Geopolitics

Highlights The Federal Reserve’s ultra-dovish stance is not the only reason for markets to cheer. The US is booming, China is unlikely to overtighten monetary and fiscal policy, and Europe remains a source of positive political surprises. Still, the cornerstone of this cycle’s wall of worry has been laid: Biden faces a series of foreign policy challenges, the US is raising taxes, China is tightening policy, and Europe’s stimulus is not large enough to qualify as a game changer for potential GDP growth. Stay the course by maintaining strategic pro-cyclical trades yet building up tactical hedges and safe-haven plays. Feature Chart 1US Stimulus, Chinese Tightening, German Vaccine Hiccups The US is turning to tax hikes, China is returning to structural reforms, and Europe is bungling its vaccine rollout. Yet synchronized global debt monetization is nothing to underrate. Especially not in the context of a Great Power struggle that features a green energy race as well as a high-tech race. Governments are generating a cyclical growth boom and it is conceivably that their simultaneous pump-priming combined with a new capex cycle and private innovation could generate a productivity breakthrough. This upside risk is keeping global equity markets bullish even as it becomes apparent that construction has begun on this cycle’s wall of worry. The US dollar bounce should be watched closely in this context (Chart 1). After passing the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act, which consists largely but not entirely of short-term cash handouts (Chart 2), President Joe Biden’s policy agenda will now turn to tax hikes. Thus far the tax hike proposals are in line with Biden’s campaign literature (Table 1). It remains to be seen whether the market will “sell the news” that Biden is pivoting to tax hikes. After all, Biden was the most moderate of the Democratic candidates and his tax proposals only partially reverse President Trump’s tax cuts. Chart 2American Rescue Plan Act Table 1Biden’s Tax Hike Proposals On The Campaign Trail Nevertheless higher taxes symbolize a regime change in the US – it is very unlikely tax rates will go down anytime soon but they could go easily higher than expected in the coming decade – and the drafting process will bring negative surprises, as Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen highlighted by courting Europe to cooperate on a 12% minimum corporate tax and halt the global race to the bottom in taxes on multinational corporations. At the same time Biden’s foreign policy challenges are rising across the board: China is demanding a rollback of Trump’s policies: If Biden says yes, he will sacrifice hard-won American leverage on matters of national interest. If he says no, the Phase One trade deal will be null and void, as will sanctions on Iran and North Korea, and the new economic sanctions on Taiwan will expand beyond mere pineapples.1 Russia is recalling its US ambassador: Biden vowed to make Russia pay for alleged interference in the 2020 US election and sanctions are forthcoming.2 The real way to make Russia pay is to halt the construction of the Nordstream II natural gas pipeline, which reduces the leverage of eastern European democracies while increasing Germany’s energy dependence on Russia. But Germany is dead-set on that pipeline. If Biden levies sanctions the centerpiece of his diplomatic outreach to Europe will be further encouraged to chart an independent course from Washington (though the rest of Europe might cheer). North Korea is threatening to restart missile tests: North Korea is pouring scorn on the Biden administration for trying to restart negotiations.3 The North wants sanctions relief and it knows that Biden is willing to offer it but it may need to create an atmosphere of crisis first. China would be happy were that to happen as it could offer the US its good services on North Korea instead of concrete trade concessions. Iran is refusing to rejoin negotiations over the 2015 nuclear deal: Biden has about five months to arrange for the US and Iran to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal. Beyond that he will enter into another long negotiation with the master negotiators, the Persians. But unlike President Obama from 2009-15, he will not have support from Russia and China … unless he sacrifices his doctrine of “extreme competition” from the get-go. It is not clear which of these challenges will be relevant to financial markets, or when. However, with US and global equities skyrocketing, it must be said that the geopolitical backdrop is not nearly as reassuring as the Federal Reserve, which announced on Saint Patrick’s Day that it will not hike interest rates until 2024 even in the face of a 6.5% growth rate and the prospect of an additional, yet-to-be passed $2 trillion in US deficit spending. Herein lies Biden’s first victory. He has stressed that boosting the American economy and middle class is critical to his foreign policy. He envisions the US regaining its global standing by defeating the virus, super-charging the economy, and then orchestrating a grand alliance of European and Asian democracies to write new global rules that will put pressure on China to reform its economy. “I say it to foreign leaders and domestic alike. It's never, ever a good bet to bet against the American people. America is coming back. The development, manufacturing, and distribution of vaccines in record time is a true miracle of science.”4 The pandemic and economic part of this agenda are effectively done and now comes the hard part: creating a grand alliance while China and Russia demonstrate to their neighbors the hard consequences of joining any new US crusade. The contradiction of Biden’s foreign policy is his desire to act multilaterally and yet also get a great deal done. The Europeans are averse to conflict with China and Russia. The Russians and Chinese are not inclined to do any great favors on Iran or North Korea. Nobody is opening up their economy – Biden himself is coopting Trump’s protectionism, if less brashly. Cooperation with Presidents Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin on nuclear proliferation is possible – as long as Biden aborts his democracy agenda and his trade agenda. We continue with our pro-cyclical investment stance but have started building up hedges as we are convinced that geopolitical risk will deliver a rude awakening. This awakening will be a buying opportunity given the ultra-stimulating backdrop … unless it portends war in continental Europe or the Taiwan Strait. In the remainder of this report we highlight the takeaways from China’s National People’s Congress as well as recent developments in Germany. Our key views remain the same: China will not overtighten monetary/fiscal policy; Biden will be hawkish on China; Germany’s election may see an upset but that would be market-positive. China: No Overtightening So Far China concluded its National People’s Congress – the “Two Sessions” of legislation every year – and issued its 2021 Government Work Report. It also officially released the fourteenth five-year plan covering economic development for 2021-25. Table 2 shows the new plan’s targets as compared to the just expired thirteenth five-year plan that covered 2016-20. Table 2China’s Fourteenth Five Year Plan (2021-25) For a full run-down of the National People’s Congress we recommend clients peruse BCA’s latest China Investment Strategy report. From a geopolitical point of view we would highlight the following takeaways: The Tech Race: China added a new target for strategic emerging industry value added as percent of GDP – it wants this number to reach 17% by 2025 but there is nothing solid to benchmark this against. The point is that by including such a target China is putting more emphasis on emerging industries, including: information technology, robotics, green energy, electric vehicles, 5G networks, new materials, power equipment, aerospace and aviation equipment, and others. China’s technological “Great Leap Forward” continues, with a focus on domestic production and upgrading the manufacturing sector that is bound to stiffen the competition with the United States. China’s removal of a target for service industry growth suggests that Beijing does not want de-industrialization to occur any faster – another reason for global trade tensions to stay high. Research and Development: For R&D spending, previous five-year plans set targets for the desired level. For example, over the last five years China vowed to increase annual R&D spending to 2.5% of GDP. A reasonable expectation for the coming five years would have been a 3% target of GDP. However, this time the government set a target of an annual growth rate of no less than 7% during 2021-2025. The point is that China is continuing to ascend the ranks in R&D spending relative to the US and West in coordination with the overarching goal of forging an innovative and high-tech economy. Unemployment: China has restored an unemployment rate target. In its twelfth five-year plan Beijing aimed to keep the urban surveyed unemployment rate below 5% but over the past five years this target vanished. Now China restored the target and bumped it up slightly to 5.5%. This target should not be hard to meet given the reported sharp decline in urban unemployment to 5.2% already. However, China’s unemployment statistics are notoriously unreliable. The real takeaway is that unemployment will be higher as trend growth slows, while social stability remains the Communist Party’s ultimate prize – and any reform or deleveraging process will occur within that context. The Green Energy Race: China re-emphasized its pledge to tackle climate change, aiming for peak carbon emissions by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2060. However, no detailed action plans were mentioned. Presumably China will not loosen its enforcement of existing environmental targets. Most of these were kept the same as over the past five years, except for pollution (PM2.5 concentration). Previously the government sought to reduce PM2.5 concentration by 18%. Now the target is set at 10% aggregate reduction, which is lower, though further reduction will be difficult after a 43% drop since 2014. Overall, China has not loosened up its environmental targets – if anything, enforcement will strengthen, resulting in an ongoing regulatory headwind to “Old China” industries. Military Power: Last week we noted that the government’s goals for the military have changed in a way that reinforces themes of persistently high geopolitical tensions. The info-tech upgrades to the People’s Liberation Army were supposed to be met by 2020, with full “modernization” achieved by 2035. However, last October the government created a new deadline, the one-hundredth anniversary of the PLA in 2027 (“military centenary goal”). No specific measures or targets are given but the point is that there is a new deadline of serious importance – an importance that matches the party’s much-ballyhooed centennial on July 1 of 2021 and the People’s Republic’s centennial in 2049. The fact that this deadline is only six years away suggests that a rapid program of military reform and upgrade is beginning. The official defense spending growth target of 6.8% is only slightly bigger than last year’s 6.6% but these targets mask the significance of the announcement. The takeaway is that the Chinese military is preparing for an earlier-than-expected contingency with the United States and its allies. What about China’s all-important monetary, fiscal, and quasi-fiscal credit targets? There is no doubt that China is tightening policy, as we highlight in our updated China Policy Tightening Checklist (Table 3). But will China overtighten? Probably not, at least not judging by the Two Sessions, but the risk is not negligible. Table 3A Checklist For Chinese Policy Tightening The government reiterated that money and credit growth should remain in a reasonable range in 2021, with “reasonable range” referring to nominal economic growth. Chinese economists estimate that the nominal growth rate will be around 8%-9% in 2021. The IMF projection is 8.1%, while latest OECD forecast is at 7.8%.5 Because China’s total private credit (total social financing) growth is inherently higher than M2 growth, we would use pre-pandemic levels as our benchmark for whether the