Geopolitics

Special Report

Highlights With geopolitical risks increasing around China, India is attracting greater attention from global investors. India’s youthful demographics also mark a stark contrast with China. While this demographic dividend is real, its benefits should not be overstated. India is young but socially complex, which will create unique social conflicts and policy risks. In particular, the country faces structurally large budget deficits. Regional political differences could slow down reforms. Lastly, competition with China will increase India’s own geopolitical risks. Macroeconomic and (geo)political factors, not youth alone, will determine India’s equity market returns. The bullish long-term view faces near-term challenges. Feature Map 1 PreviewIndia’s Demographic Dividend Can Be Overstated “Independence had come to India like a kind of revolution; now there were many revolutions within that revolution … All over India scores of particularities that had been frozen by foreign rule, or by poverty or lack of opportunity or abjectness, had begun to flow again.” – Sir VS Naipaul, India: A Million Mutinies Now (Vintage, 1990) What is well known is that India is populous, young, and boasts a high GDP growth rate. India is also largely free of internal conflicts. Its democratic framework is seen as a pressure valve that can release social tensions. India’s hefty 58% cross-cycle premium to Emerging Markets (EM) is often attributed to the fact that India is younger than its peers, especially China. In this report we highlight that India’s demographic advantage is real but should not be overstated. For instance, India’s northern region can be likened to a demographic tinderbox. It accounts for about 45% of India’s population and is also younger than the national average. However, per capita incomes in this region are lower than the national average and to complicate matters, this region is crisscrossed by several social fault lines. This heterogeneity and economic backwardness in India’s population is the reason why the trend-line of India’s demographic dividend will not be linear. Its diverse population’s attempt to break out of its poverty will spawn unique policy risks. The North Is A Demographic Tinderbox, The South Is Prosperous But Ageing India will soon be the most populous country in the world (Chart 1). India’s median age is a decade lower than that of China to boot (Chart 2). Some emerging market investors fret about India’s low per capita income but India holds the promise of lifting individual incomes over time. This is because its GDP growth rate has been higher than that of its peers (Chart 3). Chart 1India Will Soon Be The Most Populous Country Chart 2India Is A Decade Younger Than China Chart 3India’s Per Capita Income Is Low, But GDP Growth Rate Is High However, the “demographic dividend” narrative oversimplifies India’s investment case. India is young but also socially heterogenous and its median voter is poor. This complicates India’s development process and makes its demographic dividend trend-line non-linear. India’s social complexity is best understood if India is characterized as an amalgamation of three major regions: the North, the South (which we define to include the western region), and the East. Each of these parts are unique and have distinctive socio-demographic identities. India hence is more comparable to a continent like Europe than a country like the US. Like the European Union, India is a union of multiple social, religious, and ethnic groups. It straddles a vast geography and represents a very wide spectrum of interests. India’s South is more like a middle-income Asian country such as Sri Lanka or Vietnam whilst India’s East is more like a poor Latin American economy with latent social unrest. Understanding the heterogeneity of India’s vast populace is key to get a better sense of why an investment strategy for India must be nuanced and tactical in its approach, even if the overarching strategic view is constructive. The key features of each of these three regions can be summarized as follows: Region #1: The North This region comprises the triangular area between Jammu & Kashmir, Rajasthan and Jharkhand. This is the largest landmass in India stretching from the Himalayas to the fertile Gangetic plains of central India. Ethnically most of the population here is of Indo-Aryan descent. A lion’s share of this region’s population remains engaged in agriculture and allied activities. The North accounts for about 45% of the nation’s total population and is a demographic tinderbox. Per capita incomes are low and one in five persons falls in the age group of 15-24 years. To complicate matters, wage inflation in the farm sector, which employs a large majority of the populace in this region, has been slowing. If job creation in the non-farm sector stays insufficient then it will fan fires of social instability. The North includes states like Uttar Pradesh and Punjab which have seen a steady increase in small but notable socio-political conflicts in the recent past. Issues that triggered social conflict ranged from inter-religious marriages to resistance to amending farmer-friendly laws. Region #2: The South India’s South constitutes the large inverted-triangular region on the map and spans the area between Gujarat, Kerala, and West Bengal. We include India’s western region in this category because of its socio-economic similarities with the southern peninsula. Together the South and West account for the entirety of India’s peninsular coastline and for about 40% of total population. Historically, the South has seen far fewer external invasions and its social fabric is more homogenous than that of the North. This region is characterized by high per capita incomes, balanced gender ratios (Chart 4), and higher literacy ratios (Chart 5). Socio-political conflicts in this region are less common as compared to the North. Chart 4India’s South Has Healthy Gender Ratios Compared To North Chart 5India’s South Is More Educated Than The Rest Of India The state of Kerala is an exception in this region. The social fabric in this state is unusual, with Hindus accounting for only 55% of its population (versus the national average of 80%). The high degree of religious heterogeneity in this southern Indian state could perhaps be the reason why the state has lately seen a rise of small but significant incidences of social conflict. Unlike India’s young North, the median age of the population in India’s South is likely to be higher than the national average. Whilst India’s South is clearly young by global standards, this region will have to deal with problems of an ageing population before India’s North or East. The Southern region in India even today relies on migrant workers from India’s North. Region #3: The East This region is the youngest and the smallest of the three, as it accounts for the remaining 15% of India’s population. The region is young but must contend with low per capita incomes and very high degrees of religious diversity. Muslims, Christians, and other religions account for 20% of India’s population nationally but +50% of the population in India’s East. By virtue of sharing borders with countries like Bangladesh, Nepal, and Myanmar, this region is often the entry point for migration into India. It is historically the least stable of the three regions owing to its heterogeneity and the steady influx of migrants. To conclude, India is young but is also socially complex. Whilst a youthful population yields economic advantages, if this young population lacks economic opportunity then social dissatisfaction and associated risks can be a problem. Furthermore, history suggests that if a region’s populace is young but poor and diverse, then it often spawns the rise of identity politics, which takes policymakers’ attention away from matters of economic development. Social Complexity Index To better represent India’s demographic granularities, we created a Social Complexity Index (SCI), as shown in Map 1. Map 1India’s North Is A Demographic Tinderbox; South Is Prosperous But Ageing The SCI for Indian states is created by adding a layer of socio-economic data over the demographic data. It uses three sets of variables: Economic well-being of a state as proxied by state-level per capita incomes. The lower the incomes, the greater the risk of social instability. This is because India’s per capita income is low to start with and if pockets have incomes that are substantially lower than the national average then the associated economic duress can be significant. Religious diversity in a state as measured by creating a Herfindahl-Hirschman Index of religious diversity in the state. The greater the religious diversity the greater the social complexity is expected to be. Youthfulness of a state as measured by population in the age group of 15-24 years relative to the total population. The greater the youth population ratio, the more complex are the social realities likely to be. If a state is exposed unfavorably to all three of the above stated parameters then such a state is deemed to have a high degree of social complexity and hence could be exposed to a higher risk of social conflicts and/or policy risks. Our Social Complexity Index (SCI) (Map 1) shows how parts of India are young but also socially complex. Why does this matter? This matters because a diverse, young and vast population’s attempt to develop will create policy risks. Policy Impact: Left-Leaning Economics, Right-Leaning Politics To be sure, governments in India will stay focused on creating large-scale jobs, a big concern for India’s median voter (Chart 6). However, given the time involved in building consensus for any major reform, progress on economic reforms (and hence job creation) will remain slow. India’s large population and democratic framework render the reform process more acceptable, but also less nimble. This contrasts with the speed of reforms executed by East Asian countries in the 1970s-90s, which turned them into export powerhouses. Two recent examples illustrate the problem of slow reform in India: Implementation of GST: Goods and services tax (GST) was a major reform that India embraced in 2017. However, the creation of a nation-wide GST was first mooted in 2000 and it took seventeen years for this reform to pass into law. Even in its current form India’s GST does not cover all products. It excludes large categories like petroleum products and electricity owing to resistance from state governments. Industrial sector growth: Despite India’s consistent efforts to grow its industrial sector as a source of large-scale, low-skill jobs, the share of this sector in India’s GDP has remained static for three decades (Chart 7). The services sector has grown rapidly in India over this period but its ability to absorb low-skill workers on a large scale is fundamentally restricted since (1) the sector needs mid-to-high skill workers and (2) the sector generates fewer jobs per unit of GDP owing to high degrees of productivity in the sector. Chart 6India’s Median Voter Worries Greatly About Job Creation Chart 7India’s Industrial Sector Stuck In A Rut, India’s Workforce Is Connected And Aware India’s inability to reform rapidly and create jobs on a large-scale will trigger policy risks. This factor is more relevant now than ever. In the 1990s, India was a small, closed economy that was just opening up. Hence slow reforms were acceptable as they yielded high growth off a low base. By contrast India’s masses today are at the forefront of connectivity (Chart 7). Slow job growth in a young country with high degrees of connectivity will have to be managed in the short term by responding to other needs of India’s median voter. This process might delay painful structural reforms necessary to improve productivity and hence create policy risks in the interim. What policy-risks is India exposed to? We highlight three policy risks that investors must brace for: Policy Risk #1: Structurally Large Budget Deficits Despite being young, India’s fiscal deficit has been large and as such comparable to that of countries that have an older demographic profile (Chart 8). Chart 8Despite India’s Youth, Its Fiscal Deficit Has Been Comparable To That Of Older Countries Chart 9Unlike China, The Majority Of India’s Citizenry Lives On Less Than US$10 A Day Whilst India’s fiscal deficit will rise and fall cyclically, it will remain elevated on a structural basis as India’s median voter is young but poor (Chart 9). This median voter will keep needing government support to tide over her economic duress. These fiscal transfers are likely to assume the form of transfer payments, food subsidies and a large interest burden on the exchequer who will need to borrow funds in the absence of adequate tax revenue growth. Two manifestations of this fiscal quagmire that India must contend with include: Revenue expenditure for India’s central government accounts for 85% of its total expenditure, with only 15% being set aside for more productive capital expenditure. Within central government revenue expenditure, 40% is foreclosed by food-subsidies, transfer payments, and interest payments. Can India’s fiscal deficit be expected to structurally trend lower? Only if India embraces big-ticket tax reforms. This appears unlikely given that India’s central tax revenue to GDP ratio has remained static at 10% of GDP for two decades owing to its inability to widen its tax base. Policy Risk #2: Foreign Policy Will Turn Rightwards India’s northern states are known to harbor unfavorable views of Pakistan. These are more unfavorable than the rest of India (Map 2). Geopolitical tension will persist due to a confluence of factors. Map 2Northern India Views Pakistan Even More Unfavorably Than Rest Of India India may be forced to adopt a far more aggressive foreign policy response and shed its historical stance of neutrality. This will be done to respond to tectonic shifts in geopolitics as well as the preferences of India’s north that accounts for about 45% of India’s population. China’s active involvement in South Asia will accentuate this phenomenon whereby India tilts towards abandoning its historical foreign policy stance of non-alignment. An aggressive foreign policy stance will engender fiscal costs as well as diverting attention away from internal reform. The adoption of a more aggressive foreign policy stance will necessitate the maintenance of high defense spending when these scarce resources could be used for boosting productivity through spends on soft as well as hard infrastructure. Despite having low per capita incomes, India already is the third largest military spender globally. In 2022, India’s central government plans to allocate ~15% of its budget for defense, which is the same allocation that productivity-enhancing capital expenditure as a whole will attract. Since it will be politically untenable to cut social spending, defense spending will simply add to the budget deficit. Policy Risk #3: Regional Differences Could Get Amplified Over Time India’s northern states typically lag on human development indicators (Charts 4 and 5). Owing to their large population, these states have also lagged smaller states in the east more recently on vaccination rates, which could be a symptom of deeper problems of managing public services in highly populous states (Chart 10). Chart 10India’s Northern States Lagging On Vaccinations, Smaller Eastern States Are Leading Whilst such differences between India’s