertilizer costs, and base metals' prices.  Shortages in these markets will slow the energy transition, and raise its price tag. Bottom Line: The Russian standoff with the West over Ukraine puts a higher risk premium in EU gas prices.  We remain long commodity-index exposure (S&P GSCI, and COMT ETF), and the XME ETF.  We are getting long the SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF (XOP) at tonight's close. Feature We expect the EU's financial taxonomy for renewable energy scheduled for release Wednesday will include natgas as a sustainable fuel. This will help in building out more diversified sources of supply and deeper spot and term markets. Success here will increase the market share of natgas in the EU's power generation (Chart of the Week). This coincides with natural gas supply uncertainty, arising from geopolitical tensions. On the back of already-low inventory levels, European natural gas markets are forced to handicap the odds of a major curtailment of Russian pipeline gas supplies resulting from another invasion of Ukraine (Chart 2).  This is keeping a significantly increased risk premium embedded in natgas prices: Russian exports to the EU account for 40% of total gas supplies.  Germany is particularly exposed, as  ~65% of its gas comes from Russia (Chart 3). Chart of the WeekEU Natgas Generation Will Rise In Energy Transition BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy desk upgraded the odds of Russia invading Ukraine to 75% from 50% in its latest research report.1  Our colleagues, however, keep the probability of Russia invading all of Ukraine low.  Their analysis concludes Russia will only invade a part of Ukraine, so as to argue for lighter sanctions being imposed on it by the West, as opposed to having to incur the full wrath of US and EU sanctions.  The other 25% of the probability space includes a diplomatic settlement between the West and Russia. Chart 2Risk Premium In EU Gas Prices While Russia has been trying to diversify its customer base – by increasing natgas exports to China, e.g. – data from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy shows ~ 78% of total natural gas exports (pipeline + LNG) from Russia went to the EU in 2020.2  Chart 3EU Highly Dependent On Russian Gas In light of the fact that Russia likely will face watered-down sanctions, and the EU’s gargantuan share of total Russian exports, we do not believe Europe’s largest natural gas exporter will stop all supply to the EU now or in the near future. In case Russia does go through with its invasion, it likely will cut off natural gas supply to Ukraine, implying Europe will loose slightly more than 6% of total natgas imports as opposed to 40% in the event of a halt to all natgas exports to Europe (Chart 4).  Gas consumption of the EU-27 in 2021 was ~ 500 Bcm, according to the Oxford Institute For Energy Studies (OIES).  Some 85% of EU gas consumption was met by imports. Chart 4Imports Cover Most EU Gas Consumption Can The EU Mitigate The Loss Of Russian Gas? The EU and the US have entered discussions with other countries to plug the potential 6% reduction in imports from Russia.  While in theory, there is enough spare pipeline capacity to import natural gas from existing and new sources (Chart 5), practical limitations may prevent this from occurring.3 The US is working with the EU to ensure energy supply security in case Russia cuts off natural gas supply. However, as can be seen in Chart 6, Panel 1, the US currently is and likely will continue to export nearly at capacity until end-2023. Panel 2 shows global liquefaction also is nearly at capacity. Chart 5EU Gas Import Capacity Exists, But Filling It Will Be Problematic Chart 6US LNG Export Capacity Maxed Out While an increase in gas production at the earthquake-prone Groningen field in the Netherlands is theoretically viable, it will induce a public backlash, as was evidenced when the Dutch government announced plans to double output from the field earlier this year. In the short run, facing few sources of alternate gas supply, the EU will need to focus on curtailing demand. Fossil fuels will need to be considered as an alternative for electricity and heating, since nuclear is not used in all EU countries.  The depth of this crisis and the Dutch TTF price rise will be capped by the fact that we expect the EU to lose a relatively small fraction of total imports.  Further, while we expect Dutch TTF prices to be volatile and face upward pressure, any price increases also will be capped by the fact that the colder-than-expected Northern Hemisphere winter has not yet materialized, and the warmer Spring and Summer months will be approaching soon. Medium-, Long-Term EU Gas Supply On the supply side, over the medium- and long-term, the EU will need to deepen and stabilize its gas supply, so that firms and households can rationally forecast and allocate spending and investment.  This would include finding back-up or alternative supplies to Russian imports, which carry with them uncertain geopolitical risk.  If Brussels includes natural gas as a sustainable fuel in its energy taxonomy, over the medium term (3-5 years), alternative supplies from US and Qatari LNG exports will be required to deepen EU gas-market liquidity and supply.  Longer term (i.e., beyond 2025), EU energy markets will remain volatile as the renewable-energy transition progresses.  Natgas will be a critical component of this transition, until utility-scale battery storage is able to support renewable generation and grid stability.  We believe over the remainder of this decade, high and volatile natgas prices will translate into persistent EU inflation, as pricing pressures spill into oil and coal markets at the margin, as happened over the course of last year.  