government will tighten policy excessively: If total social financing growth plunges below 12%, then our view is disproved and Beijing is over-tightening (Chart 3). If M2 growth plunges below 8%, we can call it over-tightening. Anything above these benchmarks should be seen as reasonable and expected tightening, anything below as excessive. However, the Chinese and global financial markets could grow jittery at any time over the perennial risk of a policy mistake whenever governments try to prevent excessive leverage and bubbles. As for fiscal policy, the new quotas for local government net new bond issuance point to expected rather than excessive tightening. New bonds can be used to finance capital investment projects. The quota for total new bond issuance is 4.47 trillion CNY, down by 5.5% from last year. Though local governments may not use up all of the quota, the reduction is small. In fact, total local government bond issuance will be a whisker higher in 2021 than in 2020. The quota for net new bonds is only slightly below the 2020 level and much higher than the 2019 level. Therefore the chance of fiscal overtightening is small – and smaller than monetary overtightening. Chart 3China Policy Overtightening Benchmark Chart 4China’s Real Budget Deficit Is Huge China’s official budget balance is a fiction so we look at the IMF’s augmented net lending and borrowing, which reached a whopping -18.2 % of GDP in 2020. It is expected to decrease gradually to -13.8% by 2025. That level will be slightly higher than the pre-pandemic level from 2017-2019 (Chart 4).6 By contrast, China’s total augmented debt is expected to keep rising in the coming years and reach double the 2015 level by 2025. Efforts to constrain debt could lead to a larger debt-to-GDP ratio if growth suffers as a consequence, as our Global Investment Strategy points out. So China will tighten cautiously – especially given falling productivity, higher unemployment, and the threat of sustained pressure from the US and its allies. US-China: Biden As Trump-Lite Chinese and US officials will convene in Alaska on March 18-19. This is the first major US-China meeting under the Biden administration and global investors will watch closely to see whether tensions will drop. So far tensions have not fallen, highlighting a persistent and once again underrated risk to the global equity rally. Biden’s foreign policy team has not completed its review of China policy and Presidents Biden and Xi Jinping are trying to schedule a bilateral summit in April – so nothing concrete will be decided before then. Chart 5US-China: Beijing's Standing Offer The Biden administration is setting up a pragmatic policy, offering areas to engage with China while warning that it will not compromise on democratic values or national interests. China would welcome the opportunity to work with the Americans on nuclear non-proliferation, namely North Korea and Iran, as this would expend US leverage on an area of shared interest while leaving China a free hand over its economic and technological policies. China at least partially enforced sanctions on these countries in response to President Trump’s demands during the trade war and official statistics suggest it continues to do so. Oil imports from Iran remain extremely low while Chinese business with North Korea is, on paper, nil (Chart 5). If this data is accurate then North Korea’s economy has not benefited from China’s stimulus and snapback. If true, then Pyongyang will offer partial concessions on its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. At the moment, instead of staging any major provocations to object to US-Korean military drills, the North is using fiery language and threatening to restart missile tests. This suggests a diplomatic opening. But investors should be prepared for Pyongyang to stage much bigger provocations than missile tests. In March 2010, while the world focused on the financial crisis, the North Koreans torpedoed a South Korean corvette, the Chonan, and shelled some islands, at the risk of a war. The problem under the Trump administration was that Trump wanted a verifiable and durable deal of economic opening for denuclearization whereas the North Koreans wanted to play for time, reduce sanctions, study the data from their flurry of missile tests during the Obama and early Trump years, and see if Trump would get reelected before offering any concrete concessions. Trump’s stance was not really different from Bill Clinton’s but he tried to accelerate the timeline and go for a big win. By Trump’s losing the election North Korea bought four more years on the clock. Chart 6US-China: Biden Lukewarm On China The Biden administration is willing to play for time if it gets concrete results in phases. This would keep North Korea at bay and retain a line of pragmatic engagement with Beijing. But if North Korea stages a giant provocation Biden will not hesitate to use threats of destruction like Clinton and Trump did. The American public is not much concerned about North Korea (or Iran) but is increasingly concerned about China, with a recent Gallup opinion poll showing that nearly 50% view China as America’s greatest enemy and Americans consistently overrate China’s economic power (Chart 6). Biden will not let grassroots nationalism run his policy. But it is true that he has little to gain politically from appearing to appease China. With progress at hand on the pandemic and economic recovery, Biden will devote more attention to courting the allies and attempting to construct his alliance of democracies to meet global challenges and to “stand up” to China and Russia. The allies, however, are risk-averse when it comes to confronting China. This is as true for the Europeans as it is for China’s Asian neighbors, who stand directly in its firing line. In fact, Europe’s total trade with China is equivalent to that of the US (Chart 7). The Europeans have said that they will pursue tougher trade enforcement through the World Trade Organization, which would tie the Biden administration’s hands. Biden and his cabinet officials insist that they will use the “full array” of tools at their disposal (e.g. tariffs and sanctions) to punish China for mercantilist trade policies. Chinese negotiators are said to be asking explicitly for Biden to roll back Trump’s policies. Some of these policies relate to trade and tech acquisition, others to strategic disputes. We doubt that Biden will compromise on the trade issues to get cooperation on North Korea and Iran. But he will have to offer major concessions if he wants durable denuclearization agreements on these rogue states. Otherwise it will be clear that his administration is mostly focused on competition with China itself and willing to sideline the minor nuclear aspirants. Our expectation is that Americans care about the China threat and the smaller threats will be used as pretexts with which to increase pressure and sanctions on China. Asian equities have corrected after going vertical, as expected. But contrary to our expectations geopolitics was not the cause (Chart 8). This selloff could eventually create a buying opportunity if the Biden administration is revealed to take a more dovish line on China, trade, and tech in exchange for progress on strategic disputes like North Korea. Any discount due to North Korean provocations in particular would be a buy. On Taiwan, however, China’s new 2027 military target underscores our oft-recited red flag. Chart 7EU Risk Averse On China Chart 8Asian Equity Correction And GeoRisk Indicators Bottom Line: Investors should stay focused on the US-China relationship. What matters is Biden’s first actions on tariffs and high-tech exports. So far Biden is hawkish as we anticipated. Investors should fade rumors of big new US-China cooperation prior to the first Biden-Xi summit. Any major North Korean aggression will create a buy-on-the-dips opportunity. Unless it triggers a war, that is – and the threshold for war is high given the Chonan incident in 2010. Germany: Markets Wake Up To Election Risk – And Smile This week’s election in the Netherlands delivered a fully expected victory to Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s liberal coalition. The German leadership ranks next to the Dutch in terms of governments that received an increase in popular support as a result of the COVID-19 crisis (Chart 9). However, in Germany’s case the election outcome is not a foregone conclusion. Chart 9German Leadership Saw Popularity Bounce As we highlighted in our annual forecast, an upset in which a left-wing bloc forms the government for the first time since 2005 is likelier than the market expects. This scenario presents an upside risk for equities and bund yields since Germany would become even more pro-Europe, pro-integration, and proactive in its fiscal spending. In the current context that would be greeted warmly by financial markets as it would reinforce the cyclical rotation into the euro, industrials, and European peripheral debt. Incidentally, it would also reduce tensions with Russia and China – even as the Biden administration is courting Germany. Recent state elections confirm that the electorate is moving to the left rather than the right. In Baden-Wurttemberg, the third largest state by population and economic output, and a southern state, the Christian Democrats slipped from the last election (-2.9%), the Social Democrats slipped by less (-1.7%), the Free Democrats gained (2.2%), the Greens gained (2.3%), and the far-right Alternative for Germany saw a big drop (-5.4%). In the smaller state of Rhineland-Palatinate the results were largely the same although the Greens did even better (Tables 4A & 4B).7 In both cases the Christian Democrats saw the worst result since prior to the financial crisis while the Greens tripled their support in Baden and doubled their support in the Palatinate over the same time frame. Table 4AGerman State Elections Show Voters’ Leftward Drift Continues Table 4BGerman State Elections Show Voters’ Leftward Drift Continues To put this into perspective: Outgoing Chancellor Angela Merkel and her coalition have seen a net 6% increase in popular support since COVID-19. The coalition, led by the Christian Democratic Union and its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union, still leads national opinion polling. What we are highlighting are chinks in the armor. The gap with the combined left-leaning bloc is less than 10% points (Chart 10). Chart 10German Party Polling Merkel is a lame duck whose party has been in power for 17 years. She is struggling to find an adequate successor. Her current frontrunner for chancellor-candidate, Armin Laschet, is suffering in public opinion, especially after the state election defeats, while her previous successor was ousted last year. Other chancellor-candidates, like Friedrich Merz, Markus Söder, and Norbert Röttgen may find themselves to the right of the median voter, which has been shifting to the left. Merkel’s party’s handling of COVID-19 first received praise and now, in the year of the vote, is falling under pressure due to difficulties rolling out the vaccine. Even as conditions improve over the course of the year her party may struggle to recover from the damage, since the underlying reality is that Germany has suffered a recession and is beset by global challenges. While the Christian Democrats performed relatively well in the 2009 election, in the teeth of the global financial crisis, times have changed. Today the Social Democrats are no longer in free fall – ever since their Finance Minister Olaf Scholz led the charge for fiscal stimulus in 2019 – while third parties like the Free Democrats, Greens, and Die Linke all gained in 2009 and look to gain this year (Table 5). In today’s context it is even more likely that other parties will rise at the ruling party’s expense. Still, the Christian Democrats have stout support in polls and do not have to split votes with the far-right, which is in collapse. Table 5German Federal Election Results Show 2021 Could Throw Curveball For Ruling Party Therein lies the real market takeaway: right-wing populism has flopped in Germany. The risk to the consensus view that Merkel will hand off the baton seamlessly to a successor and secure her party another term in leadership is that the establishment left will take power (the Greens in Germany