more populous and less populous states are commonplace, these tensions could grow over the next few years. In specific, it is worth noting that a delimitation exercise in India is due in 2026. Delimitation refers to the process of redrawing boundaries for Lok Sabha seats to reflect changes in population. India’s Northern states are likely to receive an increased allocation of seats in India’s lower house (i.e. the Lok Sabha) beginning in 2026, despite poor performance on human development indicators. This is because India’s North accounted for 40% of seats in India’s lower house and accounted for 41% of its population in 1991. Owing rapid population growth, this region’s population share rose to 44% by 2011 and the ratio could rise further. Given that a review of the allocation of Lok Sabha seats is due in 2026, it is highly likely that India’s northern states get allocated more seats at this review. A change in political influence of different regions will have two sets of implications. Firstly, reforms that require a buy-in from all Indian states (such as GST implementation in 2017) could become trickier to implement if states that have delivered improvements in human development have to contend with a decline in political influence. Secondly, the rising political influence of India’s more populous states in the North could reinforce the trend of a less neutral and more aggressive foreign policy stance that we expect India to assume. Investment Conclusions Indian equity markets have historically traded at a hefty premium to Emerging Markets (EMs). This premium is often attributed to India’s youthful demographic structure. However academic literature has shown that realizing benefits associated with a youthful demographic structure is dependent on a country’s institutions and requires the productive employment of potential workers. It has also been shown, both theoretically and empirically, that there is nothing automatic about the link from demographic change to economic growth.1 Country-specific studies have also shown that it is difficult to find a robust relationship between asset returns on stocks, bonds, or bills, and a country’s age structure.2 An analysis of equity market returns generated by young EMs confirms that a youthful demographic structure can aid high equity returns but the geopolitical setting and macroeconomic factors matter too. Moreover, history confirms that each young country spawns a new generation of winners and losers. Fixed patterns in terms of top performing or worst performing sectors are not seen across young and populous EMs. The rest of this section highlights details pertaining to these two findings. Investment Implication#1: Youth Does Not Assure High Equity Market Returns China in the nineties, Indonesia & Brazil in the early noughties and India over the last decade had similar demographic features (see Row 1, 2 and 3 in Table 1). Table 1Leader And Laggard Sectors Can Vary Across Young, Populous Countries However, it is worth noting that these four EMs delivered widely varying returns even when their demographic features were similar (see Row 5, 6 and 7 in Table 1). In real dollarized terms equity returns ranged from a CAGR of -22% to 8% for these four countries. The variation in returns can be attributed to differences in macroeconomic and geopolitical factors. Brazil’s period of political stability in the early 2000s along with its relatively high per capita incomes were potentially responsible for Brazil’s youthful demography translating into high equity market returns. At the other end of the spectrum, equity returns in China were the lowest despite a young demography owing to low per capita incomes and economic restructuring prevalent in the nineties. Investment Implication#2: Each Young Country Spawns A New Generation Of Winners And Losers Given that a young populace is expected to display a higher propensity to consume, sectors like consumer staples, consumer discretionary, and financials are expected to outperform in young countries. However, a cross-country analysis suggests that a young country does not necessarily throw up any consistent patterns of sector performance. Sectoral performance patterns too appear to be affected by demographics along with macroeconomic and geopolitical factors. Similarities in the profile of top performing sectors in India, China, Brazil and Indonesia when these countries were young are few and far between (see Row 9, 10 and 11 in Table 1). No patterns or similarities are evident even in the profile of worst performing sectors in India, China, Brazil and Indonesia when they had similar demographic features (see Row 12, 13 and 14 in Table 1). Even India’s own experience confirms that: There exists no correlation between India’s equity market returns and its demographic structure. India was at its youngest in the nineties and yet its peak equity market returns were achieved in the subsequent decade (see Row 4, 5 & 6 in Table 2). High domestic growth combined with the emergence of political stability potentially allowed India’s youth to translate into high equity market returns over 2000-2010. Table 2Youth Is Not A Sufficient Condition For A Market To Deliver High Returns There exists no pattern in terms of top or worst performing sectors in India as it has aged over the last three decades (see Row 8 to 13 in Table 2). Healthcare for instance was the top performing sector in India in the 1990s when India’s median age was only 21 years. Industrials as a sector have featured as one of the worst performing sectors in India in the 1990s as well as the late noughties despite India’s youthful age structure. This could be attributed to the fact that India’s growth model pivoted off service sector growth while industrial sector development has lagged. Bottom Line: History suggests that a youthful demographic structure is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for an emerging market like India to deliver high equity market returns. Besides demographics, domestic macroeconomic and regional geopolitical factors create a deep imprint on equity returns’ patterns too. India faces a geopolitical tailwind as its economy develops and China’s risks increase. Nevertheless, owing to India’s heterogeneity and poverty, its road to realizing its demographic dividend will be paved with policy risks. Even as India’s lead on the demographic front is expected to continue, tactical underweights on this EM too are warranted from time to time.   Ritika Mankar, CFA Editor/Strategist ritika.mankar@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 David Bloom et al, "Global demographic change: dimensions and economic significance", NBER Working Paper No. 10817, September 2004, nber.org. 2 James M Poterba, "Demographic Structure and Asset Returns" The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 83, No. 4, November 2001, The MIT Press.

Highlights The August 1 deadline for Congress to raise the debt ceiling will come and go but the looming debt showdown will not replay the 2011-13 crisis. It is not a major risk to the bull market.  The Biden administration still has the political capital to pass a signature piece of legislation via budget reconciliation by end of year.  The tax component of the plan may bring a negative surprise but the market is likely to be more concerned over inflation expectations, eventual Fed rate hikes, and the 2022 fiscal cliff.  The Delta variant of COVID-19 is spreading rapidly in Republican-leaning states but the existence of effective vaccines presents an immediate solution. Any substantial new jitters over the pandemic will increase monetary and fiscal stimulus.  Stay long value over growth stocks despite near term risks and setbacks. Reassess if technical support is broken. Feature The Democratic Party is attempting to achieve two major things before Congress goes on recess in early August. The first is a $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure package – which will take longer than that and may never pass. The second is a $2-$6 trillion budget resolution that will contain reconciliation instructions to enable the Senate to pass President Joe Biden’s proposed $2.5-$4.1 trillion American Jobs and Families Plan with 51 votes. Democrats may very well achieve this resolution before going on recess but that is the very problem when it comes to negotiations with Republicans. Even though divisions within Republican ranks make bipartisanship more likely to succeed than usual, investors should not bet on it. A partisan reconciliation process virtually guarantees both that Democrats pass their next spending bill without major disappointments for the market and that the debt ceiling is not a substantial risk to the bull market. The real risk for investors is that the markets have mostly priced the Democrats’ stimulus spending and will increasingly turn to tax hikes and especially Fed rate hikes. While we expect dovish surprises from the Fed, the strong 4.5% year-on-year growth in core consumer prices, in the context of booming consumer sentiment (Chart 1), suggests the opposite. Chart 1Consumer Confidence Still Rebounding The Debt Ceiling Is Not A Significant Risk To The Bull Market Investors are increasingly concerned about the US debt ceiling, or statutory limit on the national debt, which comes due on August 1. But the debt ceiling does not pose a significant risk to the bull market this time around. The US is not in the same political context as it was in 2011-13 when debt showdowns roiled markets. Investors’ concerns are understandable, of course. In the wake of the Great Recession, congressional Democrats and Republicans quarreled over the debt ceiling, resulting in notable disinflationary episodes in which stocks fell while Treasuries and the dollar rallied (Chart 2). A close look at the debt showdowns of summer 2011 and winter 2012-13 reveals that the “risk off” phase occurred immediately in the first case and over the succeeding month in the second case (Chart 3). The implication is that the whole period from September to December of 2021 could be at risk from any new debt showdown. To understand why risk is not substantial this year one needs to understand what the debt ceiling is. Chart 2ABiden Will Fare Better Than Obama On Debt Ceiling Chart 2BBiden Will Fare Better Than Obama On Debt Ceiling Chart 3A Close Look At Debt Ceiling Showdowns, 2011-13 The debt ceiling is a legislative instrument intended to constrain the US’s public debt. Congress must authorize a higher debt limit to enable the Treasury Department to make debt payments. Legislating a higher debt ceiling is not the same as legislating government spending. Congress spends money through the annual appropriations process. Government spending amidst recurring budget deficits requires new debt issuance to provide the funds to be spent. But debt in excess of the statutory limit must be authorized by raising the limit. The last time Congress expanded the debt ceiling was in August 2019, leaving August 1, 2021 as the next deadline. Theoretically it is unpopular for congressmen to increase the allowance for their own profligate policies and as such the debt ceiling acts a curb on deficits and debt. In reality the two political parties usually pull together the 60 votes needed in the Senate to raise or suspend the limit and prevent the federal government from defaulting on debt payments that come due. The reason is that, if the debt limit were not raised, the government would default on debt payments and be forced to halt social security payments, civil servant wages, and other essential payments. A failure to write checks to seniors and military veterans would be extremely unpopular and both the president’s party and the opposition party would suffer for it (Chart 4). Chart 4ABoth President And Congress To Suffer From Any Debt Showdown Chart 4BBoth President And Congress To Suffer From Any Debt Showdown This does not mean that 10 Senate Republicans can easily be found to join 50 Democrats, thus reaching 60 votes in the Senate to raise the debt limit. The battle is likely to extend well into the fall, pushing up against Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s warning that the Treasury could run out of funds before Congress returns in mid-September. The battle will likely extend into October and create fears of a default.  Getting 10 Republicans is difficult. It will not occur as part of a compromise infrastructure package, even though this package already has 11 Republicans supporting it. First, the bipartisan infrastructure deal may fail anyway because Republicans know that Democratic leadership, whether they admit it or not, will tie the deal to the passage of their larger budget reconciliation bill later this fall. Since Republicans oppose the reconciliation bill they may not be able to save face if they vote for an infrastructure deal that enables it. And Democrats do not have any reason to compromise on a bipartisan deal if they think it will destroy their larger reconciliation ambitions. Second, if a bipartisan infrastructure deal comes together, Republicans will insist that the debt ceiling is kept separate. They will not want to link themselves and their infrastructure spending with the bulging national debt. Rather they will want to force the Democrats to link their massive social spending with the national debt. Democrats may accept this trade off since the Biden administration wants a bipartisan deal – as long as they are given guarantees from moderate Senate Democrats that the latter  will support the reconciliation bill. Public opinion is not generally distressed when it comes to federal budget deficits and the national debt. Only 3% of Americans cite these as the most important problem facing the country today – obviously people are more concerned with the general economic recovery and unemployment (Chart 5). However, voters clearly believe debt is one of the country’s problems, with 43% saying they are “very concerned” about debt growth, including 45% of independents. Republicans are under significant pressure on these issues, which is why only moderates would conceivably vote to raise the debt limit and even then would only raise it if forced to choose between doing so and triggering a national default (Chart 6). Brinkmanship is to be expected. Chart 5Voters Say Recovery More Important Than Debt Chart 6Yet Concern About Debt Is Not Negligible While public opinion generally favors infrastructure spending, support for infrastructure falls when it is explicitly linked to increases in national debt. Only 39% of voters, and 30% of independents, think it is acceptable to increase the debt to pay for infrastructure, according to a recent Ipsos/Reuters poll (Chart 7). About 60% of Democrats agree with this statement and 22% of Republicans. The implication – as we have long argued – is that investors should not bet on a bipartisan deal. They should bet on the partisan reconciliation process. Chart 7Democrats Support More Debt For Infrastructure … Others Do Not Support for extreme deficit spending is likely to wane as the economy recovers and the sense of crisis abates. Support for emergency COVID-19 fiscal relief was very high early this year (Chart 8). Yet even at the height of the lockdowns there was a non-negligible group of voters who claimed to care about deficits (Chart 9). Fortunately for the Biden administration, the window of opportunity has not yet closed. The rise in the Delta variant of COVID-19 is generating higher hospitalization rates