This will work in the other direction as well – e.g., higher coal prices will spill over into gas and oil markets as price pressures incentivize fuel switching at the margin. Food prices will be right in the inflationary cross-hairs, given the fertilizer required to produce the grains and beans consumed globally consists mostly of natgas in urea and ammonia fertilizers (Chart 7).  This will feed into higher food prices (Chart 8). Chart 7High Natgas Prices Will Show Up In High Fertilizer Prices Chart 8… And Higher Food Prices Base metals' prices also will be upwardly biased as natgas price volatility remains elevated.  Supply shortages in natgas markets will, at the margin, slow the energy transition by reducing reliable energy supplies in the EU, forcing states to compete for back-up and replacement supply in the global LNG markets.  Fuel-switching into oil, gas and coal will transmit EU gas volatility to markets globally. Tight energy and base metals markets also will feed directly into higher inflation and inflation expectations (Chart 9). Chart 9Higher Commodity Prices Will Pressure Inflation Higher   Investment Implications The standoff between the West and Russia over the latter's amassing of troops on the Ukraine border, plus the marked increase in the tempo of Russian naval operations, will keep the risk premium in EU natgas prices high.  This is not a sustainable equilibrium over the medium- to long-term.  We expect little if any curtailment of Russian natgas exports over the short term; however, prudence suggests EU member states will be forced to find back-up and alternative gas supplies over the medium- to longer-term, as the global renewable-energy transition gains traction. The knock-on effects from the current European geopolitical standoff are keeping EU natgas prices elevated via a higher risk premium to cover possible supply losses.  This will feed into other markets – particularly metals and ags – which will feed directly into inflation and inflation expectations. We remain long commodity index exposure – the S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF – and metals producers via the XME ETF.  At tonight's close, we will be getting long the SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF (XOP).   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish OPEC 2.0's decision to stay with its policy of returning 400k b/d every month appeared to be a foregone conclusion in the markets.  In our January 2022 balances and price forecasts, we anticipated a larger increase, given the producer coalition led by Saudi Arabia and Russia has fallen significantly behind its goal of returning 400k b/d to the market monthly due to declining production among OPEC 2.0 member states ex-Gulf GCC member states, chiefly KSA, UAE and Kuwait (Iraq's exports fell in December and January; production data have not been released).  In the past, KSA has said it will not make up for production shortfalls of OPEC 2.0 member states, and would abide by its production allocation. The upside risk to prices remains, in our estimation, and we continue to expect KSA and its GCC allies to increase output if production from the price-taking cohort led by the US shale-oil producers fails to materialize in over the coming months.  Failure to cover production shortfalls among OPEC 2.0 member states would lift Brent prices by $6/bbl above our baseline forecast, which assumed higher production from the GCC states would be forthcoming at Wednesday's OPEC 2.0 meeting (Chart 10, brown curve). Base Metals: Bullish An environmental committee in Chile's Senate voted out a proposed bill that would, among other things, reportedly make it easier for the government to seize mines developed and operated by private companies.  The proposed legislation still has a long road ahead of it, but copper prices rallied earlier in the week as this news broke.  Even if the odds of the bill's passage are slim, a watered down version of the proposed legislation would markedly change the economic proposition of developing and maintaining copper mines in Chile (Chart 11).  We continue to follow this closely.   Chart 10 Chart 11     Footnotes 1     Please see All Bets Are Off ... Well, Some (A GeoRisk Update), published by BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy service 27 January 2022.  It is available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2     Please see bp's Statistical Review of World Energy 2021 | 70th edition. 3    Norway, the EU’s second largest gas exporter after Russia stated that its natural gas production is at the limit. Apart from the issue of production, current LNG flows will need to be redirected from Asia and the Americas. Defaulting on long-term contracts to redirect fuel to Europe could mire exporters’ relationships with importing countries. Finally,  infrastructure in the Eastern and Central section of the EU may not be equipped to receive supplies from the West, thus increasing costs and time associated with putting these systems in place.    Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed in 2021