are essentially an establishment party). Chart 11German Bunds Respond To Macro Shifts, State Elections Near-term pandemic and economic problems have caused bund yields to fall and the yield curve to flatten so far this year (Chart 11). But that trend is unlikely to continue given the global and national outlook. Election uncertainty should work against this trend since the only possible uncertainty gives more upside to the fiscal outlook and bond yields. If the consensus view indeed comes to pass and the Christian Democrats remain in power, the election holds out policy continuity – at least on economic policy. Fiscal tightening would happen sooner under the Christian Democrats but it would not be aggressive or premature, at least not in the 2021-22 period. It is the current coalition that first loosened Germany’s belt – and it did so in 2019, prior to COVID-19. Germany’s and the EU’s proactive fiscal turn will have a major positive impact on growth prospects, at least cyclically, though it is probably too small thus far to create a structural improvement in potential growth. Fiscal thrust is negative over next two years even with the EU’s Next Generation Recovery Fund being distributed. A structural increase in growth is possible given that all of the major countries are simultaneously pursuing monetary and fiscal stimulus as well as big investments in technology and renewable energy that will help engender a new private capex cycle. But productivity has been on a long, multi-decade decline so it remains to be seen if this can be reversed. Geopolitically speaking, Germany’s and the EU’s policy shift arrived in the nick of time to deepen European integration before divisions revive. Integration is broadly driven by European states’ need to compete on a grand scale with the US, Russia, and China. But Putin, Brexit, and Mario Draghi demonstrate the more tactical pressures: Brexit discourages states from exiting, especially with ongoing trade disputes and the risk of a new Scottish independence referendum; Putin’s aggressive foreign policy drives eastern Europeans into the arms of the West; and the formation of a unity government in Italy encourages European solidarity and improves Italian growth prospects. The outlook for structural reforms is not hopeless. Prime Minister Draghi’s government has a good chance of succeeding at some structural reforms where his predecessors have failed. Meanwhile French President Emmanuel Macron is still favored to win the French election in 2022, which is good for French structural reform. The fact that the EU tied its recovery fund to reform is positive. Most importantly the green energy agenda is replacing budget cutting for the time being, which, again, is positive for capex and could create positive long-term productivity surprises. Of course, structural reform intensity slowed just prior to COVID, in Spain, France, and Italy. Once the recovery funds are spent the desire to persist with reform will wane. This is clear in Spain, which has rolled back some reforms and has a weak government that could dissolve any time, and Italy, where the Draghi coalition may not last long after funds are spent. If the global upswing persists and Chinese/EM growth improves, then Europe will benefit from a macro backdrop that enables it to persist with some structural reforms and crawl out of its liquidity trap. But if China/EM growth relapses then Europe will fall back into a slump. Thus it is a very good thing for Europe, the euro, and European equities that the US is engaged in an epic fiscal blowout and that China’s Two Sessions dampened the risk of overtightening. Incidentally, if the German government does shift, relations with Russia would improve on the margin. While US-Russia tensions will remain hot, German mediation could reduce Russia’s insecurity and lower geopolitical risks for both Russia and emerging Europe, which are very cheaply valued at present in part because they face a persistent geopolitical risk premium. Bottom Line: German politics will drive further EU integration whether the Christian Democrats stay in power or whether the left-wing parties manage a surprise victory. Europe will have to provide more fiscal stimulus but otherwise the global context is favorable for Europe. Investors should not be too pessimistic about short-term hiccups with the vaccine rollout. Investment Takeaways The US is stimulating, China is not overtightening, and German’s election risk is actually an upside risk for European and global risk assets. These points reaffirm a bullish cyclical outlook on global stocks and commodities and a bearish outlook on government bonds. It is especially positive for global beneficiaries of US stimulus excluding China, such as Canada and Mexico. It is also beneficial for industrial metals and emerging markets exposed to China over the medium term, after frenzied buying suffers a healthy correction. Any premium in European equities should be snapped up. However, the cornerstone has been laid for the wall of worry in this global economic cycle: the US is raising taxes, China is tightening policy, and Europe’s fiscal stimulus will probably fall short. Moreover a consensus outcome from the German election would be a harbinger of earlier-than-expected fiscal normalization. There is not yet a clear green light in US-China relations – on the contrary, our view that Biden would be hawkish is coming to pass. Biden faces foreign policy tests across the board and now is a good time to hedge against the inevitable return of downside risks given the remorseless increase in tensions between the Great Powers. Housekeeping A number of clients have written to ask follow-up questions about our contrarian report last week taking a positive view on cybersecurity stocks despite the tech selloff and a positive view on global defense stocks, especially in relation to cybersecurity. The main request is, Which companies offer the best value? So we teamed up with BCA’s new Equity Analyzer to highlight the companies that receive the best BCA scores utilizing a range of factors including value, safety, payout, quality, technicals, sentiment, and macro context – all relative to a universe of global stocks with a minimum market cap of $1 billion. The results are shown in the Appendix, which we hope will come in handy. Separately our tactical hedge, long US health care equipment versus the broad market, has stopped out at -5%. This makes sense in light of the pro-cyclical rotation. Health care equipment is still likely to outperform the rest of the US health care sector amid a policy onslaught of higher taxes, government-provided insurance, and pharmaceutical price caps.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Yushu Ma Research Associate yushu.ma@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Appendix Table ABCA Research Equity Analyzer Casts Light On Best Defense And Cybersecurity Stocks Appendix Table BBCA Research Equity Analyzer Casts Light On Best Defense And Cybersecurity Stocks Appendix Table CBCA Research Equity Analyzer Casts Light On Best Defense And Cybersecurity Stocks Footnotes 1 China is asking for export controls that have hamstrung Huawei and SMIC to be removed as well as for sanctions and travel bans on Communist Party members and students to be lifted. See Lingling Wei and Bob Davis, "China Plans To Ask U.S. To Roll Back Trump Policies In Alaska Meeting," Wall Street Journal, March 17, 2021, wsj.com; Helen Davidson, "Taiwanese urged to eat ‘freedom pineapples’ after China import ban," The Guardian, March 2, 2021, theguardian.com. 2 "Putin on Biden: Russian President Reacts To US Leader’s Criticism," BBC, March 18, 2021, bbc.com. 3 Pyongyang is likely to test a new, longer range intercontinental ballistic missile for the first time since its self-imposed missile test moratorium began in 2018 after President Trump’s summit with leader Kim Jong Un. See Lara Seligman and Natasha Bertrand, "U.S. ‘On Watch’ For New North Korean Missile Tests," Politico, March 16, 2021, politico.com. 4 See ABC News, "Transcript: Joe Biden delivers remarks on 1-year anniversary of pandemic", ABC News, Mar. 11, 2021, abcnews.com. 5 Please see IMF Staff, "World Economic Outlook Reports", IMF, Jan. 2021, imf.org and OECD Staff, "OECD Economic Outlook, Interim Report March 2021", OECD, March 9, 2021, oecd.org. 6 Please see IMF Asia and Pacific Dept, "People’s Republic of China : 2020 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for the People's Republic of China", IMF, Jan. 8, 2021, imf.org. 7 The other state elections coming up this year will coincide with the federal election on September 26, with one minor exception (Saxony-Anhalt). Opinion polls show the Christian Democrats slipping below the Greens in Berlin and the Social Democrats in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. The Alternative for Germany is falling in all regions.

Highlights We are lowering our expectation for oil-demand growth this year, bringing it more in line with levels expected by OPEC, the IEA and EIA.  Our GDP-driven demand estimates have proven too bullish for 1Q21, considering the wide margin by which we missed actual demand in January and February.  Our expectation for oil demand growth this year is lowered to 5.5mm b/d, down from 6.6mm b/d last month.  For 2022, we are increasing our growth assumption to 4.1mm b/d, up from 2.8mm b/d. We continue to expect Brent prices to reflect an accommodation between Russia's and KSA's preferred Brent ranges of $50-$55/bbl and $70-$75/bbl, respectively.  We are keeping our forecast for average prices at $65/bbl and $70/bbl for this year and next, with WTI averaging $2-$3/bbl below that (Chart of the Week). Brent benchmark pricing confusion subsided, following the decision of S&P Global Platts to revert to free-on-board (FOB) reporting of prices.  However, as the center of gravity for crude oil demand settles on Asia, confusion around the North Sea benchmark could provide an opening for regional benchmarks and consolidation of futures platforms trading crudes delivered to the region. Feature The decision by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) to voluntarily remove 1mm b/d of its production from the market over February – April will be remembered as one of the more prescient reads on the state of global oil demand during the COVID-19 pandemic. KSA's insistence on seeing improvement in actual demand – as opposed to forecasted demand – before it commits to returning production to the market could not have been more clear-sighted. The upcoming April 1 meeting of OPEC 2.0 will convey useful information to the market re changes, if any, to the production-management strategy of the coalition, which is led by KSA and Russia. Perhaps the most important information coming out of the meeting will be how KSA reads the current state of global oil demand, as it has not committed to a date-certain when it will return this production to market. We expect the Kingdom to extend its production cuts and to lobby for continued restraint by the other member states of OPEC 2.0 at the meeting. Going into the meeting, OPEC 2.0 will be assessing global demand against a deteriorating public-health backdrop in important consuming markets. The EU's policy failures in securing sufficient vaccinations to protect its population, and public-health missteps regarding the AstraZeneca vaccine continue to retard Europe's efforts to contain the pandemic.1 Chart of the WeekOPEC 2.0 Expected To Maintain Production Discipline Increasing lockdowns in several EU countries and a higher likelihood of a resurgence in COVID-19 infection rates in the US – particularly in the states that are reopening before they have achieved herd immunity or have vaccinated a large share their populations – will slow demand recovery. The annual Spring Break holidays in the US potentially could become a world-class super-spreader event. Elsewhere, LatAm is distressed, particularly Brazil, which, like the EU, has misjudged and mishandled its vaccination policy and rollout, leaving its populations at higher risk for infection. This also has the attendant risk of producing an environment ripe for further COVID-19 mutations and the spread of new variants. Lower Oil Demand Forecast For 2021 We were wrong on our call expecting stronger demand growth in 1Q21 – our consumption forecasts exceeded realized demand an