and renewed concerns about the pandemic, which will help support additional stimulus measures (Table 1). There is still time to pass a major spending bill on infrastructure and/or social welfare before the end of the year. Chart 8Support For COVID Relief Was Very High Chart 9Yet Voters Showed Some Concern About Deficits Even At Height Of Crisis Table 12022 Swing States Struggling With COVID-19 Ultimately Democrats control both chambers of Congress and will be able to vote with party discipline on raising the debt ceiling. They can raise the debt ceiling with a simple majority vote if they include it in their upcoming budget reconciliation bill. This is the main reason why investors should look through any financial market jitters: there is a clear escape hatch if Republicans obstruct. The only reason we do not exclude the possibility of Republican cooperation entirely is that Republicans are in such desperate need of a lifeline following President Trump’s defeat and the post-election riot on Capitol Hill. Indeed, the last time Republicans saw anywhere near such low levels of partisan identification was in 2013, after House Republicans brought the US to the brink of defaulting on its debt (Chart 10). The Senate Republicans are divided, not unified in willingness to trigger a default, and we can count at least 10 Senate Republicans who will capitulate if necessary to prevent a default. Chart 10Republicans Need A Lifeline … Infrastructure May Be It Of course, Senate Republicans could refuse to raise the debt ceiling anyway. But the crucial difference is that Congress is not gridlocked. Democrats, as the ruling party, would suffer in the event of a default and they have the reconciliation process to prevent that from happening. (We have also maintained that they will eventually water down or abolish the Senate filibuster, which would open another way to lift the debt ceiling, although so far they have not succeeded in doing so.) Bottom Line: There are reasons for investors to be increasingly risk averse – tax hikes, eventual Fed rate hikes, the 2022 fiscal cliff, global growth sputters – but the debt ceiling is not one of them. Any major stock market jitters that emerge because of the debt ceiling should be ignored if they are not attended by more significant risks. Biden’s Political Capital Still Sufficient For One More Big Bill All year we have maintained that President Biden will get at least one signature bill passed in addition to the huge COVID-19 relief bill, the American Rescue Plan, passed at the beginning of the year. This view is based in our reading of his political support and capability, as evinced in our Political Capital Index, which we update weekly in the Appendix. This view is on track and we maintain high conviction. Nevertheless readers should be aware that Biden’s support will wobble over the coming months and US economic policy uncertainty will rebound from post-pandemic lows. This week’s update of the Political Capital Index shows some chinks in Biden’s armor that will likely get wider over the coming months, though we do not expect them to prevent the bill from passing. First, while political polarization has subsided from recent peaks in 2020, our polarization indicators are starting to rebound from post-election lows. Our polarization proxy (the gap in partisan approval of the president) will eventually find a floor considering the historically high structural polarization in the country. Meanwhile economic sentiment polarization and the Philly Fed Partisan Conflict Index climbed from their respective lows in the first half of the year, as Congress bickered over Biden’s next reconciliation bill (Chart 11). The upcoming partisan battles over infrastructure, the debt ceiling, budget appropriations, voting rights, guns, the Hyde amendment (abortion), a possible government shutdown, and the midterm elections will revive polarization even if it does not surpass 2020 peaks. Partisanship will ensure the passage of a reconciliation bill but then it will reduce Biden’s ability to pass legislation afterwards.    Chart 11Polarization Still Historically Elevated Second, Biden’s approval rating is rebounding a bit in July from its low point in June but the legislative process – as well as looming foreign policy challenges and other negative surprises – will weigh on his approval, at least until his infrastructure bill passes (Chart 12). Over the medium term, strong consumer sentiment and a recovering economy will prevent Biden’s approval rating from falling to President Trump’s levels, at least until a major mistake or negative shock occurs. Nevertheless presidents tend to have low approval ratings in the modern era due to partisanship and so far Biden is no exception. Chart 12ABiden Approval Will Suffer Till Infrastructure Passes Chart 12BBiden Approval Will Suffer Till Infrastructure Passes Third, while small business continues to be more concerned with wages and inflation than with Biden’s legislative agenda, concerns about higher taxes are gradually emerging. The business community may finally be internalizing Biden’s American Jobs Plan, which will include a corporate tax hike and possibly also individual tax hikes (Chart 13). The stock market is unlikely to ignore Biden’s corporate tax hikes forever, even if they only cause a one-off hit to earnings of 8%-10%. We expect negative tax surprises from the reconciliation process. The small business community’s opposition to Biden’s agenda is well known, and limited in impact, but it will increasingly detract from his political capital on the margin. Fourth, the economy is beginning to decelerate albeit from a very high rate of growth. The manufacturing PMI and its employment component have fallen from their highs in the first half of the year while the ratio of new orders to inventories was flat in June. The non-manufacturing sector showed the same trend with non-manufacturing business activity and new orders-to-inventories coming down from earlier heights. Non-manufacturing employment ticked down though it will likely rebound soon as enhanced federal unemployment benefits expire (Chart 14). Capex intentions softened a bit. Chart 13Small Biz Wakes Up To Inflation, Tax Hikes Chart 14Economy To Decelerate From Highs Still, the unemployment rate continued its decline in June and household and business balance sheets are strong as the economic recovery continues. Biden’s ability to pass his spending plans will ensure that the government contribution to growth remains robust in the coming years, after a soft patch in 2022 as the infrastructure plan is gradually rolled out. Most of these indicators show improvement relative to November, which gives Biden a store of political capital.  Bottom Line: Polarization and policy uncertainty are likely to rebound as the economy decelerates, albeit from rapid growth. Ultimately Biden is likely to pass a signature government spending plan by the end of the year, which will give his approval rating a boost. But given thin margins in Congress, and the looming 2022 midterm elections, Biden’s political capital will largely be exhausted after the second half of this year. Fiscal policy will likely be frozen in place for several years after that. Investment Takeaways The debt ceiling is not a major risk to the bull market, though congressional brinkmanship is inevitable. We are prepared for more volatility and near-term equity setbacks but jitters arising solely from the debt ceiling should be looked through.. Investors should stay focused on the high likelihood that Biden and the Democrats will pass a reconciliation bill that will add about $1.3-$2.5 trillion to the budget deficit over eight years. Disappointments in the bill (higher taxes, lower spending) pose a greater risk to the stock market than the debt ceiling. This bill will solidify the economic recovery but also exact a one-off toll on corporate earnings and hasten concerns over rising inflation expectations and Fed rate hikes. Furthermore a fiscal cliff looms in 2022 as budget deficits normalize from extreme levels. Until new stimulus is secured, this fiscal cliff poses a much greater risk than debt ceilings or a possible government shutdown. The Delta variant of the COVID-19 virus is threatening to clog hospitals and thus poses a risk of forcing authorities to tighten social restrictions, especially in Republican-leaning states where vaccination rates are lower (Chart 15). However, we expect vaccinations to rise – and meanwhile highly vaccinated areas will remain free to conduct business. As long as vaccines remain effective, any scare over variants of the virus will be limited. A selloff is possible but would trigger new bouts of monetary and fiscal stimulus. Chart 15Red States Will Have To Increase Vaccination We will maintain our cyclical orientation of favoring value stocks over growth stocks, although this trade faces an immediate and critical test that could trigger a revaluation (Chart 16). Tactically it should be clear from this report that rising policy uncertainty and other near-term risks are abounding. Chart 16A Test For Value Versus Growth   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor jesse.Kuri@bcaresearch.com Appendix Table A1USPS Trade Table Table A2Political Risk Matrix Chart A1Presidential Election Model Chart A2Senate Election Model Table A3Political Capital Index Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Footnotes  

Special Report

Highlights Barring major surprises, President Macron will be re-elected in 2022. Any dramatic reversal in the pandemic that leads to a new recession would benefit the opposition candidate. Otherwise, Macron will remain the frontrunner. A second term for President Macron would see a continuation of the structural reforms started in 2017, but with a longer process for coalition-building in the National Assembly. This is bullish for France. Reducing the size of the state will go a long way to improve France’s economic competitiveness over the long run. Tactically, favor the more defensive Spanish market over the highly cyclical French market. Underweight French consumer discretionary equities relative to their European and global peers. Longer term, overweight French industrials equities relative to German ones, and overweight French tech equities relative to European ones. Ahead of the election, buy the dip on any euro weakness and French OAT/German bund spread widening. Feature The French presidential election is nine months away, and it is already starting to catch investors’ attention as one of the main political events in Europe in 2022. In talks with clients, we’ve been asked repeatedly about the odds we assign to a Marine Le Pen victory and the market implications. Those concerns are understandable but overrated. Le Pen’s personal approval rating is on the rise, and, in most polls, the far-right candidate beats President Emmanuel Macron in the first round vote, although not the critical second round. Although the same polls see Macron being re-elected, the gap between the two has narrowed considerably since the 2017 election, which Macron won by 66 percent of the vote.   Still, Macron is favored for re-election. He has several strong advantages over Le Pen, and it is unlikely she will be able to close the gap further before the election. Macron’s first term has been eventful. Neoliberal structural reforms started with drums beating in the first 18 months of his term. But the pace and breadth of reform eventually became too ambitious or painful for France to bear, and protests erupted in 2018. First came the “Yellow Vest Movement,” and then came protests against pension reform. Macron tried to compromise and continue with his agenda, but COVID-19 forced his hand. Since then, Macron has focused on crisis management, benefiting from the large state sector’s role as an automatic stabilizer amid the downturn. A second term under President Macron would see a reboot of the structural reforms started in 2017, albeit without single-party rule in the National Assembly. Reforms aimed at reducing the size of the state, and its cost, would go a long way to improve France’s economic competitiveness over the long run. Therefore, the prospect of Macron’s reelection is bullish for France, even though the reality of his second term would be more complex. 2017 All Over Again? Yes And No At first glance, the 2022 election seems to be a repeat of 2017. Le Pen and Macron are likely to face off in the second round and the latter, the Europhile centrist candidate, is likely to win once more. However, everything surrounding this election has changed. The Incumbency Effect One of the major changes is favorable for Macron: he is the incumbent running for re-election. Macron had been part of President Francois Hollande’s government since 2014, so he was still viewed in 2017 as a political neophyte and dark horse candidate. His rapid rise to power, along with that of his upstart party, La République En Marche (LREM), was astounding. Chart 1Pro-Incumbency Effect Favors Macron There is a strong pro-incumbency effect in French presidential elections, especially in the first round (Chart 1). Since 1965, five incumbents have run for re-election, and all have made it to the second round. Importantly, four won first place in the first round, with a six percentage-point margin on average. The chief exception is Nicolas Sarkozy in 2012. The reason for Sarkozy’s loss, however, is well known: he attempted to pass an unpopular pension reform in the teeth of the Euro debt crisis, 12 months before facing re-election. The only other incumbent who failed at re-election was Valerie Giscard d’Estaing, who lost to Francois Mitterrand in 1981, when the whole world was in stagflation and upheaval. The incumbency effect is not as pronounced in the second round (Chart 1, bottom panel). However, when facing a far-right candidate, incumbents win by a wide margin. This was the case in 2002 and 2017. Today, Macron still has a 12-point lead on Le Pen. Macron compares well to his predecessors. Chart 2 shows the approval rating for all presidents sitting in office over the past 40 years. The number of people who intend to vote for Macron has increased, the first time this has happened for an incumbent president since 1988. Only three presidents had a higher approval rating at this stage of their term, albeit from a higher starting point. Macron’s approval rating has increased by 10% since February 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic hit Europe. Chart 2Macron Compares Well To His Predecessors Table 1Incumbency And Recessions Under The Fifth Republic The shock of the pandemic and recession is the greatest change since 2017, and the biggest challenge facing Macron. Four incumbents have made a bid for re-election that was preceded by a recession within 12-24 months (Table 1). The results are mixed, and it is hard to establish a clear anti-incumbency effect. If anything, the timing and nature of this crisis are likely to help Macron rather than hurt him, since the vaccination campaign and easing of lockdown measures will enable the economy to normalize and improve ahead of April 10-24, 2022, when voters cast their first ballots. Nonetheless, another major shock (of any kind) could undermine the incumbent advantage. Economic Recovery Is The Top Priority While the Macron administration’s handling of the pandemic was questioned, public opinion was never aggressively hostile toward his handling of the economy. Macron was instrumental in securing a major European fiscal stimulus package (and joint debt issuance) with the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel. He enthusiastically adopted the crisis mentality of “whatever it takes” to wage war against COVID-19, enabling the oversized French state to deploy the most generous furlough scheme in Europe, shielding millions of workers and preventing businesses from going under. This will be one of his winning cards. Chart 3The Handling Of The Pandemic Dictates Macron's Popularity His approval rating began to rebound following the end of lockdowns (Chart 3). This trend should strengthen as the French economy reopens, supported by a government that will play an accommodative and reflationary economic role until the election. Public opinion wants him to focus on the labor market and the economic recovery in the months to come, and he will be happy to oblige. Public opinion also views Macron as the most qualified candidate when it comes to economic matters (Table 2). 