2022 has surprised investors with the out-of-the-gate market correction, accompanied by a sharp underperformance of Growth vs. Value as part of repricing of the long-duration assets in the context of the tighter monetary policy. As such, $60 billion more has been allocated towards value than growth mutual funds over the past month – the highest amount since 2002 (top panel). Mean reversion is certainly a risk. A big question is whether there is a significant amount of cash sitting on the sidelines or parked in fixed income mutual funds, waiting to be redeployed into equities?  To answer this question, we looked at the net flows into all money markets, retail money fund deposits, and net flows into equities vs. bonds (middle and bottom panels). While YTD’s sharp market correction produced only a small uptick in flows into the money market funds or retail deposits, reallocation from equities into fixed income mutual funds has been running its course throughout 2021. Recently, this trend has started to reverse, with net outflows from equities decelerating. This supports the thesis that market correction was a Growth into Value rotation, without much cash leaving equities. Once a new tighter monetary regime gets priced in, money may flow back into equities from the fixed income mutual funds as There Is (still) No Alternative (TINA) in the environment of rising rates. In addition, it appears that there is plenty of cash sitting in retail money funds that could potentially be redeployed. Bottom Line: It appears that retail investors stayed in equities throughout the correction. However, there is plenty of dry powder sitting on the sidelines in the money market, and bond and income mutual funds, ready to be redeployed into equities, supporting their continued outperformance even in the face of tighter monetary policy.

BCA Research is proud to announce a new feature to help clients get the most out of our research: an Executive Summary cover page on each of the BCA Research Reports. We created these summaries to help you quickly capture the main points of each report through an at-a-glance read of key insights, chart of the day, investment recommendations and a bottom line. For a deeper analysis, you may refer to the full BCA Research Report. In lieu of next week’s report, I will be presenting the quarterly Counterpoint webcast series ‘Where Is The Groupthink Wrong?' I do hope you can join. Executive Summary Spending on goods is in freefall while spending on services is struggling to regain its pre-pandemic trend.  If spending on goods crashes to below its previous trend, then there will be a substantial shortfall in demand. The good news is that the freefall in goods spending is leading inflation. With spending on goods now crashing back to earth, inflation will also crash back to earth later this year. Underweight the goods-dominated consumer discretionary sector, and underweight semiconductors versus the broader technology sector. Sell Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) and other overbought inflation hedges such as commodities that have not yet corrected. Overbought base metals are particularly vulnerable. Fractal trading watchlist: We focus on nickel versus silver, add tobacco versus cannabis, and update bitcoin, biotech, CAD/SEK, and EUR/CZK. As Spending On Goods Crashes Back To Earth, So Will Inflation Bottom Line: As spending on goods crashes back to earth, so will inflation, consumer discretionary stocks, semiconductors, and overbought commodities. Feature The pandemic has unleashed a great experiment in our spending behaviour. After a binge on consumer goods, will there be a massive hangover? We are about to find out. The pandemic binge on consumer goods, peaking in the US at a 26 percent overspend, is unprecedented in modern economic history. Hence, we cannot be certain what happens next, but there are three possibilities: We sustain the binge on goods, at least partly. Spending on goods falls back to its pre-pandemic trend. There is a hangover, in which spending on goods crashes to below its previous trend. The answer to this question will have a huge bearing on growth and inflation in 2022-23. After The Binge Comes The Hangover… The pandemic’s constraints on socialising, movement, and in-person contact caused a slump in spending on many services: recreation, hospitality, travel, in-person shopping, and in-person healthcare. Nevertheless, with incomes propped up by massive stimulus, we displaced our spending to items that could be enjoyed within the pandemic’s confines; namely, goods – on which, we binged (Chart I-1). Chart I-1Spending On Goods Is In Freefall Gradually, we learned to live with SARS-CoV-2, and spending on services bounced back. At the same time, we made some permanent changes to our lifestyles – for example, hybrid office/home working and more online shopping. Additionally, a significant minority of people changed their behaviour, shunning activities that require close contact with strangers – going to the cinema or to amusement parks, using public transport, or going to the dentist or in-person doctors’ appointments. The result is that spending on services is levelling off well short of its pre-pandemic trend (Charts I-2-Chart I-5). Chart I-2Spending On Recreation Services Is Far Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend Chart I-3Spending On Public Transport Is Far Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend Chart I-4Spending On Dental Services Is Far Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend Chart I-5Spending On Physician Services Is Far Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend Arithmetically therefore, to keep overall demand on trend, spending on goods must stay above its pre-pandemic trend. Yet spending on goods is crashing back to earth. The simple reason is that durables, by their very definition, are durable. Even nondurables such as clothes and shoes are in fact quite durable. Meaning that are only so many cars, iPhone 13s, gadgets, clothes and shoes that any person can binge on before reaching saturation. Indeed, to the extent that our bingeing has brought forward future purchases, the big risk is a