average of 2.3mm b/d in 1Q21. We are now more aligned with demand expectations of IEA, EIA, and OPEC (Chart 2). Our expectation for oil demand growth this year is lowered to 5.5mm b/d, down from 6.6mm b/d last month. For 2022, we are increasing our growth assumption to 4.1mm b/d, up from 2.8mm b/d. We expect non-OECD oil consumption, our proxy for EM demand, to average 53.2mm b/d this year and 55.5mm b/d next year, vs. 54mm b/d and 55.4mm b/d last month. DM demand, proxied by OECD oil consumption, is expected to average 44.5mm b/d and 46.3mm b/d next year, versus our previous forecast of 44.9mm and 46.3mm b/d last month. Chart 2Lower Oil Demand In 2021, Higher Next Year We continue to expect the massive fiscal and monetary stimulus to support markets and lead to stronger growth going forward. The recently approved package by the US Congress calling for an additional $1.9 trillion of fiscal stimulus will have global knock-on effects, which will be bullish for commodity demand, once the COVID-19 pandemic is contained (Chart 3). Chart 3Pandemic Recovery Will Spur Pent-Up Demand OPEC 2.0 Production Discipline Persists The salient feature of the oil market during the pandemic has been the cohesion of OPEC 2.0 and its production discipline. We expect that to continue going into and coming out of the coalition's April 1 meeting. Our view that OPEC 2.0 's overall strategy as the dominant producer in the market is to calibrate the level of supply to the level of demand remains intact. We expect production for the coalition to average 46.0mm b/d in 2021 and 46.2mm b/d in 2022 (Chart 4). We do not expect OPEC 2.0 to raise production, given the increasing uncertainty around demand vis-à-vis getting the COVID-19 pandemic under control in large consuming markets like the EU and LatAm, and higher infection rates out of the US. However, as we noted above, we are closely watching what KSA does and says at the upcoming meeting for any clue that global demand is improving faster than we now expect. Chart 4OPEC 2.0 Production Discipline Persists Outside OPEC 2.0, our expectation for the bellwether US shale-oil producers' output remains relatively unchanged. We continue to expect production to move higher, and to remain constrained by capital availability. US shale output is expected to average 10.7mm b/d this year, and 12.1mm b/d next year. In our modeling, the shale producers lead the price-taking cohort, which produces whatever the market allows it to produce. We continue to expect capital-market discipline to keep US oil producers from getting too far out ahead of their balance sheets' ability to profitably grow production. The same holds for producers outside the OPEC 2.0 coalition ex-US (Table 1). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Markets Balance On OPEC 2.0 Discipline OPEC 2.0's production strategy will keep markets balanced, as relatively high compliance among those producers capable of increasing production is observed and markets are not over-supplied (Chart 5). This will allow inventories to continue to draw then stabilize around mid-year. It is important to point out that this balancing is an iterative process, driven by OPEC 2.0's read on the state of demand, which, perforce, is occurring with lags in the data it is responding to. We continue to keep a weather eye on the USD, given the impact it has on commodity fundamentals. We continue to expect dollar weakening and model for that, but the path of the USD has been difficult to call, given it is highly correlated with global economic policy uncertainty, which is heavily influenced by the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic (Chart 6). Chart 5Markets Remain Balanced... Chart 6The USD's Evolution Remains Important A Hue and Cry In Brent Additional uncertainty is entering oil markets from an unlikely corner: The Brent benchmark pricing index used to set prices on some two-thirds of all the oil traded in the world. Brent benchmark pricing was thrown into wide-eyed confusion when S&P Global Platts – the leading price reporting agency for the index used as a reference in Brent physical contracts (Dated Brent) – decided to convert the index from a free-on-board (FOB) index to a cost-insurance-freight (CIF) index. Platts' proposed Brent reporting changes two weeks ago essentially would have transformed the pricing index from a pure spot index that assumes the buyer will arrange insurance and freight after purchasing a cargo at a North Sea terminal into a delivered index reflecting CIF-Rotterdam terms provided by the seller. After a great hue and cry went up, Platts reverted to quoting Brent on an FOB basis. But that hardly ends the drama. Brent production is collapsing – by next year, only one 600k-barrel cargo a day of Brent will be loaded out of North Sea terminals. This is a very thin reed supporting the global oil market's primary price index. In an effort to expand the Brent pricing pool, Platts also is looking to include US WTI in one form or another, but nothing's been settled upon to date. The confusion around Brent pricing comes as the center of gravity for crude oil demand and trading continues its inexorable shift to Asia. This could provide an opening for regional benchmarks – e.g., the UAE's Murban crude oil, which supports a just-launched futures contract calling for delivery in Asia, where most of the demand for oil is met by Middle East suppliers. It could even allow for consolidation of other futures platforms in the region (e.g., the Dubai Mercantile Exchange), which also are used to price and hedge Asia-bound crude cargoes out of the Gulf. As interesting and complex as the global oil market is, it is nothing without a viable pricing benchmark. Much of the world's oil business hinges on that index being determined by the price of a single cargo loaded every day. We will be following this with great interest.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish An exceptionally cold winter resulted in a sharp drawdown US natgas inventories down, which are expected to end the 2020-21 winter season at 2021 at 1.6 Tcf by the US EIA's reckoning (Chart 7). This would be 13% lower than the 5-year average level of inventories, according to the EIA. Over the April-October injection season, EIA is expecting natgas inventories to finish at ~ 3.7 Tcf, or ~ 2% below their 5-year average. Spot natgas prices at Henry Hub, LA – the delivery point for NYMEX/CME futures – averaged $5.35/MMBtu in February, the highest level since February 2014, the EIA noted. Natural gas for April 2021 delivery at Henry Hub closed at $2.562/MMBtu on Tuesday. Base Metals: Bullish COMEX copper came close to its 2011 highs late last month, at $4.30/lb but has since retreated.  However, we believe fundamental supply-demand factors will keep copper prices moving higher over the longer term. As highlighted in an earlier report (BCA Research - Renewables, China's FYP Underpin Metals Demand), the move to EVs and renewable energy will keep demand for copper and the overall base metals complex well-bid during this decade. The International Renewable Energy Agency (World Energy Transitions Outlook: 1.5°C Pathway (Preview) (irena.org)) reported on Tuesday that copper-intensive renewable power capacity will have to increase by more than 10-fold by 2050 to avert severe climate change. On the supply side, in our recent report entitled BCA Research - Copper's Supply Challenges, we noted falling copper investment and declining copper ore quality inexorably will increase production costs. Only higher copper prices will incentivize producers to increase mining activity. Rising demand and stagnant supply will put copper supply-demand balances in a deficit over the short-to-medium term, causing inventories to decline over this period as well.  Precious Metals: Bullish The sharp run-up in 10-year US real rates since the end of 2020 pulled gold prices from down from their 2021 high of ~ $1,950/oz in January to ~ $1,680/oz earlier this month (Chart 8). Price have since rebounded above $1,740/oz as real rates weakened. We expect markets to re-price gold when it becomes apparent the rally in rates was more a function of higher growth expectations for the US economy than a higher likelihood of Fed tightening. Our view that the Fed's ultra-accommodative monetary policy and massively expansive US fiscal policy will spur growth and inflation has not changed. We expect the Fed to remain behind the inflation curve in its rate hikes, which will keep US real rates on their downward trajectory. Chart 7 Chart 8     Footnotes 1     Please see Extent of damage to AstraZeneca vaccine’s perceived safety in Europe revealed published by yougov.co.uk 7 March 2021.  See also States lift Covid restrictions, drop mask mandates and reopen businesses despite warnings from Biden officials published by cnbc.com 11 March 2021, and European travel restrictions: Non-essential travel curbed published by dw.com 15 March 2021. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights The American Rescue Plan Act confirms the shift to “Big Government” and proactive fiscal policy in US politics. This sea change in policy is durable for now, given that Democrats can pass one or two more budget reconciliation bills without a Republican vote. Details of forthcoming tax hikes are starting to leak from Washington. Investors should not assume that progressive proposals like a wealth tax, a financial transactions tax, or a minimum corporate tax are dead on arrival. Taxing corporations and the rich is popular. The Republican Party is likely to choose a Trumpian agenda going forward and Trump has a good chance of being the presidential candidate in 2024. But cyclical and structural factors disfavor Republicans at this early stage. Industrials have rallied sharply in advance of Biden’s first law and are now overbought. But we would favor them over health care over a 12-month period, given the macro backdrop and relative policy risks. Feature Were there any surprises in the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) signed by President Biden on March 11? Only that some of Biden’s health care and infrastructure agenda slipped into the bill, alongside a provision holding that if states cut taxes and lose revenue, they will lose an equivalent amount in state and local aid. The plan illustrates that the budget reconciliation process is an effective tool for the ruling party to get most of what it wants. The Biden administration will be able to pass one or two more reconciliation bills for FY2022 and FY2023. While the next bills will be harder to pass than the first, and moderate Democratic senators will limit Congress’s options somewhat, the point is that Democrats have just enough political capital to achieve their policy agenda without a single Republican vote. As always, our Political Capital Index is updated in the Appendix and highlights falling political polarization and improving business sentiment, which is positive for Biden’s political capital.  Investors will continue to bet on a cyclical recovery but will also become more concerned about tax hikes on one hand and excessive deficit spending on the other. The latter threatens eventually to overheat the economy and speed up the Fed’s rate hike cycle. In this report we conduct a quick recap of the ARPA now that it is official law, we review the tax hike proposals swirling out of the Washington rumor mill, and we update the status of the civil war in the Republican Party. We conclude with a look at industrial stocks, which have rallied tremendously on the back of the cyclical economic upturn (Chart 1) but may still offer some value relative to sectors like health care that face policy risks. Chart 1Cyclical Indicators High On Stimulus ARPA Symbolizes The ‘Big Government’ Shift The well-known provisions of the ARPA include: Treasury checks of $1,400 sent directly to individuals who earn less than $80,000 per year; extended unemployment benefits and a renewed federal top-up of $300 per week through September 6, 2021; $65 billion in business aid; and generous funding for various welfare programs such as the expanded Child Tax Credit and larger subsidies for enrollees in the Affordable Care Act health insurance marketplaces (Chart 2).1 Chart 2American Rescue Plan Act In total the US fiscal stimulus amounts to $5 trillion or 23% of GDP since COVID-19 emerged, with $2.8 trillion or 13% of GDP passed since December. It is a gargantuan fiscal stimulus that will supercharge the economy today but lead to a rocky descent once it is exhausted in the coming years (Chart 3). Expiring provisions will occasion political showdowns over whether to make them permanent and how to address waste, corruption, and the long-term budget deficit. Chart 3The COVID-19 Fiscal Blowout The provisions are so far flung that educated American citizens living abroad are reportedly receiving stimulus checks. Nevertheless the bulk of the impact will be felt by low-income people with high marginal propensities to consume. They are the prime beneficiaries of the $850 billion share of the law that funnels cash to individuals as opposed to businesses (Chart 4). This means that at least one-third of the money will be spent, while around two-thirds will be used to pay down debt, enabling consumers to spend more later, according to our Global Investment Strategy. The general effects are very supportive of the recovery. For example, the number of children living in poverty is estimated to fall by 40%, while about one in five renters are expected to catch up on their rent.2 Evictions, bankruptcies, and loan delinquencies will not revive in this context. The total amount of spending is almost twice the size of the output gap, which is now widely expected to be filled by the end of 2022.  