42% of respondents think that Le Pen is not qualified “at all” on economic matters, her Achilles’ heel, a perception that was already entrenched when Macron crushed her in a televised debate before the second round of the 2017 election. Table 2Macron Is Perceived As The Most Qualified To Oversee The Economic Recovery Europhile Versus Eurosceptic? The central issue of the 2017 election was Europe and France’s role in it. Following the UK’s disruptive Brexit referendum in 2016, and a long tradition of Euroscepticism within her party, Le Pen campaigned on “Frexit” and the abandonment of the euro. Conversely, Macron embraced the EU and the monetary union as he ran for president and committed to having France play a more important role within the bloc if he won. Chart 4Le Pen And The EU: Not The Divorce We Expected Since then, Le Pen has drastically shifted her stance on the EU. She now claims that the benefits of the common currency and single market outweigh the costs. After all, 70% of the French public support the euro and EU membership (Chart 4). Like clockwork, her personal approval ratings have steadily gone up. This strategic shift aligns her with the median voter, and combined with the Covid crisis, it is the only reason to take her candidacy remotely seriously in 2022, despite Macron’s clear advantages. Nevertheless, Le Pen has not yet risen above her 2012 peak in popular support. She failed to do so between 2014 and 2015, when the lingering European debt crisis, the Syrian refugee crisis, multiple terrorist attacks in France, and sluggish economic growth should have boosted her popularity. Her shifting perspective on the euro was therefore necessary and might be just what she needs to break through her 37% ceiling of popular support. Le Pen’s policy agenda is now focusing on protectionism, immigration, and national security. It is a Trumpian mix. However, while her new stance is more mainstream, it also differentiates her less from the other center-right politicians in France, namely Xavier Bertrand, who recently made local electoral gains in Le Pen’s northern industrial base. Macron is as strong an advocate for Europe as ever. He convinced Germany to break the taboo on joint fiscal policy during the pandemic. Now, he is also mounting a bid to become the natural leader of Europe, given that Merkel is stepping down, and her party is likely to lose standing in the German election in September.  France is set to take over the rotating EU Council Presidency in the first half of 2022, under the theme “Recovery, power, belonging,” which provides Macron with a golden opportunity to pitch himself as Europe’s premier statesman and economic steward in the final months of the election campaign. One Thing Hasn’t Changed: The Outcome Of A Macron/Le Pen Duel Most opinion polls give Macron a 10-12 point lead on Le Pen in the second round of the election. This gap is wide enough to reassure investors that it is not a polling error. However, in 2017, Macron’s average lead over Le Pen was 22%, and he won the election with 66% of votes. It is the narrowing of that gap that raises eyebrows among investors. Table 3Ideological Blocs Also Favor Macron Still, Le Pen’s chances at closing the gap are overrated. She is not a political “unknown” anymore and has very little ability to “surprise” voters into rallying around her next year. She will have trouble persuading those who know all about her. Grouping French voters according to ideological blocs, that is, presidential preference by party affiliation, suggests that the biggest threat to Macron is a strong center-right candidate who can beat Le Pen, especially if this should coincide with a revival of the center-left (Table 3). Otherwise, as in 2017, Macron will be able to count on voters from other parties in the second round of the election (Table 4). While both candidates appeal to right-wing constituents and would have to share their ballots, Macron can count on the green EELV party, as well as left-wing voters, to join center-right voters to elect him. Macron has made environmental issues a part of his mandate, which should help him confront a green neophyte such as Le Pen. Table 4Voting Against Le Pen Implies Voting For Macron The results of the regional elections held last month confirm this analysis. The motivation to keep Le Pen and her Rassemblement National (National Rally) party out of power is still strong (see Box 1). The poor showing of the National Rally means she won’t be able to maintain her current momentum in her personal approval ratings.   Box 1 2021 Regional Elections: Bad Omen For Marine Le Pen In Revival Of The Center-Right? The regional elections took place on June 20 and 27. While limited in relevance for the 2022 presidential race, the result of extremely low voter turnout, regional elections offer a gauge of how constituents feel about the political offerings from anti-establishment parties. Le Pen’s party suffered a heavy blow. It had hoped to consolidate power and build momentum ahead of the presidential election, but it failed even to win in its stronghold of Southern France. Meanwhile, Macron’s party (La République En Marche!) also disappointed. This outcome is not surprising; the local elections last year yielded similar results, highlighting the lack of presence at the local and regional levels for the four-year-old party. The surprise came from the center-right. It managed to win seven of the thirteen regions, beating far-right candidates by wide margins. Importantly, Xavier Bertand, Valérie Pécresse, and Laurent Wauquiez, all predicted to run for president next year, held onto their seats.   Chart 5Strong Demographic Base In The Second Round Both candidates’ demographic bases have remained the same. Macron is still popular among Millennials, white collar workers, and the elderly (Chart 5). He also has a strong base in Paris (and the suburbs) as opposed to Le Pen, and he still outperforms Le Pen among rural voters in today’s polls. Macron also scores high among the employees of the public sector—even though he is in favor of a smaller public sector. Furthermore, the unemployed mostly favor him, which reinforces the perception that he is the best candidate to improve the French economy and cut the unemployment rate. What if Le Pen fails to make it into the second round of the election? We discuss this possibility in the next section. Risks To The Base Case Scenario The greatest risks to our view are a setback in the economic recovery, an outperformance from the center-right, and the emergence of a dark horse. The latest developments in the UK and Israel, where a large share of the population is fully vaccinated, suggest that the “Delta” variant of COVID-19 remains a threat, with the potential to send economies back into lockdowns. The consequences would be dire for Macron. His chances at re-election would likely evaporate if his government imposed new lockdown measures. What about presidential candidates other than Le Pen? Our base case scenario that Macron will win is based on two assumptions: (1) the center-left Socialist Party will remain in shambles, and (2) the center-right remains scattered under different banners and will therefore lack unity. There is very little chance that the center-left will make a comeback in time, but the results from the regional elections suggest that the center-right could surprise to the upside (see Box 1), especially if it decides to rally behind a single candidate ahead of the first round. Could this candidate be a dark horse? Former Prime Minister Edouard Philippe or outsider candidate Xavier Bertrand could make formidable opponents to both Macron and Le Pen. Philippe’s personal approval rating currently stands at 50%, the highest among French politicians. He also appeals to constituents of all political leanings (Chart 6). This scenario could reshuffle the likely outcomes of both the first and second round of the election. Both Bertand and Philippe could win over voters who decided to side with Le Pen in 2017, while Philippe can compete with Macron over LREM voters. Additionally, Xavier Bertrand cuts into Le Pen’s support since he has made blue collar workers and the middle-class a priority. However, Macron and Le Pen each enjoy a strong voters’ base. It is necessary to monitor whether Valérie Pécresse (Soyons libres) and Laurent Wauquiez (Les Républicains) can be brought to endorse Xavier Bertrand ahead of the first round in 2022. Chart 6Edouard Philippe: From Ally To Outcast To Challenger? Beyond The Election Aside from the presidency, the outstanding question is the makeup of the National Assembly in 2022. Macron is not likely to enjoy the strong single-party legislative majority of his first term or to gain control of the Senate. Consequently, he will be more constrained in the legislature in a second term. Nonetheless, the demand for a better economy and a healthier job market requires pro-productivity reforms, which the public knows, and Macron has made reform his banner. Other conventional parties will come under pressure to support Macron’s reform agenda, even though that agenda will be less ambitious than it was in his first term. Chart 7Strong Presence Of Right-Leaning Forces Efforts at cutting back the size of the state are still likely, even though the pandemic has helped rather than hurt statism. This is because the French median voter, who never witnessed the degree of neoliberal reform that took place in the Anglo-Saxon world, has grown weary of the economy’s inefficiencies, just as the Anglo-Saxons have grown weary of laissez-faire neoliberalism. Before the pandemic, the French people understood the need to reduce the size of the state. After all, a larger state implies a larger cost burden borne by both households and corporations. When faced with the choice between paying the bill for the government’s fiscal response to COVID-19 (through higher taxes), or undertaking reforms aiming at reducing the size of the state, the French people will pick the former. Moreover, centrist forces will hold sway in the legislature (Chart 7); hence, some kind of budget normalization is expected in 2023 or thereafter. Other structural reforms If Macron wins would include pension reforms. We should also expect measures to push French companies to bring activities back to France, as well as a greater focus on leading France on the green path. Bottom Line: Barring major surprises, President Macron will be re-elected in 2022. There is a risk to our view if a center-right candidate defeats Le Pen to make it to the second round of the election. Either Macron or a center-right presidency would see a continuation of the structural reforms started in 2017, but with a longer process for coalition-building in the National Assembly. Investment Implications The French economy is currently experiencing an economic upswing. Three factors explain this pick-up: ultra-accommodative monetary conditions in Europe, fiscal largesse, and considerable pent-up demand. In 2021, GDP is projected to expand by 5.75% in annual average terms, higher than the Euro Area average of 4.6%. It should then grow by 4% in 2022 and by 2% in 2023. We remain bullish on French equities on a secular basis, as long as the elections result in further incremental structural reforms over time. As the election draws nearer, investors should treat any French OAT/German Bund spread widening as a buying opportunity and purchase the euro on any election-related dip. French Equities The CAC40 and French equities have had a good run since the beginning of the year. In absolute terms, the CAC40 is one of the best performers year-to-date, up +17%, driven by the outperformance of French consumer discretionary and financials equities, both in absolute and relative terms. However, a period of turbulence is appearing on the horizon; the shift in global growth drivers, the beginning of the global liquidity withdrawal, and lingering COVID worries are creating headwinds for the cyclicals-to-defensives ratio this summer. As such, we recently recommended investors downgrade cyclical equities tactically in Europe from overweight to neutral. With 66% in cyclicals, the French MSCI equity index will underperform in this environment, especially relative to the more defensive Spanish market (Table 5). Table 5Cyclicals Versus Defensives In European Markets Chart 8Three Trade Ideas In fact, our Combined Mechanical Valuation Indicator (CMVI) shows that French consumer discretionary equities are expensive relative to both their European and global peers (Chart 8). Regarding the reform theme, we stick with our long French industrial equities / short German industrial equities on a long-term horizon (Chart 8, second and third panel). The idea is that French reforms should suppress unit labor costs and make French exports more competitive vis-à-vis their main competitor, Germany. The latter faces a leftward shift in policy in elections this September. Finally, we recommend investors go long French tech stocks relative to their European counterparts. This sector is cheap (Chart 8, bottom panel), and the French tech sector will be supported by additional government spending of EUR7 billion on digital investments over the next two years. Bond Markets & FX A dovish ECB is consistent with a continued overweight in European peripheral bonds and an underweight stance on French government bonds. Chart 9Just Buy The Dip What is more relevant with respect to the French election is the OAT/Bund spread. In the past, unusually wide spreads between the two represented a euro breakup premium. In early 2017, spreads widened when the approval rating of Le Pen increased (Chart 9). However, since “Frexit” and the abandonment of the euro are no longer part of Le Pen’s agenda, investors should view spread widening as a buying opportunity. Similarly, investors should buy the euro on any election-related dip, particularly following the first round. “Frexit” has been removed from the equation, hence the euro should not weaken on breakup risk this time around. Bottom Line: We remain bullish on French equities within a European portfolio on a secular basis. If our views on the cyclicals-to-defensives ratio materialize in the near-term, highly cyclical French equities will temporarily underperform, unlike the more defensive Spanish market. On a 3- to 12-month horizon, investors should short French consumer discretionary equities relative to both their European and global counterparts. Current valuations suggest that betting on the booming French tech sector at the expense of its European neighbors will be profitable. Once the election draws nearer, investors should treat any French OAT/German Bund spread widening as a buying opportunity and purchase the euro on any election-related dip.   Jeremie Peloso, Associate Editor JeremieP@bcaresearch.com