period of underspending on goods. Countering The Counterarguments Let’s address some counterarguments to the hangover thesis. One counterargument is that some goods are a substitute for services: for example, eating-in (food at home) substitutes for eating-out; and recreational goods substitute for recreational services. So, if there is a shortfall in services spending, there will be an automatic substitution into goods spending. The problem is that the substitutes are not mirror-image substitutes. Spending on eating-in tends to be much less than on eating-out. And once you have bought your recreational goods, you don’t keep buying them! A second counterargument is that provided the savings rate does not rise, there will be no shortfall in spending. Yet this is a tautology. The savings rate is simply the residual of income less spending. So, to the extent that there is a structural shortfall in services spending combined with a hangover in goods spending, the savings rate must rise – as it has in the past two months. A third counterargument is that the war chest of savings accumulated during the pandemic will unleash a tsunami of spending. Well, it hasn’t. And, it won’t. Previous episodes of excess savings in 2004, 2008, and 2012 had no impact on the trend in spending (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Previous Episodes Of Excess Savings Had No Impact On Spending The explanation comes from a theory known as Mental Accounting Bias. This points out that we segment our money into different ‘mental accounts’. And that the main factor that establishes whether we spend our money is which mental account it resides in. The moment we move money from our ‘income’ account into our ‘wealth’ account, our propensity to spend it collapses. Specifically, we will spend most of the money in our ‘income’ mental account, but we will spend little of the money in our ‘wealth’ mental account. Hence, the moment we move money from our income account into our wealth account, our propensity to spend it collapses. Still, this brings us to a fourth counterargument, which claims that even though the ‘wealth effect’ is small, it isn’t zero. Therefore, the recent boom in household wealth will bolster growth. Yet as we explained in The Wealth Impulse Has Peaked, the impact of your wealth on your spending growth does not come from your wealth change. It comes from your wealth impulse, which is fading fast (Chart I-7). Chart I-7The 'Wealth Impulse' Has Peaked Analogous to the more widely-used credit impulse, the wealth impulse compares your capital gain in any year with your capital gain in the preceding year. It is this change in your capital gain – and not the capital gain per se – that establishes the growth in your ‘wealth effect’ spending. Unfortunately, the wealth impulse has peaked, meaning its impact on spending growth will not be a tailwind. It will be a headwind. As Spending On Goods Crashes Back To Earth, So Will Inflation, Consumer Discretionary Stocks, And Overbought Commodities In the fourth quarter of 2021, US consumer spending dipped to below its pre-pandemic trend and the savings rate increased. Begging the question, how did the US economy manage to grow at a stellar 6.7 percent (annualised) rate? The simple answer is that inventory restocking contributed almost 5 percent to the 6.7 percent growth rate. In fact, removing inventory restocking, US final demand came to a virtual standstill in the second half of 2021, growing at just a 1 percent (annualised) rate. Growth that is dependent on inventory restocking is a concern because inventory restocking averages to zero in the long run, and after a massive positive contribution there tends to come a symmetrical negative contribution. If, as we expect, spending on services fails to catch up to its pre-pandemic trend while spending on goods falls back to its pre-pandemic trend, then there will be a demand shortfall. And if there is a hangover, in which spending on goods crashes to below its previous trend, then the demand shortfall could be substantial. As inflation crashes back to earth, so will overbought commodities. The good news is that the freefall in durable goods spending is leading inflation. In this regard, you might be surprised to learn that the US core (6-month) inflation rate has already been declining for five consecutive months. With spending on goods now crashing back to earth, inflation will also crash back to earth later this year (Chart I-8). Chart I-8As Spending On Goods Crashes Back To Earth, So Will Inflation Sell Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) and other overbought inflation hedges such as commodities that have not yet corrected. Given that the level (rather than the inflation) of commodity prices is irrationally tracking the inflation rate, the likely explanation is that investors have piled into commodities as a hedge against inflation. Hence, as inflation crashes back to earth, so will overbought commodities (Chart I-9). Overbought base metals are particularly vulnerable. Chart I-9Overbought Commodities Are Particularly Vulnerable Fractal Trading Watchlist This week we focus on nickel versus silver, add tobacco versus cannabis, and update bitcoin, biotech, CAD/SEK, and EUR/CZK. To reiterate, overbought base metals are vulnerable, and the 70 percent outperformance of nickel versus silver through the past year has reached the point of fractal fragility that signalled previous major turning-points in 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020 (Chart I-10). Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to go short nickel versus silver, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 20 percent.  Chart I-10Short Nickel Versus Silver A Potential Switching Point From Tobacco Into Cannabis Bitcoin's 65-Day Fractal Support Is Holding For Now Biotech Approaching A Major Buy CAD/SEK Approaching A Sell EUR/CZK At A Bottom Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System 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      