Chart 4Cash Handouts To Families With High Propensity To Consume While ARPA mainly consists of short-term cash relief – with pro-productivity investments to come in the reconciliation bill for FY2022 focused on infrastructure and renewables – nevertheless it is not wholly devoid of long-term investment. Each of the 50 states will receive $500 million in aid (more depending on their unemployment rate). Since state and local government revenues are not as dire as expected, some of this money will go into infrastructure, including soft infrastructure like the rural broadband buildout. States will be discouraged from cutting taxes, as mentioned.3 The most important takeaway is that the ARPA will reinforce the shift in public attitudes in favor of a larger government role in the economy. Democrats passed their “liberal wish list” and the result is that a range of constituencies – from those on food and housing programs to those working in the health and education systems – will receive a windfall of federal support. In this way a one-off and probably excessive relief bill will contribute to a sea change in American attitudes toward government. Conservatives and Republicans will still argue in favor of limited government but that is a relative concept and the goalposts just moved. Bottom Line: The ARPA secures the recovery, plugs the output gap, and likely reinforces the shift in public attitudes in favor of a larger role of government in society and the economy. The amount of stimulus is likely excessive, assuming the economy avoids any other bad shocks in the coming years. Hence the law marks a historic shift from reactive to proactive fiscal policy and sets the stage for an inflation overshoot in the long run if not the short run.  Yellen Becomes Warren? Not Quite, But Expect Negative Tax Surprises The next budget reconciliation bill is expected to be a 10-year green infrastructure package that will be partially offset by tax hikes. Whether in the same bill, or prioritized above it, we expect Biden to push for his expansion of the Affordable Care Act (only a small part of his health agenda was included in the ARPA). The House will draft its version in April and Biden may sign the final bill into law as early as September or as late as December. We discussed the bill in our March 3 missive. Rumors about the tax proposals are starting to leak out of Washington. At present none of the rumors change the policy consensus, based on Biden’s campaign proposal shown in Table 1. However, they do tentatively support our view that tax hikes will deliver negative surprises to the equity market this year, given that investors have so far been unperturbed by the prospect of higher taxes. Table 1Taxman Cometh Secretary of Treasury Janet Yellen raised some eyebrows when she indicated that a wealth tax is being considered by the Biden administration.4 Previously a tax on a person’s (or trust’s) net assets, as opposed to a tax on their income, was the domain of Biden’s progressive-left rivals such as Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Warren’s proposal would levy a 2% annual tax on those who possess more than $50 million in net wealth, rising to 3% on billionaires. During the Democratic primary election their proposals were estimated to raise anywhere from $1.4 trillion – if Warren’s proposal met with extreme tax avoidance – to $4.5 trillion, as estimated by Sanders.5  Yellen has also spoken to the finance ministers of France and Germany as part of a diplomatic initiative through the OECD to encourage global participation in a minimum corporate tax rate of around 12%. In exchange for enacting this tax floor, Yellen signaled to the Europeans that she would not insist on providing American Big Tech with a “safe harbor” from Europe’s planned digital tax.6 Whatever ends up happening internationally, the implication is that the Biden administration will push forward with its proposed 15% minimum tax on corporation’s book income. Yellen says that she expects tax hikes to be phased in the latter part of the 10-year budget window for FY2022 so as to make sure that the government’s interest burden is manageable over the long run. She is not concerned about excess deficits or debt in the short run, as they are related to the pandemic relief and economic recovery and interest rates are below the nominal growth rate of the economy. But she has endorsed passing tax hikes for later in the decade, as did both President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris on the campaign trail.  Several of the more ambitious tax proposals face limitations in Congress. Moderate senators like Joe Manchin of West Virginia have raised objections to a large tax hike during trying times. He might be joined by other moderates like John Tester of Montana and the four narrowly elected senators from Arizona and Georgia. However, while these moderates will keep the tax agenda in check, it is important to understand their position. None of these senators are against tax hikes in principle – that would be a Republican stance. They are against tax hikes that increase the burden on the middle class or jeopardize the economic recovery. From that point of view Biden’s proposals are fairly palatable: the highest individual income tax bracket would go back to where it stood in 2016, the corporate rate would go halfway (at most) to its pre-Trump level, and the estate tax would be restored. These proposals focus on big corporations and the wealthy and are likely to be watered down in negotiation, so we would not rule out moderate Democratic support.  Investors should not rest easy about the tax agenda until more information is known. Negative surprises are likely. The consensus is that the Democrats will not pass a wealth tax, or a “Wall Street tax” on financial transactions, or other progressive proposals. But these taxes would be popular and politically defensible – some polls even show a majority of Republicans supporting a wealth tax.  Therefore these taxes cannot be ruled out in advance.7 Bottom Line: The tax debate is underway and our expectation of negative surprises is looking more, not less, likely. How Will Republicans Respond To The Big Government Onslaught?   Republicans have duly retreated to the political wilderness after their election loss and the January 6 Capitol Hill riot. The critical question is whether and how they will regroup to contest future elections – the deeper their divisions, the more certain Democratic policy becomes. At the center of this question is whether the Republican Party will adopt Trumpist policy and whether Trump himself will continue to be the flagbearer and presumptive nominee for the presidential election in 2024. Our answer is that the Republicans will adopt a Trumpist agenda of tough trade and immigration policies combined with fiscal largesse but they will struggle over Trump himself and how to broaden their base. Every election is unique. COVID-19 reinforces the point. There is a clear case to be made that Trump would have won the election if not for the pandemic and recession. We favor this view given how narrowly he lost in the midst of the crisis. But there is also a clear case to be made that he would have lost anyway.8 The problem for the Republicans going forward is that cyclical and structural trends work against them. Cyclically, the economy should be in full stride in 2022-24 and the Federal Reserve is highly likely to play a supportive role. This may or may not prevent the usual midterm opposition gains but it will make it very hard for an opposition presidential candidate to win. True, Democrats will not have a full incumbent advantage if President Biden passes the baton to Vice President Harris. Inflation and other problems will emerge. But given the timing of the pandemic, election, and vaccine, voters will probably be much better off in four years than they were last November, which is the most reliable prediction of whether the incumbent party will stay in power.      Structurally, demographic change in America diminishes Trump’s base. A generational shift is transforming the American electorate, as the Silent Generation, which is the most reliably Republican, passes on (Chart 5). Millennials favored the Democratic Party by 6% in the 2020 election (10% in Georgia and 21% in Pennsylvania). Chart 5Generational Shift A Risk To Unreconstructed Republicans Ethnic minorities also skew Democratic, generally speaking, and are taking a much larger share of the electorate, especially in critical swing states – as highlighted by Biden’s victories in Arizona and Georgia (Chart 6). Hispanics favored Biden by 33% (24% in Arizona). Chart 6US Demographics Drive Political Change Demographic extrapolations by the Center for American Progress show that even if post-Millennial generations grow more conservative over time, the Electoral College will shift inexorably against the Republicans as long as current trends continue (Chart 7). Chart 7Electoral Math Frowns On Republicans Even Without Generational Shift Demographics are not destiny: Trump would never have won in 2016 if projections based on age and race were so predictive. Yet Republicans cannot merely wait on cyclical or exogenous events to discredit the Democrats. The electoral math is devastating if they do not broaden their appeal. Their quandary is that generating enthusiasm among their base of white voters with less formal education may exclude the very groups to whom they need to appeal: suburban women, educated whites, and ethnic minorities. The immediate question is what to do about Trump, who has divided the party over the Capitol riot, culminating in seven Republican votes against him in his second impeachment. On the surface the Republican Party is a much older entity than any single member or leader and can therefore play a longer strategy. It could choose the correct electoral strategy of courting independents, women, and Hispanics even if it meant losing an election or two due to divisions with the Trumpists. The problem is that Trump’s personal following is uniquely threatening to the viability of the party. Trump alone could split the Republican Party and nullify its chances in 2022-24 and beyond. Trump has suggested starting his own party, the Patriot Party. Opinion polls show that 46% of Republicans would join it while only 27%would insist on sticking with the Republican Party (Chart 8). Even if a Trumpist party stole only 2-3% of Republican voters it would be enough to ensure a Democratic victory in any election given the very small margins of victory in swing states in recent decades. Trump would easily spoil the Republican bid, just as Ross Perot did in the 1990s, Robert La Follette did for the Democrats in the 1930s, and Theodore Roosevelt did in 1912 (Table 2). As Senator Lindsey Graham said of Trump and the Republican Party, after holding post-election negotiations with the former president: “He can make it bigger. He can make it stronger. He can make it more diverse. And he also could