Highlights Three distinct forces are likely to make South Asia’s geopolitical risks increasingly relevant to global investors. First, India’s tensions with China stem from China’s growing foreign policy assertiveness and India’s shift away from traditional neutrality toward aligning with the US and its allies. This creates a security dilemma in South Asia, just as in East Asia. Second, India’s economy is sputtering in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, adding fuel to nationalism and populism in advance of a series of important elections. India will stimulate the economy but it could also become more reactive on the international scene. Third, the US is withdrawing from Afghanistan and negotiating a deal with Iran in an effort to reduce the US military presence in the Middle East and South Asia. This will create a scramble for influence across both regions and a power vacuum in Afghanistan that is highly likely to yield negative surprises for India and its neighbors. Traditionally geopolitical risks in South Asia have a limited impact on markets. India’s growth slowdown and forthcoming fiscal stimulus are more relevant for investors. However, a sharp rise in geopolitical risk would undermine India’s structural advantages as the West diversifies away from China. Stay short Indian banks. Feature Geopolitical risks in South Asia are slowly but surely rising. India-Pakistan and China-India are well-known “conflict-dyads” or pairings. Historically, these two sets have been fighting each other over their fuzzy Himalayan border with limited global financial market consequences. But now fundamental changes are afoot that are altering the geopolitical setting in the region. Specifically, the coming together of three distinct forces could trigger a significant geopolitical event in South Asia. The three forces are as follow: Force #1: Sino-Indian Tensions Get Real About a year ago, Indian and Chinese troops clashed in Ladakh, a disputed territory in the Kashmir region. Following these clashes China reduced its military presence in the Pangong Tso area but its presence in some neighboring areas remains meaningful. Besides the troop build-up along India’s eastern border, China is building more air combat infrastructure in its India-facing western theatre. China’s major air bases have historically been concentrated in China’s eastern region, away from the Indian border (Map 1). Consequently, India has historically enjoyed an advantage in airpower. But China appears to be working to mitigate this disadvantage. Map 1Most Of China’s Major Aviation Units Are Located Away From India Owing to China’s increased military focus along the Sino-India border, India’s threat perception of China has undergone a fundamental change in recent years. Notably, India has diverted some of its key army units away from its western Indo-Pak border towards its eastern border with China. India could now have nearly 200,000 troops deployed along its border with China, which would mark a 40% increase from last year.1 Turning attention to the Indo-Pak border, India’s problems with Pakistan appear under control for now. This is owing to the ceasefire agreement that was renewed by the two countries in February 2021. However, this peace cannot possibly be expected to last. This is mainly because core problems between the two countries (like Pakistan’s support of militant proxies and India’s control over Kashmir) remain unaddressed. History too suggests that bouts of peace between the two warring neighbors rarely last long. These bouts usually end abruptly when a terrorist attack takes place in India. With both political turbulence and economic distress in Pakistan rising, the fragile ceasefire between India and Pakistan could be upended over the next six months. In fact, two events over the last week point to the fragility of the ceasefire: Two drones carrying explosives entered an Indian air force station located in Jammu and Kashmir (i.e. a northern territory that India recently reorganized, to Pakistan’s chagrin). Even as no casualties were reported, this attack marks a turning point for terrorist activity in India as this was the first-time terrorists used drones to enter an Indian military base. Hours later, another drone attack struck an Indian base at the Ratnuchak-Kaluchak army station, the site of a major terrorist attack in 2002. Chart 1China, Pakistan And India Cumulatively Added 41 Nuclear Warheads Over 2020 Given that the ceasefire was agreed recently, any further increase in terrorist activity in India over the next six months would suggest that a more substantial breakdown in relations is nigh. Distinct from these recent tensions, China’s troop deployment along India’s eastern arm and Pakistan’s presence along India’s western arm creates a strategic “pincer” that increasingly threatens India. India is naturally concerned. China and Pakistan are allies who have been working closely on projects including the strategic China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). The CPEC is a collection of infrastructure projects in Pakistan that includes the development of a port in Gwadar where a future presence of the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) is envisaged. Gwadar has the potential of providing China land-based access to the Indian Ocean. Trust in the South Asian region is clearly running low. Distinct from troop build-ups and drone-attacks, China, Pakistan, and India cumulatively added more than 40 nuclear warheads over the last year (Chart 1). China is reputed to be engaged in an even larger increase in its nuclear arsenal than the data show.2 From a structural perspective, too, geopolitical risks in the South Asian peninsula are bound to keep rising. When it comes to the conflicting Indo-Pak dyad, India’s geopolitical power has been rising relative to that of Pakistan in the 2000s. However, the geopolitical muscle of the Sino-Pak alliance is much greater than that of India on a standalone basis (Chart 2). Chart 2India Has Aligned With The QUAD To Counter The Sino-Pak Alliance China’s active involvement in South Asia is responsible for driving India’s increasing desire to abandon its historical foreign policy stance of non-alignment. India’s membership in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (also known as the QUAD, whose other members include the US, Japan, and Australia) bears testimony to India’s active effort to develop closer relations with the US and its allies (Chart 2). India’s alignment with the US is deepening China’s and Pakistan’s distrust of India. Conventional and nuclear military deterrence should prevent full-scale war. But the regional balance is increasingly fluid which means geopolitical risks will slowly but surely rise in South Asia over the coming year and years. Force #2: A Growth Slowdown Alongside India’s Loaded Election Calendar The pandemic has hit the economies of South Asia particularly hard. South Asia historically maintained higher real GDP growth rates relative to Emerging Markets (EMs). But in 2021, this region’s growth rate is set to be lower than that of EM peers (Chart 3). History is replete with examples of a rise in economic distress triggering geopolitical events. South Asia is characterized by unusually low per capita incomes (Chart 4) and the latest slowdown could exacerbate the risk of both social unrest and geopolitical incidents materialising. Chart 3South Asian Economies Have Been Hit Hard By The Pandemic Chart 4South Asia Is Characterized By Very Low Per Capita Incomes To complicate matters a busy state elections calendar is coming up in India. Elections will be due in seven Indian states in 2022. These states account for about 25% of India’s population. State elections due in 2022 will amount to a high-stakes political battle. During state elections in 2021, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was the incumbent in only one of the five states. In 2022, the BJP is the incumbent party in most of the states that are due for elections, which means it has the advantage but also has a lot to lose, especially in a post-pandemic environment. Elections kick off in the crucial state of Uttar Pradesh next February. Last time this state faced elections Prime Minister Narendra Modi was willing to go to great lengths to boost his popularity ahead of time. Specifically, he upset the nation with a large-scale and unprecedented de-monetization program. Given the busy state election calendar in 2022, we expect the BJP-led central government to focus on policy actions that can improve its support among Indian voters. Two policies in particular are likely to come through: Fiscal Stimulus Measures To Provide Economic Relief: India has refrained from administering a large post-pandemic stimulus thus far. As per budget estimates, the Indian central government’s total expenditure in FY22 is set to increase only by 1% on a year-on-year basis. But the expenditure-side restraint shown by India’s central government could change. With elections and a pandemic (which has now claimed over 400,000 lives in India), the central government could consider a meaningful increase in spending closer to February 2022. Map 2Northern India Views Pakistan Even More Unfavorably Than Rest Of India India’s Finance Minister already announced a fiscal stimulus package of $85 billion (amounting to 2.8% of GDP) earlier this week. Whilst this stimulus entails limited fresh spending (amounting to about 0.6% of India’s GDP), we would not be surprised if the government follows it up with more spending closer to February 2022. Assertive Foreign Policy To Ward-Off Unfriendly Neighbors: India’s northern states are known to harbor unfavorable views of Pakistan (Map 2). The roots of this phenomenon can be traced to geography and the bloody civil strife of 1947 that was triggered by the partition of British-ruled India into the two independent dominions of India and Pakistan. Given the north’s unfavorable views of Pakistan and given looming elections, Indian policy makers may be forced to adopt a far more aggressive foreign policy response, to any terrorist strikes from Pakistan or territorial incursions by China. This kind of response was observed most recently ahead of the Indian General Elections in April-May 2019. An Indian military convoy was attacked by a suicide-bomber in early February 2019 and a Pakistan-based terrorist group claimed responsibility. A fortnight later the Indian air force launched unexpected airstrikes across the Line of Control which were then followed by the Pakistan air force conducting air strikes in Jammu and Kashmir. While the next round of Pakistani and Indian general elections is not due until 2023 and 2024, respectively, it is worth noting that of the seven state elections due in India in 2022, four are in the north (Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Uttarakhand, and Himachal Pradesh). Force #3: Power Vacuum In Afghanistan The final reason to be wary of the South Asian geopolitical dynamic is the change in US policy: both the Iran nuclear deal expected in August and the impending withdrawal from Afghanistan in September. The US public has now elected three presidents on the demand that foreign wars be reduced. In the wake of Trump and populism the political establishment is now responding. Therefore Biden will ultimately implement both the Iran deal and the Afghan withdrawal regardless of delays or hang-ups. But then he will have to do damage control. In the case of Iran, a last-minute flare-up of conflict in the region is likely this summer, as the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran underscore their red lines before the US and Iran settle down to a deal. Indeed it is already happening, with recent US attacks against Iran-backed Shia militias in Syria and Iraq. A major incident would push up oil prices, which is negative for India. But the endgame, an Iranian economic opening, is positive for India, since it imports oil and has had close relations with Iran historically. In the case of Afghanistan, the US exit will activate latent terrorist forces. It will also create a scramble for influence over this landlocked country that could lead to negative surprises across the region. The first principle of the peace agreement between the US and Afghanistan states that the latter will make all efforts to ensure that Afghan soil is not used to further terrorist activity. However, the enforceability of such a guarantee is next to impossible. Notably, the US withdrawal from Afghanistan will revive the Taliban’s influence in the region. This poses major risks for India, which has a long history of being targeted by Afghani terrorist groups. The Taliban played a critical role in the release of terrorists into Pakistan following the hijacking of an Indian Airlines flight in 1999. Furthermore, the Haqqani network, which has pledged allegiance to the Taliban, has attacked Indian assets in the past. Any attack on India deriving from the power vacuum in Afghanistan would upset the precarious regional balance. Whilst there are no immediate triggers for Afghani groups to launch a terrorist attack in India, the US withdrawal will trigger a tectonic shift in the region. Negative surprises emanating from Afghanistan should be expected. Investment Conclusions Chart 5Indian Banks Appear To Have Factored In All Positives We reiterate the need to pare exposure to Indian assets on a tactical basis. India’s growth engine is likely to misfire over the second half of the Indian financial year. Macroeconomic headwinds pose the chief risk for investors, but major geopolitical changes could act as a negative catalyst in the current context. So we urge clients to stay short Indian Banks (Chart 5). Financials account for the lion’s share of India’s benchmark index (26% weight). India could opt for an unexpected expansion in its fiscal deficit soon. Whilst we continue to watch fiscal dynamics closely, we expect the fiscal expansion to materialize closer to February 2022 when India’s most populous state (i.e. Uttar Pradesh) will undergo elections. Over the long run, India’s sense of insecurity will escalate in the context of a more assertive China, stronger Sino-Pakistani ties, and a power vacuum in Afghanistan. For that reason, New Delhi will continue to shed its neutrality and improve relations with the US-led coalition of democratic countries, with an aim to balance China. This process will feed China’s insecurity of being surrounded and contained by a hegemonic American system. This security dilemma is a source of South Asian geopolitical risk that will become more globally relevant over time. China’s conflict with the US and western world should create incentives for India to attract trade and investment. However, its ability to do so will be contingent upon domestic political factors and regional geopolitical factors.   Ritika Mankar, CFA Editor/Strategist ritika.mankar@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Sudhi Ranjan Sen, ‘India Shifts 50,000 Troops to China Border in Historic Move’, Bloomberg, June 28, 2021, bloomberg.com. 2 Joby Warrick, “China is building more than 100 missile silos in its western desert, analysts say,” Washington Post, June 30, 2021, washingtonpost.com.