BCA Research is proud to announce a new feature to help clients get the most out of our research: an Executive Summary cover page on each of the BCA Research Reports. We created these summaries to help you quickly capture the main points of each report through an at-a-glance read of key insights, chart of the day, investment recommendations and a bottom line. For a deeper analysis, you may refer to the full BCA Research Report. Executive Summary The US midterm elections will bring another round of intense polarization and policy uncertainty this year, though the overall stock market today appears well prepared for the most likely result: a GOP victory in House and Senate. Yet our quantitative Senate election model is “too close to call.” It expects Democrats to retain 50 seats in the Senate and hence the thinnest possible majority. We doubt it, subjectively, but the important point is that the Senate will be stymied either way. Indeed, the only way investors could truly be surprised would be if Democrats made a comeback and retained control of both chambers, but this outcome is very unlikely.  Voters make up their minds early in the year during midterm elections, so Democrats may not benefit from any softening of inflation later this year. Still, gridlock ensures that domestic policy uncertainty will rise as well as foreign policy uncertainty. The  dollar will be resilient, favoring a tactically defensive positioning. Quant Model For US Senate Election Bottom Line: While we expect Republicans to win both the House and the Senate in 2022, our quant model says the Senate is too close to call. Value has bottomed on a structural time frame but the coming months will be challenging and we recommend growth stocks tactically. Feature This report updates our quantitative models for the 2022 Senate and 2024 presidential elections (Chart of the Week). As always, we use the quantitative modeling as a complement to our qualitative analysis. Formal modeling helps to question our assumptions and views. It is not a substitute for empirical analysis and good judgment, whether in economics or politics. Our qualitative analysis utilizes the geopolitical method, a method based on realist political theory, in which we analyze the concrete checks and balances (constraints) that prevent policymakers from achieving their objectives. We then assign scenario probabilities and compare with BCA Research macro and market views to identify investment risks and opportunities. Advantage Republicans In Midterm Elections Our base case for the midterm election is a Republican victory in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. This outlook is consensus in online betting odds (Chart 1). However, the consensus may be underestimating the Democrats in the Senate election. The Senate is still in play and that is where investors should focus this year. However, the only true risk to expectations would be Democrats keeping the House and Senate. Every other scenario involves different shades of gridlock. Democrats can only hold onto both chambers if a shock event occurs that massively upsets expectations. Such a shock would have to be devastating for the Republicans, as it would go against long-established political cycles and current trends. The implication would be a rare chance to pass major legislation on partisan lines: corporate tax hikes and social programs cut out of the current “Build Back Better” planning. Online betters currently give this Democratic scenario a 10% probability: it is essentially a “black swan” and would be inflationary on the margin. Chart 1Midterm Election Odds Favor Republicans Other scenarios are more or less disinflationary as Republicans in the opposition will attempt to rein in government spending: If Republicans win both chambers, then they will have an impetus to pass legislation and it is more likely that they will do so, as President Biden could find common ground (a la Bill Clinton after 1994). But if Republicans win only the House, then they will only be capable of obstruction and brinksmanship, a la the “Tea Party” Republicans of 2010-16. This scenario would be disinflationary and would heighten political risks such as the risk of a national debt default over a refusal to raise the debt ceiling in 2023. Bottom Line: The only midterm election outcome that could surprise US markets in a major way in 2022 would be a Democratic victory in both houses of Congress. But the consensus is right to put the odds of that at 10%. Otherwise the midterm scenarios are just different shades of gridlock, albeit with higher policy uncertainty under a split Congress. Republicans Highly Likely To Take The House We have not yet unveiled our House Election model but here we can make some preliminary predictions. The opposition party has gained seats in the House in 90% of the midterm elections since 1862 (incumbent party gained seats four out of 40 times). Exceptions are rare (e.g. 1902, 1934, 1998, and 2002) and not applicable to the 2022 context so far.1 About 47 seats in the House are thought to be competitive this year, compared to around 75 in 2018, 81 in 2010, and 38 in 2002. Of the 47 competitive seats, 30 are especially competitive, with 18 Democratic and 12 Republican. Four Democratic seats are wide open to competition, i.e. lacking an incumbent, the same as four Republican