destroy it.”9 Chart 8Trump Could Start Third Party, Give Democrats A Decade-Plus Ascendancy Table 2Major Third Party Breakaway Candidates Undercut Their Former Party So What Will Republicans Do? We conducted an exercise using game theory to determine the likeliest strategy that Trump and the party will take. We used the famous “Prisoner’s Dilemma” as our template because both sides have a lot to gain if they cooperate and a lot to lose if not.10 But they do not trust each other. And each side will lose the most if it stays true while the other betrays it, worsening the distrust. Diagram 1 shows the outcome. Republicans could win eight years in the Oval Office if they adopted Trump’s agenda yet put forward a young new candidate with Trump’s personal endorsement; or they could win four years if they chose Trump himself (the constitutional limitation). By contrast, if they chose an establishment Republican agenda, they could win eight years (reduced to four in Diagram 1 because less likely) or zero years if Trump opposed. Trump, for his part, would win zero years if he bowed out to support the Republicans regardless of whether they adopted his agenda, but he would have a chance of winning four more years if he ran at the head of a Trumpist Republican Party. The outcome is that the Republicans will adopt Trumpism while Trump himself could easily run for president again, given his sway over the party. Diagram 1Game Theory Says Republicans Will Court Trump The game works out the same way if we assign minimal positive payoffs (e.g. one point for a win, zero points for a loss), various other probability weighted payoffs (50% chance of winning), or negative payoffs for time spent out of power. In each variation a stable equilibrium emerges in which Republicans adopt Trump’s agenda and Trump runs again in 2024. Of course, if one changes the structure of the game or assigns subjective scores a different outcome can be produced. But the clearest and most logical games all produce the same outcome: Trump 2024.   This view fits with the consensus in online betting markets. According to the bookies, Trump has between a 20% and 35% chance of running as the Republican nominee in 2024. The same markets give Republicans a 44%-50% chance of winning the White House that year. At this early stage we would take the “over” on Trump and the “under” on a GOP victory given the above points about the cyclical and structural factors weighing against Republicans (Chart 9). Our quantitative US election model, which produced the correct result for all states except Arizona, Georgia and Michigan in 2020, gives the Republicans a 44% chance of winning in 2024 but that number will fall sharply as the economy improves. Chart 9Trump's Odds Of Winning The Republic Nomination In 2024 What might change this outcome, according to game theory? Republicans could offer a powerful sweetener to convince Trump to bow out of the race and support the party’s candidate, such as letting one of his children or his son-in-law Jared Kushner run in his place. Alternately Democrats could increase the danger to Trump of their winning again, perhaps by threatening to throw him in jail. Otherwise Trump may not be sufficiently convinced of his party’s loyalty, or frightened of Democratic rule, to bow out of the race.  We are never beholden to game theory and there are countless real-world ways in which the 2022-24 election outlook could change. But as things stand today, Republicans are highly likely to adopt Trump’s agenda. Trump may or may not do what is best for the party. He is unpredictable and at critical junctures over the past year he has not done so. He could start his own party just for the fun of it and in doing so break the party of Lincoln. This irrational factor creates an imbalance in the game that the Republican Party will be anxious to prevent, reinforcing its likely decision to adopt his agenda and let him seek the nomination freely. If the Republican Party does split, officially or unofficially, the Democrats will be guaranteed to expand their hold on Congress in 2022 and keep the White House in 2024. Note that Republicans would normally be heavily favored to retake the House of Representatives in 2022, though not the Senate, so such an outcome would be a political earthquake. A Democratic ascendancy could last for more than one election cycle: Republicans held the White House from 1980-92 and Democrats held it from 1932-52. Since we cannot reliably forecast Trump’s individual behavior, we cannot rule out a deep Republican rift. On the other hand, while the demographic trends point to Democratic rule out to 2036 and beyond, no Democratic ascendancy would last that long, given economic cycles, international threats, and the inevitable corruptions of single-party rule. But policy uncertainty would collapse over the 2022-24 cycle, pushing the timing of major policy change to 2026 or later. Investors would face a high probability that a sweeping Democratic agenda would be enacted, even assuming the persistence of checks and balances provided by moderate Democratic senators and the judicial branch. One clear implication is that financial markets may not evade the risk of negative regulatory and tax surprises over the long run even if they manage to do so in the FY2022 and FY2023 reconciliation bills – which we doubt. Bottom Line: Republicans cannot win the White House in 2024 without Trump’s popular base, even though they would prefer to have a fresh face capable of expanding that base. Trump cannot win without the Republican Party but he can unpredictably decide to do something other than win, i.e. endorse a Republican successor or start a third party. As a result a true Republican split cannot be ruled out. Meanwhile Republicans will have to court Trump rather than vice versa. Democratic policy is well ensconced for now, an underrated risk to the equity market. Investment Takeaways We know that Democrats are pushing forward on their legislative agenda and capable of passing one or two more budget reconciliation bills. We know that cyclical and especially structural factors will put Republicans at a disadvantage in the 2024 presidential race and possibly even the 2022 midterm. We also know that the Republican Party has a non-negligible risk of fracturing due to Trump’s personal following and unpredictability. These points suggest investors should not bet against the current policy setup. The macro backdrop favors cyclical sectors such as industrials, energy, materials, and financials. In our US Political Risk Matrix we have highlighted that the policy backdrop is especially beneficial to industrials (Appendix, Table A1). This is reinforced by ARPA and Biden’s forthcoming reconciliation bills on infrastructure and green projects, subsidies for domestic production, and simultaneous attempts to reduce trade tensions with US allies and partners – if not with China. Of course, industrials have rallied enthusiastically alongside a sharp rebound in core durable goods orders, a more gradual improvement in non-residential capital expenditures, and an environment in which capex intentions will respond to a general domestic and global upswing (Chart 10). A weak dollar, premised on a global recovery, excess liquidity, lower interest rates for longer, and large budget and trade deficits, also favors the industrial sector and reinforces the recovery in global trade and growth. Rising commodity prices are driven by supply constraints as much as global demand, as our Commodity & Energy Strategy has showed in depth, and help to restore pricing power to industrial firms  (Chart 11). Chart 10Industrials Outperform On Recovery And Stimulus Chart 11Commodity Boom Supports Industrials' Pricing Power Hence the good news is largely priced into industrials, which are tactically overvalued according to our BCA valuation indicator. The sector looks more or less expensive on all valuation metrics other than price-to-sales (Chart 12). Therefore the best value must be sought on a relative basis, where industrials are outperforming communications services and just beginning to outperform the superstars, tech and health care. From a policy point of view, health care is one of the biggest losers of the Biden administration, which aims to expand health insurance coverage and reduce drug prices. This may be for the benefit of society but it comes at the expense of old cash cows. Investors should stay guarded against a near-term correction in industrials due to looming tax hikes but strategically favor them over health care and tech (Chart 13), which are even more vulnerable to higher taxes. We will execute this trade by going long against health care over a strategic time frame. Chart 12Industrials Overvalued On Most Measures Chart 13Favor Industrials Over Health Care Industrials also have a favorable profile against consumer discretionary stocks but we maintain a positive outlook on the US consumer in an era of government largesse. Our Geopolitical Strategy has also highlighted that Great Power struggle will prevent the Biden administration from cutting defense spending – another boon for industrials. Instead it will have to increase spending for defense as well as supply chain resilience and research and development in the midst of a cold war with China.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table A1Political Risk Matrix Table A2Political Capital Index Table A3APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A3BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A3CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Table A4Biden’s Cabinet Position Appointments         Footnotes 1     Garrett Watson and Erica York, “The American Rescue Plan Act Greatly Expands Benefits Through The Tax Code In 2021,” Tax Foundation, March 12, 2021, taxfoundation.org.              2     Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, “American Rescue Plan Act Will Help Millions And Bolster The Economy,” March 15, 2021, cbpp.org. 3    See footnote 2 above. 4    Paul Kiernan and Catherine Lucey, “Yellen Says Biden Administration Undecided On Wealth Tax,” Wall Street Journal, wsj.com. 5    Kyle Pomerleau, “How Much Revenue Would A Wealth Tax Raise?” On The Margin, American Enterprise Institute, April 20, 2020, aei.org. 6    Jeff Stein, “Yellen pushes global minimum tax as White House eyes new spending plan,” Washington Post, March 15, 2021, washingtonpost.com. 7     Howard Schneider and Chris Kahn, “Majority of Americans favor wealth tax on very rich: Reuters/Ipsos poll,” Reuters, January 10, 2020, reuters.com; Matthew Sheffield, “New poll finds overwhelming support for an annual wealth tax,” The Hill, February 6, 2019, thehill.com. 8    A recession could have happened as a result of the cyclical slowdown from the trade war, which hurt the Midwestern swing states. The yield curve had inverted and the economy’s margin of safety was low. There would not have been any fiscal stimulus without the pandemic. 9    James Walker, “Lindsey Graham Warns Donald Trump Could ‘Destroy’ GOP After Combative CPAC Speech,” Newsweek, March 8, 2021, newsweek.com. 10   The Prisoner’s Dilemma involves two prisoners detained separately and pressured into confessing their crimes. If they both stay quiet, nothing can be proved and they only spend one year in jail. If they both confess, they are proven guilty and both spend five years in jail. If only one of them confesses while the other stays silent, the confessor goes scot free while the other spends 20 years in jail! The incentive is to confess. The equilibrium is for both to confess. The traditional game reveals the benefits of trust as well as the difficulty of maintaining it in isolation and doubt.   