Highlights The US is withdrawing from the Middle East and South Asia and making a strategic pivot to Asia Pacific. The third quarter will see risks flare around Iran and the US rejoin the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal. The result is briefly negative for oil prices but the rise of Iran is a new geopolitical trend that will increase Middle Eastern risk over the long run. The geopolitical outlook is dollar bullish, while the macroeconomic outlook is getting less dollar-bearish due to China’s risk of over-tightening policy. Stay neutral USD and be wary of commodities and emerging markets in the third quarter. European political risk is bottoming. The German and French elections are at best minor risks. However, the continent is ripe for negative black swans, especially due to Russian aggression. Go tactically long global large caps and defensives. Feature Chart 1Three Key Views On Track (So Far) We chose “No Return To Normalcy” as the theme of our 2021 outlook. While the COVID-19 vaccine promised economic recovery, we argued that normalization would create complacency regarding fundamental changes that have taken place in the geopolitical environment. A contradiction between an improving macroeconomic backdrop and a foreboding geopolitical backdrop would develop in 2021 and beyond. The “reflation trade” has begun to lose steam as we go to press. However, global recovery will still be the dominant story in the second half of the year as vaccination spreads. The question for the third quarter and the rest of the year is whether reflation will continue. As a matter of forecasting, we think it will. But as a matter of investment strategy, we are taking a more defensive stance until China relaxes economic policy. In our annual outlook we highlighted three key geopolitical views: (1) China’s headwinds, both at home and abroad (2) US détente with Iran and pivot to Asia (3) Europe’s opportunity. All three trends are broadly on track and can be illustrated by looking at equity performance in the relevant regions for the year so far: Chinese stocks sold off, UAE stocks rallied, and European stocks rallied (Chart 1). However, these trends are not exclusively tied to absolute equity performance. The most important question is what happens to global growth and the US dollar as these three key views continue. Stay Neutral On The Dollar It paid off for us to maintain a neutral stance on the dollar. True, the global recovery and exorbitant US trade and budget deficits are bearish for the dollar and bullish for other currencies. But the greenback’s “counter-trend bounce” is proving more formidable than many investors expected. The fundamentals of the American economy and global position remain strong. Since the outbreak of COVID-19, the US has secured its recovery with fiscal policy, maintained rule of law amid a contested election, innovated and distributed vaccines, benefited from more flexible social restrictions, refurbished global alliances, and put pressure on its geopolitical rivals. In essence, the combined effect of President Trump’s and Biden’s policies has been to make America “great again” (Chart 2). From a geopolitical perspective, the dollar is appealing. Chart 2Trump-Biden Make America Great Again? In addition, the first two geopolitical views mentioned above – China’s headwinds and the US-Iran détente – imply a negative environment for China and the renminbi. The reason for the US to do a suboptimal deal with Iran, both in 2015 and 2021, is to reduce the risk of war and buy time to enable a strategic pivot to Asia Pacific. Three US presidents have been elected on the pledge to conclude the “forever wars” in the Middle East and South Asia. Biden is withdrawing US troops from Afghanistan in September. There can be little doubt Biden is committed to an Iran deal, which is supposed to free up the US’s hands (Chart 3). Meanwhile the US public and Congress are unified in their desire to better defend US interests against China’s economic and military rise. There has not yet been a stabilization of US-China policies. Biden is not likely to hold a summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping until late October at earliest – and that is a guess, not a confirmed summit. The Biden administration has completed its review of China policy and is maintaining the Trump administration’s hawkish posture, as predicted. The US and China may resume their strategic and economic dialogue at some point but it is impossible to go back to the status quo ante 2015. That was the year the US adopted a more confrontational stance toward China – a stance later supercharged by Trump’s election and trade tariffs. The hawkish consensus on China is one of the rare unifying factors in a deeply divided America. The Biden administration explicitly says the US-China relationship is now defined by “competition” instead of “engagement.”1 One exception to this neutral view on the dollar has been our decision to go long the Japanese yen and Swiss franc, which has not panned out so far. Our reasoning is that geopolitical risk will boost these currencies but otherwise the reduction of geopolitical risk will weigh on the dollar in the context of global growth recovery. So far geopolitical risk has remained subdued while the US dollar has outperformed. We are still sympathetic to these safe-haven currencies, however, as they are attractively valued as long as one expects geopolitical risks to materialize (Chart 4). Chart 3US Pivot To Asia Runs Through Iran Our third key view, that EU was the real winner of the US election last year, remains on track. This is marginally positive for the euro at the expense of the dollar. Given the above points, we favor an equal-weighted basket of the euro and the dollar relative to the renminbi (Chart 5). Chart 4Safe-Haven Currencies Attractive Chart 5Favor Euro And Dollar Over Renminbi The geopolitical outlook is dollar-bullish. The macroeconomic outlook is dollar-bearish, except that China’s economy looks to slow down. We expect China to ease policy in the second half of the year but it may come late. We remain neutral dollar in the third quarter. Wait For China To Relax Policy July 1 marks the centenary of the Communist Party of China. The main thing investors should know is that the Communist Party predates China’s capitalist phase by sixty years. The party adopted capitalism to improve the economy – it never sacrificed its political or foreign policy goals. This poses a major geopolitical problem today because the Communist Party’s consolidation of power across Greater China, symbolized by Beijing’s revocation of Hong Kong’s special status in 2019, has convinced the western democracies that China is no longer compatible with the liberal world order. China launched a 13.8% of GDP monetary-and-fiscal stimulus over 2018-20 due to the trade war and COVID-19 pandemic. So the economy is stable for the hundredth anniversary celebration. The centenary goals are largely accomplished: GDP is larger, poverty is nearly extinguished, although urban incomes are still lagging (Chart 6). General Secretary Xi Jinping will mark the occasion with a speech. The speech will contribute to his governing philosophy, Xi Jinping Thought, a synthesis of communist Mao Zedong Thought and the pro-capitalist “socialism with Chinese characteristics” pioneered by General Secretary Deng Xiaoping in the 1980s-90s. The effect is to reassert Communist Party and central government primacy after the long period of decentralization that enabled China’s rapid growth phase. It is also to endorse an inward economic turn after the four-decade export-manufacturing boom. The Xi administration’s re-centralization of policy has entailed mini-cycles of tightening and loosening control over the economy. The administration leans against the country’s tendency to gorge itself on debt and grow at any cost – until it must lean the other way for fear of triggering a destabilizing slowdown. For this reason Beijing tightened policy proactively last year, producing a sharp drop in money, credit, and fiscal expansion in 2021 that now threatens to undermine the global recovery. By our measures, any further tightening will result in undershooting the regime’s money and credit targets, i.e. overtightening, and hence threaten to drag on the global recovery (Chart 7). Chart 6China's Communist Party Centenary Goals Chart 7China Verges On Over-Tightening Policy Overtightening would be a policy mistake with potentially disastrous consequences. So the base case should be that the government will relax policy rather than undermine the post-COVID recovery. However, investors cannot be confident about the timing. The 2015 financial turmoil and renminbi devaluation occurred because policymakers reacted too slowly. One reason to believe policy will be eased is that after July 1 the government will turn its attention to the twentieth national party congress in 2022, the once-in-five-years rotation of the Central Committee and Politburo. The party congress begins at the local level at the beginning of next year and culminates in the fall of 2022 with the national rotation of top party leaders. Xi Jinping was originally slated to step down in 2022. So he needs to squash any last-minute push against him by opposing factions of the party. He may have himself named chairman of the Communist Party, like Mao before him. Most importantly he will put his stamp on the “seventh generation” of China’s leaders by promoting his followers into key positions. All of this suggests that the Xi administration cannot risk triggering a recession, even if its preferences remain hawkish on economic policy. Policy easing could come as early as the end of July. As a rule of thumb, we have noticed that the Politburo’s July meeting on economic policy is often an inflection point, as was the case in 2007, 2015, 2018, and 2020 (Table 1). Some observers claim the April Politburo meeting already signaled an easing in policy, although we do not see that. If July clearly signals relaxation, global investors will cheer and emerging market assets and commodities will rise. Table 1China’s Politburo Often Hits Inflection Point On Economic Policy In July Still we maintain a defensive posture going into the third quarter because we do not have a high level of confidence that policymakers will act preemptively. A market riot may precede and motivate the inflection point in policy. Also the negative impact of previous policy tightening will be felt in the third quarter. China plays and industrial metals are extremely vulnerable to further correction (Chart 8). Chart 8China Plays And Metals Vulnerable To Further Correction The earliest occasion for a Biden-Xi summit comes at the end of October, as mentioned. While US-China talks will occur at some level, relations will remain fundamentally unstable. While a Biden-Xi summit may improve the atmosphere and lead to a new round of strategic and economic dialogue, or Phase Two trade talks, the fact is that the US is seeking to contain China’s rise and China is seeking to break out of the strictures of the US-led world order. The global elite and mainstream media will put a lot of emphasis on the post-Trump return to diplomatic “normalcy” and summits. But this is to overemphasize style at the expense of substance. Note that the positive feelings of the Biden-Putin summit on June 16 fizzled in less than a week when Russia allegedly dropped bombs in the path of a British destroyer in the Black Sea. The US and UK were training Ukraine’s military. Britain denies any bombs were dropped but Russia says next time they will hit their target. (More on this below.) This episode is instructive for US-China relations: summitry is overrated. China is building a sphere of influence and the US no longer believes dialogue alone is the answer. Tit-for-tat punitive measures and proxy battles in China’s neighboring areas, from the Korean peninsula to the Taiwan Strait to the South and East China Seas, are the new normal. Bottom Line: Tactically, stay defensive on global risk assets, especially China plays. Strategically, maintain a constructive outlook on the cycle given the global recovery and China’s need eventually to relax monetary and fiscal policy. US-Iran Deal Likely – Then The Real Trouble Starts The US will likely rejoin the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) by August and pull out of its longest-ever war in Afghanistan in September. The US is wrapping up its “forever wars” to meet the demands of a war-weary public. Ironically, the long-term consequence is to create power vacuums that invite new geopolitical conflicts in the context of the US’s great power struggle with China and Russia. But for now a deal with Iran – once it is settled – reduces geopolitical risk by reducing the odds of military escalation in the region. The Iran talks are more significant than the Afghanistan pullout. We are confident in a deal because Biden can rejoin the 2015 deal unilaterally – it was never approved by the US Senate as a formal treaty. The Iranians will not support any militant action so aggressive as to scupper a deal that offers them the chance of reviving their economy at a critical time in the regime’s history. Reviving the deal poses a downside risk for oil prices in the third quarter though not over the long run. It is negative in the short run because investors will have to price not only Iran’s current and future production (Chart 9) but also any resulting loss of OPEC 2.0 discipline. Brent crude is trading at $76 per barrel as we go to press, above the $65-$70 per barrel average that our Commodity & Energy Strategy service expects to see over the coming five years (Chart 10). Chart 9Iran's Oil Production Will Return Chart 10Brent Price Faces Short-Term Downside Risk From Iranian Crude The oil price ceiling is enforced by the cartel of oil producers who fear that too high of prices will incentivize US shale oil production as well as the global shift to renewable energy. The Russians have always dragged their feet over oil production cuts and are now pushing for production hikes. The government needs an oil price of around $50-55 per barrel for the budget to break even. The Saudis need higher prices to break even, at $70-75 per barrel. Moscow must coordinate various oil producers, led by the country’s powerful oligarchs and their factions, which is inherently more difficult than the Saudi position of coordinating one producer, Aramco. The Russians and Saudis have maintained cartel discipline so far in 2021, as expected, because the wounds of the market-share war last year are still raw. They retreated from that showdown in less than a month. However, a major escalation in Saudi Arabia’s strategic conflict with Iran could push the Saudis to seek greater market share at Iran’s expense, as occurred before the original Iran deal in 2014-15. Hence our view that the risk to oil prices will shift from the upside to the downside in the second half of the year if the US-Iran deal is reconstituted. Over the long run, the deal is not negative for oil prices. The deal is a tradeoff for lower geopolitical risk today but higher risk in the future. The reason is that Iran’s economic recovery will strengthen its strategic hand and generate a backlash in the region. The global oil supply and demand balance will fluctuate according to circumstances but regional conflict will inject a risk premium over time. Biden’s likely decision to rejoin the 2015 deal should be seen as a delaying tactic. It is impossible to go back to 2015, when the US had mustered a coalition of nations to pressure Iran and when Iran’s “reformist” faction stood to receive a historic boost from the opening of the country’s economy. Now the US lacks a coalition and the reformists are leaving office in disgrace, with the hardliners (“principlists”) taking full power for the foreseeable future. Iran is happy to go back to complying with a deal that consists of sanctions relief in exchange for temporary limits on its nuclear program. The 2015 deal’s restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program begin expiring in 2023 and continue to expire through 2040. Biden has no chance of negotiating a newer and more expansive deal that extends these sunset clauses while also restricting Iran’s ballistic missile program and regional militant activities. He will say that easing sanctions is premised on a broader “follow on” deal to achieve these US goals. But the broader deal is unlikely to materialize anytime soon. The Iranians will commit to future talks but they will have no intention of agreeing to a more expansive deal unless forced. The country’s leaders will never abandon their nuclear program after witnessing the invasions of non-nuclear Libya and Ukraine – in stark contrast with nuclear-armed North Korea. Moreover Biden cannot possibly reassemble the P5+1 coalition with Russia and China anytime soon. The US is directly confronting these states. They could conceivably work with the US when Iran is on the brink of obtaining nuclear weapons but not before then. They did not prevent North Korea. The Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, the soon-to-be-inaugurated President Ebrahim Raisi, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Ministry of Intelligence, and other pillars of the regime are focused exclusively on strengthening the regime in advance of Khamenei’s impending succession sometime in the coming decade. The succession could easily lead to domestic unrest and a political crisis, which makes the 2020s a critical period for the Islamic Republic. With