seats. However, more Democrats (29) are stepping down than Republicans (13), a sign that Democratic incumbents recognize cyclical patterns turning against them.2 President Biden has a net negative approval rating (53% disapprove while 42% approve), similar to President Trump in 2018, when Republicans lost 42 seats in the House. Presidential approval has a significant correlation with House losses for the president’s party since the end of World War II. This is especially true when taking the average of presidential approval and his party’s support in the generic congressional ballot. By this measure Democrats are lined up to lose 40 House seats, whereas they only need to lose a net of five to lose control. The nation’s woes are unlikely to improve significantly in time for the election: Inflation is surging and real wages are collapsing (Chart 2). Even if economists observe inflation rolling over before the election, voter inflation expectations will lag, and will be brought into the ballot box. Americans are the unhappiest they have been since the 1970s, as a consequence of the pandemic, the economy, toxic society and politics, and other factors (Chart 3). Chart 2Consumers Facing Rising Prices Amid Declining Incomes Chart 3Unhappiness Reaches New High A rebound in consumer confidence is not enough to save Biden’s party from losses at the ballot box, as President Obama learned in 2010 and 2014 (Chart 4). Similarly a big drop in confidence can hurt the president in the midterms even if confidence recovers in time for the vote, as happened to Republicans in 2018. Biden has another foreign policy crisis on his hands (Russia), after losing trust on his handling of Afghanistan, and may have more crises to deal with by November (Iran, Latin America). If a crisis hits the oil price, as with Russia or Iran, then prices at the pump will go higher, as we discussed in “Biden’s External Risks.” As for the immigration surge, while it will not concern the business community during a time of labor shortage and inflation, it will concern voters, especially in border states like Arizona (Chart 5). The current surge is historic and may come back to haunt the Democrats. Chart 4Lackluster Consumer Confidence Won't Help Democrats Chart 5Immigration Crisis Looms On Southern Border Republicans will benefit slightly from the post-2020 congressional redistricting. Democrats will probably not make substantial gains as a result of Republican infighting in the primaries, though it could make a big difference in the Senate. We will revisit the latter two issues in future reports (redistricting and Republican primaries) but they only matter if Democrats make a significant comeback in opinion. Otherwise the general swing of public opinion will swamp these marginal effects in the House elections. Worst of all for Democrats, evidence shows that voters tend to make up their minds early in the year. That is when the correlation is strongest between the generic congressional opinion poll and the vote share of elections, though for Democrats in particular late-year polling is equally significant (Chart 6). Chart 6AMidterm Voters Mostly Decided At The Start Of The Year Chart 6BMidterm Voters Mostly Decided At The Start Of The Year What could lift the Democrats’ odds? The following factors: The relevance of the Covid-19 pandemic will wane. The economy, while slowing, will continue expanding and unemployment will be very low (Chart 7). Democrats are still somewhat likely to pass a reconciliation bill with the most popular parts of their “Build Back Better” agenda. Democrats will use social “wedge issues” to mobilize their political base. A racialized battle over the Supreme Court nomination and any conservative Supreme Court ruling on abortion may mobilize African Americans and women. It is possible, not likely, that a foreign policy crisis could generate a lasting patriotic backlash against foreign insults, as we discussed last week. This dynamic is relevant given our Geopolitical Strategy’s 75% odds of new Russian military action in Ukraine. A lot can change in nine months during rapidly changing and highly polarized contests in which every marginal vote matters. Bottom Line: While Republicans are highly likely to retake control of the House, the Senate is still in competition. Chart 7Economy Will Slow, Unemployment To Remain Low The Senate Leans GOP But Still In Play The Senate is more competitive than the House in this year’s election, as 20 Republican seats are up for grabs versus only 14 Democratic seats. About nine of these seats are truly competitive, compared to 13 in 2018, 11 in 2010, and 15 in 2002.3 Only one Democrat is stepping down, in the very blue state of Vermont, whereas five Republicans are stepping down, three of which from competitive states. Hence Democrats have a better chance of picking up Republican seats in North Carolina and Pennsylvania than otherwise. However, even here, Democrats only have a one-seat margin of safety. A net loss of a single seat will yield control of the chamber. Our quantitative model relies on the following six variables: State-level economic health Incumbent party margin of victory in state’s previous Senate race (i.e. 2020) The incumbent president’s net average approval rating Average net support rate of incumbent party in generic congressional ballot A dummy variable for the generic ballot, for statistical purposes A “time for change” penalty for any party that has controlled the Senate for six or more years The model’s results are shown in Chart 8. Currently the model says the status quo will hold, with a 50/50 split in the Senate. Democrats lose Georgia but gain Pennsylvania and hence