Highlights The report from last week’s National People’s Congress (NPC) indicates a gradual pullback in policy support this year. Fiscal thrust will be neutral in 2021, whereas the rate of credit expansion will be slightly lower compared with last year. China’s economy should run on its own momentum in the first half, before slowing to a benign and managed rate. Nonetheless, the risk of policy overtightening is nontrivial and could threaten the cyclical outlook on China’s economy and corporate profits. The recent price correction in Chinese stocks has not yet run its course. Moreover, equity prices in both onshore and offshore markets are breaching their technical resistance. We are downgrading our tactical (0 to 3 months) and cyclical (6 to 12 months) positions on Chinese stocks to underweight relative to global benchmarks. Feature China’s budget and key economic initiatives unveiled at last week’s NPC indicate that policy tightening will be gradual this year. Overall, maintaining stability, both socially and economically, remains the focal point of Premier Li Keqiang’s work plan presented at the NPC’s annual plenary session in Beijing. However, investors have centered on the government’s plan to have a smaller policy push on growth in its budget compared with last year, fearing that economic and corporate profit rebound will disappoint. The Shanghai Composite Index dropped by 6% during the week when the NPC took place. In our view, the risks of a policy over-tightening in the next six months are high. As such, with this report we are downgrading our cyclical call on Chinese stocks to underweight within a global equity portfolio.      Reading Policy Tea Leaves China's growth trajectory since the middle of 2020 has given the government comfort in staying the course on policy normalization. The question is how much Chinese policymakers are willing to pull back support for the economy this year. Overall, the central government plans a smaller policy push in this year's budget and intends to let the economy run on its own steam. Further policy reflation is not in the cards unless a relapse in the economy threatens job creation. The NPC outlined a growth target “above 6%” for 2021 and did not set a numerical goal for the 14th Five-Year Plan from 2021 to 2025. However, de-emphasizing growth does not mean China has abandoned its GDP targets (Table 1). Indeed, in most years in the past two decades, China’s expansion in GDP has overshot objectives set at the NPC (Chart 1). Our baseline estimate is that real GDP will increase by 8% in 2021. Table 12021 Economic And Policy Targets Chart 1Actual Econ Growth Rates Have Overshot Targets In Most Years   We also maintain our view that the rate of credit expansion will be reduced by 2 to 3 percentage points this year to about 11% annually, which is in line with nominal GDP growth (Chart 2). On the fiscal front, the target for a budget deficit was cut by less than half percentage point compared with last year. When taking into account both the government’s budgetary and fund expenditures, the broad-measure fiscal deficit will probably be around 8% of GDP (about the same as last year), which implies there will not be any fresh fiscal thrust in 2021 (Chart 3) Chart 2Credit Growth Will Decelerate From Last Year Chart 3Neutral Fiscal Thrust The pullback in fiscal impulse is larger than in 2010, 2014, and 2017, following the previous three fiscal expansionary cycles. However, the government's eased budget deficit target this year does not mean government expenditure growth will slow. Government revenues climbed sharply by the end of 2020 and will continue to improve this year (Chart 4). Higher revenues will allow more government spending while keeping the fiscal deficit within its objectives. Chart 4Gov Revenue Is On The mend But Spending Has Yet To Pick Up Chart 5A Small Reduction In ##br##LG Bond Quota Furthermore, the quota for local government special purpose bonds was reduced by only 2% from last year.  It should help to support a steady growth in China’s infrastructure investment (Chart 5). The data from January and February total social financing shows a noticeable improvement in corporate demand for bank loans, as well as the composition of bank loans. Corporate demand for medium- and long-term loans remains on a strong uptrend, which reflects an ongoing recovery in corporate profits and supports an optimistic view on capital investment in the months ahead (Chart 6). Chart 6More Demand For Longer-Term Loans Reflects Better Investment Propensity Bottom Line: The growth and budget targets set at this year’s NPC suggest only a modest pullback in policy support. Downside Risks To The Economy Chart 7Econ Growth Usually Peaks Six To Nine Months After Credit Expansion Rate Slows Despite a relatively dovish tone from the NPC, investors should not be complacent about the risk of a policy-tightening overshoot, which could lead to disappointing economic and profit growth this year.  In most of the previous policy tightening cycles, China’s economic activities remained resilient in the first 6 to 9 months (Chart 7). One exception was 2014, when nominal GDP growth dropped sharply as soon as credit growth slowed. The reason is that Chinese authorities kept a very disciplined fiscal stance and aggressively tightened monetary policy, while allowing the RMB to soft peg to a rising USD. In other words, macroeconomic policies were too restrictive during the 2013/14 cycle. Although messages from the NPC do not suggest that Chinese authorities are on such an aggressive tightening path this year, investors should watch the following signs that could threaten China's cyclical economic health: Policymakers may keep monetary conditions too tight, by allowing the RMB to rise too fast while lifting bank lending and policy rates. Currently rates are maintained at historically low levels, much lower than in previous policy tightening cycles (Chart 8). However, the trade-weighted RMB has appreciated by 6% since its trough in July last year and has returned to its pre US-China trade war level (Chart 9).  The Chairman of China’s Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission recently signaled that bank lending rates would climb. Although we do not expect the rate to return to its 2014 or 2017 level, China is much more indebted than in previous cycles. Even a small bump in interest rates will place a burden on corporates and local governments’ debt servicing cost, dampening their propensity to invest (Chart 10).  Chart 8Aggressive Rate Hikes Are ##br##Unlikely This Year Chart 9Rising RMB Should Refrain Chinese Policymakers From Further Tightening Monetary Stance Chart 10Chinese Private Sector Has Become Much More Sensitive To Rising Interest Rates Chart 11Bank Lending To Property Sector Has Become Increasingly Restrictive   Policies could become too restrictive in key old-economy industries. Chinese authorities have reiterated their determination to contain price bubbles in the property sector. For the first time since 2017, bank lending to real estate developers grew at a pace far below overall bank loans and continued to trend downward in February this year (Chart 11). Moreover, household mortgage loans have reached their slowest expansion rate since 2013.  At 22% of China’s total bank lending, a sharp setback in the property sector’s loan growth will be a significant drag on total credit and the economy.   A worsened imbalance in supply and demand could lead to too much buildup in industrial inventory. Manufacturing inventories recovered sharply following last year’s massive stimulus and many sectors have surpassed their pre-pandemic levels (Chart 12). Strong external demand helped to boost China’s production and propensity to restock on raw materials. However, both China’s core CPI and producer prices for consumer goods remain in the doldrums, which indicates that domestic final demand has yet to fully recover (Chart 13).  As discussed in last week’s report, reopening the world economy in 2H21 should benefit the service sector more than tradeable goods. China’s inventory buildup, particularly in the upstream industries, could turn excessive when export growth slows and domestic demand fails to pick up the slack. Chart 12How Far Can Chinas Inventory Restocking Cycle Go? Chart 13Final Demand Remains ##br##Weak The service sector could take longer than expected to recuperate, even though China’s domestic COVID-19 situation is under control. China’s services sector has flourished in recent years and accounted for 54% of the nation’s pre-pandemic economic output. However, about half of the service sector output is tied to real estate and financial services. Increasing pressures from tighter policy regulations targeting both the property and online financial service sectors could dampen their support to the economy more than policymakers anticipated. At the same time, wage and household income growth could remain tame by China’s standards (Chart 14).   The NPC’s targeted 7% annual increase in spending for national research and development – far below the 12% annual average reached during the past five years – will not be enough to offset the slowdowns in real estate and financial services (Chart 15). Chart 14Household Income Growth Has Yet To Recover Chart 15Chinas Pace Of R&D Investment Has Slowed Along With Econ Growth Bottom Line: The downside risks to China’s cyclical growth trajectory are nontrivial. A tug-of-war between policy tightening and growth support will likely persist throughout this year. Investment Implications We recommend investors to underweight Chinese stocks within a global equity portfolio, in the next 0 to 9 months (Chart 16A and 16B). Chart 16AChinese Stocks Are At Their Technical Resistance Chart 16BChinese Stocks Are At Their Technical Resistance On January 13, we tactically downgraded Chinese stocks from overweight to neutral, anticipating that China’s equity markets are sensitive to rising expectations of policy tightening, due to higher corporate debt-servicing costs and lofty valuations.  Chinese stock prices peaked in mid-February, but in our view the correction has not yet run its course. In terms of the economy, we maintain our baseline view that China's overall policy environment this year will be more accommodative than in 2017/18. The growth momentum carried over from last year's stimulus should prevent China's economy and corporate profits from slumping by too much this year. However, as policy supports are scaled back, investors will increasingly focus on the intensity of China’s domestic policy tightening and the uncertainties surrounding it. Downside risks are nontrivial and will continue to weigh on investors' sentiment. For investors that are mainly exposed to the Chinese domestic equity market, the near-term setbacks in the A-share market are taking some air out of Chinese equities' frothy valuations, and may pave the way for a more optimistic cyclical outlook beyond the next 9 to 12 months. We recommend domestic investors to stay on the sidelines for now, but will start recommending sector rotations in the next few months when opportunities arise. Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights The Biden administration’s early actions suggest it will be hawkish on China as expected – and the giant Microsoft hack merely confirms the difficulty of reducing strategic tensions. US-China talks are set to resume and piecemeal engagement is possible. However, most of the areas of engagement touted in the media are overrated. Competition will prevail over cooperation. Cybersecurity stocks have corrected, creating an entry point for investors seeking exposure to a secular theme of Great Power conflict in the cyber realm and beyond. Global defense stocks are even more attractive than cyberstocks as a “back to work” trade in the geopolitical context. Continue to build up safe-haven hedges as geopolitical risk remains structurally elevated and underrated by financial markets. Feature The Biden administration passed its first major law, the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, on March 10. This gargantuan infusion of fiscal stimulus accounts for about 2% of global GDP and 9% of US GDP, a tailwind for risky assets when taken with a receding pandemic and normalizing global economy. The US dollar has perked up so far this year on the back of this extraordinary pump-priming and the rapid rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, which have lifted relative growth expectations with the rest of the world. Hence the dollar is rising for fundamentally positive reasons that will benefit global growth rather than choke it off. Our Foreign Exchange Strategist Chester Ntonifor argues that the dollar has 2-3% of additional upside before relapsing under the weight of rising global growth, inflation expectations, commodity prices, and relative equity flows into international markets. We agree with the dollar bear market thesis. But there are two geopolitical risks that investors must monitor: Cyclically, China’s combined monetary