Tehran focused on a delicate succession, it is not a foregone conclusion that Iran will go on the offensive to expand its sphere of influence immediately after the US deal. But sooner or later a major new geopolitical trend will emerge: the rise of Iran. With sanctions removed, trade and investment increasing, and Chinese and Russian support, Iran will be capable of pursuing its strategic aims in the region more effectively. It will extend its influence across the “Shia Crescent,” including Iraq. The fear that this will inspire in Israel and the Gulf Arab states has already generated a slow-boiling war in the region. This war will intensify as the US will be reluctant to intervene. The purpose of the deal is to enable the war-weary US to reduce its active involvement in the region. The US foreign policy and defense establishment do not entirely see it this way – they emphasize that the US will remain engaged. But US allies in the Middle East will not be convinced. The region already has a taste for the way this works after the US’s precipitous withdrawal from Iraq in 2011, which lead to the rise of the Islamic State terrorist group. Biden will try not to be so precipitous but the writing is on the wall: the US will reduce its focus and commitment. A scramble for power in the region will begin the moment the ink dries on Biden’s signature of the JCPA. Israel and the Arab states are forming a de facto alliance – based on last year’s Abraham Accords – to prepare for Iran’s push to dominate the region. Even if Iran is not overly aggressive (a big if), Israel and the Gulf Arabs will overreact as a result of their fear of abandonment. They will also seek to hedge their bets by improving ties with the Chinese and Russians, making the Middle East the scene of a major new proxy battle in the global great power struggle. As a risk to our view: if the Biden administration changes course this summer and refuses to lift sanctions or rejoin the Iran deal – low but not zero probability – then tensions with Iran will explode almost instantaneously. The Iranians will threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz and a crisis will erupt in the third or fourth quarter. Bottom Line: The US will most likely rejoin the Iranian nuclear deal by August to avoid an immediate crisis or war. The Biden administration will wager that it can lend enough support to regional allies to keep Iran contained. This might work, as the Iranians will focus on fortifying the regime ahead of its leadership succession. However, Iran’s hardline leadership will see an opportunity in America’s withdrawal from its “forever wars.” Iran will increasingly cooperate with Russia and China. Iran’s conflict with Israel and Saudi Arabia will be extremely difficult to manage and will escalate over time, quite possibly creating a revolution or war in Iraq. The Gulf Arabs are already under immense pressure from the green energy revolution. Thus while oil prices might temporarily fall on the return of Iranian exports, they will later see upward pressure from a new wave of Middle Eastern instability. European Political Risk Has (Probably) Bottomed By contrast with all the above we have viewed Europe as a negligible source of (geo)political risk in 2021. European policy uncertainty is falling in Europe relative to these other powers and the rest of the world (Chart 11). Chart 11Europe's Relative Policy Uncertainty Bottoming Chart 12EU Break-Up Risk Hits Floor (Again) The risk of a break-up of the European Union has wilted and remains at historic lows (Chart 12). There is no immediate threat of any European countries emulating the UK and attempting to exit. Even Italian support for the euro has surged. Immigration flows have plummeted. European solidarity is not on the ballot in the upcoming German and French elections. Germany is choosing between the status quo and a “green revolution” that would not really be a revolution due to the constraints of coalition politics. The Greens have lost some momentum relative to their polling earlier this year but underlying trends suggest they will surprise to the upside in the September 26 vote (Charts 13A and 13B). They embrace EU solidarity, robust government spending, weariness with the Merkel regime, and concerns about climate change, Russia, China, and social justice. Chart 13AGerman Greens Will Surprise To Upside Chart 13BGerman Greens Will Surprise To Upside We expect the Greens to surprise to the upside. But as they are forced into a coalition with the ruling Christian Democrats then they will be limited to raising spending rather raising taxes (Table 2). The market will cheer this result. Table 2German Greens’ Ambitious Tax Hike Proposals If the Greens disappoint then a right-leaning government and too early fiscal tightening could become a risk – but it is a minor risk because Merkel’s hand-picked successor, the CDU Chancellor Candidate Armin Laschet, will be pro-Europe and fiscally dovish, just like the mainstream of his party under Merkel. The only limitation on this dovishness is that it would take another global shock for there to be enough votes in the Bundestag to loosen the schuldenbremse or “debt brake.” In France, President Emmanuel Macron is likely to win re-election – the populist candidate Marine Le Pen remains an underdog who is unlikely to make it through France’s two-round electoral system. In Italy, Prime Minister Mario Draghi is overseeing a national unity coalition that will dole out EU recovery funds. An election cannot be held ahead of the presidential election in January, which will be secured by the establishment parties as a major check on any future populist ruling coalition. The risk in these countries, as in Spain and elsewhere, is that neoliberal structural reform and competitiveness are falling by the wayside. Fiscal largesse is positive for securing the recovery but long-term growth potential will remain depressed (Chart 14). Chart 14European And Global Fiscal Stimulus (Updated June 2021) Europe remains stuck in a liquidity trap over the long run. It depends on the rest of the world for growth. This is a problem given that China’s potential growth is slowing and there is no ready substitute that will prop up global growth. Europe is increasingly ripe for negative “black swan” events. The power vacuum in the Middle East described above will lead to instability and regime failures that will threaten European security. Russia will remain aggressive, a reflection of its crumbling structural foundations. The Putin administration has not changed its strategy of building a sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union and pushing back against the West, as signaled by the threat to bomb ships that sail in Crimean waters – a unilateral expansion of Russia’s territorial waters following the Crimean invasion. The Biden administration is not seeking anything comparable to the diplomatic “reset” with Russia from 2009-11, which ended in acrimony. In other words, European political risk may be bottoming as we speak. Investment Takeaways Chart 15Limited Equity Upside From Likely US Infrastructure Bill US Peak Fiscal Stimulus: The Biden administration is highly likely to pass an infrastructure package through Congress, either as a bipartisan deal with Republicans or as part of the American Jobs Plan. The result is another $1-$1.5 trillion fiscal stimulus, albeit over an eight-year period, with infrastructure funding taking until 2024-25 to ramp up. Biden’s other plans probably will not pass before the 2022 midterm election, which will likely bring gridlock. Investors are well aware of these proposals and the policy setting will probably be frozen after this year. Hence there is limited remaining upside for global materials sector and US infrastructure plays (Chart 15). The extravagant US fiscal thrust of 2020-21 will turn into a huge fiscal drag in 2022 (Chart 16). The Federal Reserve, however, will remain ultra-dovish as long as labor market slack persists – regardless of who is at the helm. Chart 16US Fiscal Drag Very Large In 2022 Chart 17Go Long Large Caps And Defensives China’s Headwinds Persist: China may or may not ease policy in time to prevent a market riot. China plays and industrial metals are highly exposed to a correction and we recommend steering clear. US-Iran Deal Weighs On Oil Price: Tactically we are neutral on oil and oil plays. An Iran deal could depress oil prices temporarily – and potentially in a major way if the Saudis agree with the Russians on increasing production. Fundamentals are positive but depend on the OPEC 2.0 cartel. The cartel faces the risk that higher prices will incentivize both alternative oil providers and the green revolution. Europe’s Opportunity: We continue to see the euro and European stocks offering value. Given the troubles with Russia we favor developed Europe plays over emerging Europe. The German election would be a bullish catalyst for European assets but headwinds from China will prevail, which is negative for cyclical European stocks. The Russian Duma election, also in September, creates high potential for Russia to clash with the West between now and then. Tactically, go long global large caps and defensives (Chart 17).   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders recently felt it was necessary to warn against a second cold war. Sanders, a democratic socialist, is a reliable indicator of the left wing of the Democratic Party and a dissenter who puts pressure on the center-left Biden administration. His fears underscore the dominance of the new hawkish consensus. Appendix China Russia UK Germany France Italy Canada Spain Taiwan – Province Of China Korea Turkey Brazil Australia

Special Report

Highlights Now that the dust has settled on the hotly contested 2020 election, we introduce our revised and updated quantitative presidential election model. We will periodically update the model as a gauge of President Biden’s political capital as well as the Democratic Party’s evolving odds of keeping the White House in 2024. The model measures the probability of the ruling party’s winning the Electoral College vote for each of the 50 states. As of now, the Democrats only have a 53% chance. Granting that Republicans have a good chance of retaking at least one chamber of Congress in the 2022 midterm election, investors likely face a return to gridlock. Gridlock would mean neither too much nor too little spending and zero tax hikes. The Democratic Party’s success on its current legislative agenda in 2021-22 is highly significant as it will set US fiscal policy for the foreseeable future. Democrats are still highly likely to pass an infrastructure bill by year’s end that will hike corporate taxes and mark peak stimulus for this cycle. Stay long the BCA Infrastructure Basket. Feature The 2020 US Presidential Election has come and gone. Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump with a margin of 74 Electoral College votes to become the 46th president of the United States of America. 57 of these votes came from states where Biden’s margin of victory over Trump hovered around one percentage point or less, highlighting how close the race for the White House was. In this report – for your Independence Day reading pleasure – we introduce the US Political Strategy quantitative presidential election model. Sadly it is never too soon to gear up for the next US presidential election. Our election model is a state-by-state model that uses both economic and political variables to predict the probability of the incumbent party winning the Electoral College votes in each of the 50 states.1 We favor predicting the Electoral College vote over the popular vote since the winner of the presidential election is determined by the Electoral College. There have been five cases in history where the nationwide popular vote did not determine the outcome and two in recent history (George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016). The college imposes a significant (and deliberate) constraint on majority opinion if it is not shared across America’s geographic regions. The model’s sample size includes ten presidential elections, from 1984-2020, across 50 states, netting 500 observations. The model incorporates the lessons of the narrow 2020 election which took place amid extreme political polarization and an economic recession. The Four Variables Our election model is based off a Probit regression that produces the probability that each state will remain under the control of the incumbent party. The dependent variable (classified as “elected”) is stated as follows: 1 = Incumbent party wins Electoral College votes in state; or, 0 = Incumbent party loses the Electoral College votes in state. This method allows us to measure the probability that a state with certain characteristics will fall into one of these two categories. We can then predict the probability of the incumbent party winning all the Electoral College votes in each of the 50 states. The model has four independent variables, or predictors: State economic health. Specifically, we use the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia State Coincident Index for each of the 50 states. The coincident index combines four of a given state’s economic indicators to summarize current economic conditions in a single statistic. The four indicators are nonfarm payroll employment; average hours worked in manufacturing by production workers; the unemployment rate; and wage and salary disbursements plus proprietors' income deflated by the consumer price index (US city average). In other words, it captures job growth, manufacturing wages, joblessness, and real household income. Margin of victory in previous election. Specifically, we use the incumbent party’s margin of victory in the previous presidential election in each state. A “time for change” variable. This is a categorical variable indicating whether the incumbent party has occupied the White House for one or more terms. Since Biden is serving his first term as president this variable will have no impact on our model’s predictions for the 2024 election. If the Democratic Party were to win the 2024 election and hold the White House for a second term, this variable would then have a negative impact on the party’s odds of winning a third straight term in 2028. Presidential approval rating. Namely, we use the average approval level of the incumbent president in July of an election year. Biden Would Still Win The Election Today Our election model gives us an early look into the 2024 presidential race. We can also look back to see if Biden would win the 2020 presidential election if it were held again today. As it stands, Biden would still win with 308 Electoral College votes (Chart 1), two more than the official account of last year’s election. The two additional votes are a result of the model suggesting Florida (29 votes) would turn Democratic, while Arizona (11 votes) and Georgia (16 votes) would turn Republican, opposite to the 2020 election outcome. Chart 1Quant Model Gives Democrats Only 53% Chance Of Retaining The White House Biden’s overall probability of an election win lies at 53%, in line with early market predictions (Chart 2). These odds reinforce the fact that the 2020 election was closely fought, that the US public remains nearly evenly divided, and that national economic conditions contribute to this division. While it is still early days in the 2024 election cycle, there are some interesting takeaways from our model’s latest prediction. For starters, Florida remains a toss-up state but leans toward the Democrats. Philadelphia and Wisconsin, which were hotly contested in 2020, are only just favored to remain Democratic. Another interesting prediction concerns Arizona and Georgia. Both states were highly contested battlegrounds. For Arizona, it was the first time since the 1996 presidential election that the state turned Democratic; for Georgia it was the first time since 1992. Both states saw larger turnouts for Democrats than in recent elections. However, both states would flip back to Republican control if the election were held today, according to our model, by a more than 10 percentage point change in probability. This is an interesting prediction given that only seven months have passed since the 2020 election. Chart 2Market Has Democrats Ahead Of Republicans The stage was largely set for a Trump loss in 2020. Recessions are catastrophic for presidents running for reelection, especially if they take place during the election year. Coupled with a nationwide health pandemic, Trump was highly likely to lose. In fact his race with Biden proved a lot closer than many commentators expected – in large part due to his unwavering base of support, as reflected in the unprecedentedly small range of his approval rating. This is what prompted us to upgrade his odds from 35% to 45% in a BCA Geopolitical Strategy report on October 26, 2020 (for further discussion see Statistical Appendix). By contrast, Democrats are heavily favored to keep the White House in the 2024 cycle as they will ride the coattails of a recovering US economy, an increasingly vaccinated population, and a (likely) divided Republican opposition. US Still At Peak Polarization Our model produces a novel measure of US political polarization: it shows how many states will be won or lost with extreme certainty (less than 5% or greater than 95%). These are states that are not really competitive because of overwhelming partisan favoritism among their voting populations. Results of in-sample predictions from our model show a slight uptick in the degree of polarization in 2024, which is now above both 2012 and 2020 levels (Chart 3, Top Panel). This change is intuitive coming off the back of one of the most highly contested US elections in history. However, polarization should not rise much higher in the 2024 presidential election cycle. In better economic times, polarization tends to fall, as wider prosperity tends to blanket nationwide social grievances. If Trump wins the Republican nomination in 2024 then one would assume that polarization will remain near peak levels. But if the economy has improved substantially, as we expect, then Trump’s populist platform will have less appeal for voters and the Republican Party will remain divided. This would lead to a higher level of Republican approval of the Democratic candidate, i.e. falling polarization (Chart 3, bottom panel). Chart 3Still At Peak Polarization   Over the next five-to-ten years, we hold the contrarian view that polarization will fall. Generational change in the US will produce more domestic policy consensus, specifically on government spending and taxes, while geopolitical struggle with China will unify the nation against a common enemy for the first time since the Cold War. But our quantitative model pushes against this view at present. Accuracy In Back Tests Our model performs well during in-sample back-testing when comparing it to actual Electoral College vote outcomes for each election since 1984. The model correctly predicts all presidential election outcomes over our sample period (Chart 4), including last year’s narrow result. Chart 4Our Model Predicts All Election Outcomes In Our Sample … The model performs well in out-of-sample back testing too, with prediction accuracy of states at 92%. All election outcomes from 2000-2020 are correctly predicted (Chart 5).  