the balance of power stays the same, as Vice President Kamala Harris casts any tie-breaking vote. Chart 8Senate Quant Election Model Points To Even Split Specifically the model says: Arizona is a toss-up but leans Democratic, with 55% odds. Pennsylvania is a toss-up but switches to the Democrats with 54% odds. North Carolina is a toss-up but leans Republican with 47% odds. Georgia switches to the Republican side and is no longer viewed as a toss-up at 43% odds. Looking at the change in these election probabilities since November 2020, North Carolina has seen the biggest drop for the Democrats, followed by Arizona (Chart 9). Democratic odds are worsening in four states, while Republican odds are worsening in three states. Since North Carolina and Pennsylvania are losing their Republican incumbents, this change in odds is a problem for the GOP. By contrast, Democrats are running incumbents in the four states where they are vulnerable. The problem for Democrats, again, is that voters make up their minds early. The closest correlation between the generic party polling and the incumbent party’s performance in the Senate in a midterm election occurs in February at 94% (Chart 10). Chart 9Senate Model: Change In Predicted Probability Senate elections, like all American elections, are increasingly nationalized.4 This is evident in the 75% correlation we find between the generic polls and the performance of the incumbent party in the Senate (Chart 10 again). So, for example, while one might view Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona as likely to win given the incumbent advantage and the fact that he is a former astronaut and US Navy captain, and he may indeed win, nevertheless a national wave of anti-incumbent feeling could overwhelm his re-election bid. Still, state effects could matter. To examine these from a macro perspective we look at each state’s Misery Index (inflation plus unemployment) compared to the national average in Chart 11. Here are the notable takeaways: Chart 10Midterm Voters Mostly Decided At The Start Of The Year Chart 11AState Level Miseries Point To Risks For Democrats In GA And AZ… Chart 11B… And To Republicans In PA And WI Misery in Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania is higher than average and rising – negative news for Democrat Kelly, Democrat Raphael Warnock, and the yet-to-be-decided Republican candidate in Pennsylvania. Misery in Florida is also slightly above the national average and rising, though Senator Marco Rubio is likely secure. Wisconsin misery is lower than national average and rising (possibly hurting Republican incumbent Senator Ron Johnson). North Carolina misery is lower than national average and falling (helping the yet-to-be-decided Republican candidate). In other words, Misery Indexes support our model’s findings, yet suggest that Democrats face a headwind in Arizona – where our model is also flagging an important risk for Democrats. In sum, our model’s direction of change suggests Democrats will lose another seat and thus the Senate. Going forward, the key moving parts are the economy and the president’s and his party’s approval ratings. There is a chance that these variables will bottom early in the year and improve later, which underscores that the Senate will remain competitive. What investors can be certain about is that Democrats are extremely unlikely to make significant seat gains in the Senate. So even if they retain control, it will be with the thinnest of possible majorities, and hence the Senate will only be capable of passing bipartisan Republican-authored House bills – or vetoing Republican House bills to save the president from having to veto them. It is also certain that Republicans will fall far short of the 67 votes they would need to remove Biden from office, if House Republicans find or invent a reason to impeach him. Bottom Line: The Senate outcome is too close to call but subjectively we doubt Democrats will pull it off given the negative macro trends cited above. Our Senate election model gives 51% odds that Democrats will retain a de facto majority with 50 seats. 2024 Presidential Vote: Odds Favor Democrats For Now The US presidential election is 34 months away. Investors need to be prepared for any outcome, including another contested election. But it is important to have a base case – especially because a Republican (or Democratic) victory in both House and Senate in 2022 would open up the prospect of single-party control in 2025, which has much bigger policy implications than various shades of gridlock. As a rule of thumb, investors should think of presidential elections as a referendum on the incumbent party, not the president’s person, for the prior four years of material performance. Thus Democrats are currently favored to keep the White House. Voters will feel better than they did in 2020, which suffered a triple crisis of pandemic, recession, and unrest. Significant changes must occur to alter this trajectory – such as a recession, Biden’s stepping down, or a humiliating foreign policy defeat.5 Our quantitative model supports this view: it currently gives a 55.2% chance of Democratic victory in the Electoral College (Chart 12). Chart 12US Election 2024: Quant Model Tips Dems Our model relies on the following four variables: State economic health Incumbent party margin of victory in the previous election A penalty for parties that have held the White House for two terms (not applicable in 2024) The president’s approval rating (level) Interestingly our model produces 308 electoral votes for Biden, compared to his actual 306 in 2020, except that some states trade places: Democrats win Florida while