Chart 5… And During Out-Of-Sample Back Testing What Now? We are still a long way from the next presidential election, but the cycle has begun. This means we can begin to form an early view of what is to come over the next three and a half years. The model also gives us a look into what the election backdrop looks like just seven months after the 2020 election. Right now, the Democratic Party holds a decent margin over whoever the Republican competitor may be in 2024. Our model suggests the Democrats would win 308 Electoral College votes if a presidential election were run today, as mentioned. Overall, they have a 53% chance of victory. From a qualitative point of view, our model may be understating the Democrats’ odds in 2024, as things stand today. First, the surest rule of thumb in US politics is that voters will ask themselves whether they are better off than they were four years ago. It is unlikely that voters will be worse off in November 2024 than they were amid the pandemic, recession, and nationwide racial and social unrest of November 2020. Second, the split within the Republican Party over President Trump’s populism, symbolized by marginal Republican votes to convict him of incitement of insurrection over the January 6 riot on Capitol Hill, is likely to produce a closely fought Republican primary election or even a third party candidate, dividing the Republican vote. That’s not to say Republicans have zero chance. Republicans are likely to retake the House of Representatives in 2022, which will give them a base to mount a challenge over the succeeding two years. President Biden will be about to turn 82 years old when the 2024 vote is held – he may choose or be forced to hand the reins to Vice President Kamala Harris, who did not perform well in the 2020 Democratic primary election. Exogenous shocks could take the world by surprise and undermine the “return to normalcy” that the Democrats are trying to project. There are also some interesting toss-up states in 2024, but these will change as we continue to update our model with the latest data. If Biden has to step down, and the Republicans reunify, then the US could see another closely fought election. But Republican reunification is a stretch as things stand today. For now, Biden’s reelection bid will benefit from the recovery and Republican divisions. Investment Takeaways Our quantitative election model gauges the probability that the incumbent political party will retain the White House in the Electoral College vote. The model is based on state-level economic health, the president’s job approval rating, and the strength of his margin of victory in each state, plus an “incumbent advantage” for parties that have only held the White House for one term. The model currently shows that the Democratic Party would win if the 2024 election were held today, albeit with only a 53% probability – an indication of how nearly evenly divided the states remain after the hotly contested election of 2020. However, the model is likely underrating the Democrats as the economy will improve substantially between now and 2024. This will increase the odds of Democrats retaining critical swing states. It will also prolong Republican divisions by depriving them of an economic message around which to rally. But of course anything can happen over three and a half years. The Democrats are favored in 2024 notwithstanding the subjective 75% chance that Republicans retake the House of Representatives in the 2022 midterm elections. A new party in the White House almost always loses seats in Congress at its first midterm. While 2022 could be an exception, we still favor Republicans to regain the House. The takeaway from all of the above is that while 2022 will produce gridlock, nevertheless the 2024 election is unlikely to resolve it. Hence the US will see no drastic domestic legislative changes after 2021-22 period – fiscal policy will be frozen. This provides certainty for investors as it means neither excessive spending, nor austerity, nor tax hikes. Yet midterm elections that produce gridlock exhibit a “buy the rumor, sell the news” profile and are not more bullish for markets than those that produce single-party rule (Chart 6). Monetary policy will probably tighten in 2023 so everything will depend on where the market stands before the election. Incidentally, the model suggests that US political polarization, which hit extreme levels in 2020, will increase further in the 2024 cycle. But this result may not pan out. Over the long run as generational change and geopolitical conflict will force Americans to gather around a new consensus on key policies, namely government spending and foreign and trade policy. Still, we recognize that this reduction in polarization may not occur substantially by 2024 – and on a deeper level that US politics will always be very partisan, as they have been since the presidential election of 1800. Investors should stay constructive on the bull market in the second half of the year as President Biden’s infrastructure bill and/or American Jobs Plan is likely to pass Congress. However, passage in the Senate will mark the top of this cycle’s fiscal stimulus and investors should no longer underweight defensive sectors and growth stocks going forward. Chart 6Gridlock 2022 Will Give Investors Fiscal Certainty   Guy Russell Research Analyst guyr@bcaresearch.com   Statistical Appendix Some clients may be curious as to how our US Political Strategy election model differs from our Geopolitical Strategy model used in the 2020 elections, and where it has made improvements in its efficiency and predictive accuracy. We discuss these improvements herein. Changes To The Geopolitical Strategy Presidential Election Model The last update to the BCA Geopolitical Strategy presidential election model was published at the end of October 2020. We correctly forecast that Biden would win the election in March 2020 and maintained this view throughout the year. By October, however, our quantitative model gave President Trump a 51% chance of winning, predicting that he would gain 279 electoral college votes. We read the model as “too close to call” and stuck with our subjective judgement in favor of Biden for the final prediction, a testament to the need for both quantitative and qualitative analysis. The model missed four states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, and New Hampshire. The popular margin of victory in these states was 0.3%, 0.2%, 2.8%, and 8.4% respectively. We knew our model might be over-generous to Trump because we chose to use the range rather than the level of his popular approval rating as a key variable in the model. We did this to counteract the effect of “shy Trump voters,” which distorted traditional public opinion polling.2 Methodology And Variables For the most part, we retain the methodology and suite of economic and political variables used in previous versions of the model. For long-time clients and those who are new to the US Political Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy service, the original version of our model can be found here while the updated 2020 version can be found here.3 The one and only economic variable is now transformed by a six-month change to each state’s coincident index, capturing the improvement or deterioration of the state’s economy. The six-month change results in the best statistical fit for the overall model this time round. In the 2020 model, we transformed the variable by a three-month change. A fast-changing economic environment coupled with a then-higher statistical impact in our model led us to this decision. We still weight the transformation of our economic variable in the same manner as we did in last year’s updated model. We take a weighted average of the six-month change of all the monthly state coincident indices in the presidential term preceding the election. Later months are weighted heavier than earlier months as the most recent context will have a greater impact on voter opinion in the election. In terms of our political variables, the margin of victory is simply measured as the incumbent party’s share of the popular vote minus the non-incumbent party’s vote share. This has not changed from previous versions of our model. For the 2024 model, we have switched back to including the average job approval level instead of range. We use the level as of July of the election year.4 July job approval data shows the highest correlation with the popular and Electoral College vote. October is marginally higher but not enough higher to justify losing three-months of data lead time in our estimation (Chart A1). Obviously whenever we update the model for predictive purposes ahead of November 2024, the latest month’s approval rating serves as a proxy for the final July 2024 reading. Chart A1July Job Approval Highly Correlated With Election Outcome Model Performance Predicted Error The 2024 model has made noteworthy improvements in predictive accuracy across recent elections when compared to the 2020 model. Most noticeable is the large difference in error (Chart A2). The 2020 model failed by a small margin to predict the election outcome. The 2024 model accurately predicts last year’s outcome, although it overpredicts the outcome by 27 Electoral College votes. Chart A2New Model Reduces Predicted Error Over Old Model … The 2024 model also performs well against a different version of the 2020 model, a “bare bones” version that relied exclusively on economic data. This version excluded Trump’s approval data, relying only on an economic explanatory variable to explain the variation in the model’s evolving prediction over time. Our last update to this bare bones model predicted a Trump loss, hence the low prediction error (Chart A3). We published this result alongside our official 2020 model (and other alternatives) for the sake of transparency and to enable clients to choose which of our models better suited their assumptions over ours. We still believe the incumbent president’s job approval data plays a significant role in the presidential election, which is why we included this variable in the GPS and USPS models. But the bare bones model was especially powerful given the economic backdrop in the US last year. Now that the US economy is showing increasing signs of making a full recovery, our 2024 model has learnt from past data and modeling, and still manages to predict 2020’s election outcome despite its inclusion of non-economic (i.e. political) variables. Chart A3… And Performs Well Against “Bare Bones” Economic Model If we create a new bare bones 2024 model and compare it to a comparable 2020 model we arrive at essentially the same outcome (Chart A4). These are two pure economic models, but the new version has a different (smoother) transformation applied to the coincident economic index. That is, changes in economic activity are less volatile. The older version under-predicted the 2020 election outcome by two crucial Electoral College votes, while the new one over-predicted the outcome by 16 votes. Chart A4New “Bare Bones” Economic Model However, for our official 2024 model we will not take this bare bones economic approach but rather will incorporate hard political data (presidential approval, state margin of victory, and a time for change variable). Minimizing predictive error while retaining an explanatory variable that we believe is causal provides us with the most robust model. Classification The 2024 model correctly classifies predicted outcomes at a rate of exactly 90%. That is, when the model makes a prediction of a certain state’s electoral outcome from 1984-2020, it is correct 90% of the time. This level of classification is the highest we have achieved across the several versions we have published since 2016 (Table 1). A close second is the bare bones 2020 model, at 89.11%. Table 1New Model Classifies Outcomes At The Highest Rate … Sensitivity And Specificity – Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve A Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve is a performance measurement for classification problems of binary modelled outcomes, among others. An ROC curve tells us how much the model is capable of distinguishing between classes. In our case, we have two classes: the dependent variable (classified as “elected”) is stated as 1 = incumbent party wins the Electoral College votes in each state; or 0 = incumbent party does not win the Electoral College votes in each state. The higher the area under the curve (AUC), the better our model is at predicting 0 classes as 0 and 1 classes as 1. An excellent model has AUC near to one. A poor model has an AUC near to zero, which means it has the worst measure of classifying classes correctly, labelling zeros as ones and vice versa. In fact, at a level of zero AUC, the model is reciprocating incorrect classes by predicting zeros as ones and ones as zeros. Statistically, more AUC means that the model is identifying more true positives while minimizing the number/percent of false positives. The ROC curve for our 2024 model has an AUC of 0.9668 (Chart A5), the highest AUC of all models we have developed and tested (Table 2). This means that the true positive rate for classifying outcomes is high and the false positive rate is low, further bolstering the model’s robustness. Chart A5Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve Of New Model Table 2… Has The Best Fit Compared To Older Models … F1 Scores A final grading of the 2024 model is by means of the F1 score. The F1 score is a measurement that considers both precision (specificity in the above ROC curve) and recall (sensitivity in the above ROC curve) to compute the score. The F1 score can be interpreted as a weighted average of the precision and recall values, where an F1 score reaches its best value at 1 and worst value at 0. The 2024 model produces the highest F1 score across our suite of historic models (Table 3). Table 3… And Is The Most Accurate Across All Models After discussing the above statistical metrics and elements of the 2024 model, we are happy to accept it as our new base case presidential election model, premised on its improvement in accuracy at predicting election outcomes in the past, as well as its ability to correctly classify outcomes as they were realized, relative to past published models of this nature. Appendix Tables Table A1USPS Trade Table Table A2Political Risk Matrix Table A3Political Capital Index Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Footnotes 1     We assume that the District of Columbia will vote for the Democratic candidate due to past voting outcomes overwhelmingly favoring Democrats. 2     Large numbers of people polled in the 2016 and 2020 elections declined to say they were voting for President Trump, who was stigmatized in the mainstream media and society at large, or refused to participate in opinion polling. While some analysts rejected this idea after the 2016 election, the large polling misses in 2020 revived it. As many as one-fifth of Trump voters in 2020 might have kept their support secret. See Gregory Korte, “‘Shy Trump Voters’ Re-Emerge As Explanation For Pollsters’ Miss,” Bloomberg, November 19, 2020, bloomberg.com. See also Ed Kilgore, “What Did We Learn About Political Polling In 2020?” New York Magazine, March 26, 2021, nymag.com. 3    From here on out, the updated 2020 Geopolitical Strategy model will be referred to as the “2020 model”. 4    We we had originally introduced four measures covering this topic back in 2019, two require a longer period of job approval data to be put into estimation, these being the  “October momentum” and the “2-year change” job approval variables. We will revisit additional job approval measures and determine if they should be included in later estimations.