Republicans take back Arizona and Georgia. Specifically the model says: North Carolina is a toss-up state but leans Republican. Wisconsin is a toss-up state but just slightly leans Democratic. Florida and Pennsylvania have moved above toss-up range into the Democratic camp. Arizona and Georgia have slipped beneath the toss-up range into the Republican camp. Looking at the change in each state’s odds of voting for the incumbent, Democrats’ chances are falling in eight states while Republicans chances are falling in three states (Chart 13). Wisconsin and Arizona are seeing the most substantial drops, followed by Pennsylvania. Thus the current direction of change is negative for Democrats as one would expect. Biden’s thin margin of victory in 2020 and weak approval ratings make him vulnerable, so the economic performance will largely determine the model’s results going forward. If Biden avoids a recession, that may be enough to retain the White House according to the model. Florida is an interesting case. The model gives a 59% chance it will go to the Democrats. We are suspicious of this outcome but it suggests investors should not take a Republican victory there for granted. Consider: Chart 13Presidential Model: Change In Predicted Probability While we gave President Trump 45% odds of winning in 2020, we predicted he would win Florida due to the state’s partisan leaning.6 That leaning has probably not changed much, although Governor Ron DeSantis’s latest approval rating is only at 45%. However, the six-month change in Florida’s coincident economic indicator has fallen 0.6% since November 2020 and the Misery Index is rising above the national average, as noted above. If Biden loses Florida but the rest of our model is correct, Democrats will retain the White House with 279 electoral college votes. That would leave Wisconsin as the decisive battleground. Yet Wisconsin is very tenuously in their camp today, so any change in the model that gives Florida back to the Republicans would likely give them Wisconsin as well … The result of Biden losing Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin (among other combinations) would be a 269-269 tie in the electoral college, in which each state’s delegation to the House of Representatives would have a single vote. A Republican win in the House in 2022 would thus result in a Republican White House in another explosive contested election. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves, 2024 is more than two years away. Bottom Line: Our presidential model gives a 55% chance that Democrats will retain the White House in 2024. Subjectively we agree. A Democratic defeat in 2022 will not rule out a Democratic victory in 2024, especially if Biden is alive and kicking, given the incumbent advantage. But economic factors will largely determine how the model evolves over the next 34 months. Our model also suggests the Electoral College math will be close and that another contested election is possible. Investment Takeaways Based on the current stock market correction, financial markets have priced a fair amount of policy uncertainty already. And this report suggests the midterms merely offer different shades of gridlock. However, Biden’s external risks – namely conflict with Russia – could cause further risk-off moves. And uncertainty will increase as midterms get closer. US policy uncertainty is falling relative to the rest of the world (Chart 14). This is positive for King Dollar, at least over a tactical time frame. The Fed’s interest rate liftoff is also positive for the dollar. Chart 14Lower US Uncertainty In The Near Future Supports The DXY Hence on a short-term basis, the stock-to-bond ratio can fall further and cyclicals can fall further relative to defensives. Tactically we recommend going long growth versus value stocks (Chart 15). Value has surged in the New Year and the dollar and rate hikes will counteract that, as well as any global energy shock that kills demand. Chart 15Tactically Go Long Growth Versus Value However, this is a tactical call. Otherwise, we remain in line with the BCA House View, which favors stocks over bonds and a weaker dollar over the next 12 months.   Matt Gertken Senior Vice President Chief US Political Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Guy Russell Research Analyst guyr@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     Brookings Institution, “Losses by the President’s Party in Midterm Elections, 1862-2014,” Vital Statistics on Congress, February 8, 2021, www.brookings.edu. 2     For the number of competitive seats, see Cook Political Report, cookpolitical.com, and Fair Vote, fairvote.org.  3    See footnotes 1 and 2 above. In addition see the Green Papers, “General Election 2002 – Contests to Watch,” October 25, 2002, thegreenpapers.com, and Ken Rudin, “2010 Senate Ratings: 11 Seats Seen As Tossups; GOP With At Least 3 Pickups,” NPR, July 9, 2010, npr.org. 4    See Joel Sievert and Seth C. McKee, “Nationalization in U.S. Senate and Gubernatorial Elections,” American Politics Research 47:5 (2019), pp. 1036-1054. 5    Our qualitative presidential election framework relies heavily on the work of Professor Allan Lichtman, American University. See our updated Lichtman-style checklist in BCA US Political Strategy, “Biden Is Underwater But His Legislation Will Float,” September 8, 2021, bcaresearch.com. 6    See BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy, “Upgrading Trump’s Odds of Re-Election,” October 26, 2020, bcaresearch.com. See also my interview on Bloomberg’s The Tape Podcast, “Full Blue Sweep Will Push Biden To Left,” July 13, 2020, Bloomberg.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