and fiscal stimulus is peaking, growth will decelerate, and the central government runs a non-negligible risk of overtightening policy. However, China’s National People’s Congress so far confirms our view that Beijing will not overtighten. Structurally, the US-China cold war is continuing apace under President Biden, as expected. The two sides are engaging in normal diplomacy as appropriate to a new US administration but the Microsoft Exchange hack (see below) underscores the trend of confrontation over cooperation. Chart 1Long JPY / Short KRW As Geopolitical Risk Is Underrated The second point reinforces the first since persistent US pressure on China will discourage it from excessive deleveraging at home. In a world where China is struggling to cap excessive leverage, the US is pursuing “extreme competition” with China (Biden’s words), and yet the US rule of law is intact, global investors will not abandon the US dollar in a general panic and loss of confidence. They will, however, continue to diversify away from the dollar on a cyclical basis given that global growth will accelerate while US policy will remain extremely accommodative. Reinforcing the point, geopolitical frictions are rising even outside the US-China conflict. A temporary drop in risk occurred in the New Year as a result of the rollout of vaccines, the defeat of President Trump, and the resolution of Brexit. But going forward, geopolitical risk will reaccelerate, with various implications that we highlight in this report. While we would not call an early end to the dollar bounce, we will keep in place our tactical long JPY-USD and long CHF-USD hedges. These currencies offer a good hedge in the context of a dollar bear market and structurally high geopolitical risk. If the dollar weakens anew on good news for global growth then the yen and franc will benefit on a relative basis as they are cheap, whereas if geopolitical risk explodes they will benefit as safe havens. We also recommend going long the Japanese yen relative to the South Korean won given the disparity in valuations highlighted by our Emerging Markets team, and the fact that geopolitical tensions center on the US and China (Chart 1). “Our Most Serious Competitor, China” Why are we so sure that geopolitical risk will remain structurally elevated and deliver negative surprises to ebullient equity markets? Our Geopolitical Power Index shows that China’s rise and Russia’s resurgence are disruptive to the US-led global order (Chart 2). If anything this process has accelerated over the COVID-19 crisis. China and Russia have authoritarian control over their societies and are implementing mercantilist and autarkic economic policies. They are carving out spheres of influence in their regions and using asymmetric warfare against the US and its allies. They have also created a de facto alliance in their shared interest in undermining the unity of the West. The US is meanwhile attempting to build an alliance of democracies against them, heightening their insecurities about America’s power and unpredictability (Chart 3). Chart 2Great Power Struggle Continues Massive fiscal and monetary stimulus is positive for economic growth and corporate earnings but it reduces the barriers to geopolitical conflict. Nations can pursue foreign and trade policies in their self-interest with less concern about the blowback from rivals if they are fueled up with artificially stimulated domestic demand. Chart 3Biden: ‘Our Most Serious Competitor, China’ Total trade between the US and China, at 3.2% and 4.7% of GDP respectively in 2018, was not enough to prevent trade war from erupting. Today the cost of trade frictions is even lower. The US has passed 25.4% of GDP in fiscal stimulus so far since January 1, 2020. China’s total fiscal-and-credit impulse has risen by 8.4% of GDP over the same time period. The Biden administration is co-opting Trump’s hawkish foreign and trade policy toward China, judging by its initial statements and actions (Appendix Table 1). Specifically, Biden has issued an executive order on securing domestic supply chains that demonstrates his commitment to the Trumpian goal of diversifying away from China and on-shoring production, or at least offshoring to allied nations. The Democratic Party is also unveiling bipartisan legislation in Congress that attempts to reduce reliance on China.1 These executive decrees are partly spurred on by the global shortage of semiconductors. China, the US, and the US’s allies are all attempting to build alternative semiconductor supply chains that bypass Taiwan, a critical bottleneck in the production of the most advanced computer chips. The Taiwanese say they will coordinate with “like-minded economies” to alleviate shortages, by which they mean fellow democracies. But this exposes Taiwan to greater geopolitical risk insofar as it excludes mainland China from supplies, either due to rationing or American export controls. The surge in semiconductor sales and share prices of semi companies (especially materials and equipment makers) will continue as countries will need a constant supply of ever more advanced chips to feed into the new innovation and technology race, the renewable energy race, and the buildout of 5G networks and beyond (Chart 4). It takes huge investments of time and capital to build alternative fabrication plants and supply lines yet governments are only beginning to put their muscle into it via stimulus packages and industrial policy. Chart 4Semiconductor Supply Shortage Supply shocks have geopolitical consequences. The oil shocks of the 1970s and early 1990s motivated the US to escalate its interventions and involvement in the Middle East. They also motivated the US to invest in stockpiles of critical goods and alternative sources of production so as to reduce dependency (Chart 5). Although semiconductors are not fungible like commodities, and the US has tremendous advantages in semiconductor design and production, nevertheless the bottleneck in Taiwan will take years to alleviate. Hence the US will become more active in supply security at home and more active in alliance-building in Asia Pacific to deter China from taking Taiwan by force or denying regional access to the US and its allies. China faces the same bottleneck, which threatens its technological advance, economic productivity, and ultimately its political stability and international defense. Chart 5ASupply Shortages Motivate Strategic Investments Chart 5BSupply Shortages Motivate Strategic Investments Semiconductor and semi equipment stock prices have gone vertical as highlighted above but one way to envision the surge in global growth and capex for chip makers is to compare these stocks relative to the shares of Big Tech companies in the communication service sector, i.e. those involved in social networking and entertainment, such as Twitter, Facebook, and Netflix. On a relative basis the semi stocks can outperform these interactive media firms which face a combination of negative shocks from rising interest rates, regulation, economic normalization, and ideologically fueled competition (Chart 6). Chart 6Long Chips Versus Big Tech What about the potential for the US and China to enhance cooperation in areas of shared interest? Generally the opportunity for re-engagement is overrated. The Biden administration says there will be engagement where possible. The first high-level talks will occur in Alaska on March 18-19 between Secretary of State Antony Blinken, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, Central Foreign Affairs Commissioner Yang Jiechi, and Foreign Minister Wang Yi. Presidents Biden and Xi Jinping may hold a bilateral summit sometime soon and the old strategic and economic dialogue may resume, enabling cabinet-level officials to explore a range of areas for cooperation independently of high-stakes strategic negotiations. However, a close look at the policy areas targeted for engagement reveals important limitations: Health: There is little room for concrete cooperation on the COVID-19 pandemic given that the pandemic is already receding, the Chinese have not satisfied American demands for data transparency, Chinese officials have fanned theories that the virus originated in the US, and the US is taking measures to move pharmaceutical and health equipment supply chains out of China. Trade: Trade is an area of potential cooperation given that the two countries will continue trading while their economies rebound. The Phase One trade deal remains in place. However, China only made structural concessions on agriculture in this deal so any additional structural changes will have to be the subject of extensive negotiations. Secretary of Treasury Janet Yellen says the US will use the “full array of tools” to ensure compliance and will punish China for abuses of the global trade system. Cybersecurity: On cybersecurity, China greeted the Biden administration by hacking the Microsoft Exchange email system, an even larger event than Russia’s SolarWinds hack last year. Both hacks highlight how cyberspace is a major arena of modern Great Power struggle, making it unlikely that there will be effective cooperation. The hack suggests Beijing remains more concerned about accessing technology while it can than reducing tensions. The Americans will make demands of China at the Alaska meetings. Environment: As for the environment, the US is a net oil exporter while China imports 73% of its oil, 42% of its natural gas and 7.8% of its coal consumption, with 40% and 10% of its oil and gas coming from the Middle East. The US wants to be at the cutting edge of renewable energy technology but it has nowhere near the impetus of China (or Europe), which are diversifying away from fossil fuels for the sake of national security. Moreover China will want its own companies, not American, to meet its renewable needs. This is true even if there is success in reducing barriers for green trade, since the whole point of diversifying from Middle Eastern oil supplies is strategic self-sufficiency. The Americans would have to accept less energy self-sufficiency and greater renewable dependence on China. Nuclear Proliferation: Cooperation can occur here as the Biden administration will seek to return to a deal with the Iranians restraining their nuclear ambitions while maintaining a diplomatic limiting North Korea’s nuclear weapons stockpile and ballistic missile development. China and Russia will accept the US rejoining the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal but they will require significant concessions if they are to join the US in forcing anything more substantial on the Iranians. China may enforce sanctions on North Korea but then it will expect concessions on trade and technology that the Biden administration will not want to give merely for the sake of North Korea. Bottom Line: The Biden administration’s China strategy is taking shape and it is hawkish as expected. It is not ultra-hawkish, however, as the key characteristic is that it is a defensive posture in the wake of the perceived failures of Trump’s strategy of “attack, attack, attack.” This means largely maintaining the leverage that Trump built for the US while shifting the focus to actions that the US can take to improve its domestic production, supply chain resilience, and coordination with allied producers. Punitive measures are an option, however, and if relations deteriorate over time, as expected, they will be increasingly relied on. Buy The Dip In Cybersecurity Stocks A linchpin of the above analysis is the Microsoft Exchange hack, which some have called the largest hack in US history, since it confirms the view that the Biden administration will not be able to de-escalate strategic tensions with China much. China has been particularly frantic to acquire technology through hacking and cyber-espionage over the past decade as it attempts to achieve a Great Leap Forward in productivity in light of slowing potential growth that threatens single-party rule over the long run. The breakdown in ties between Presidents Barack Obama and Xi Jinping occurred not only because of Xi’s perceived violation of a personal pledge not to militarize the South China Sea but also because of the failure of a cybersecurity cooperation deal between the two. When the Trump administration arrived on the scene it sought to increase pressure on China and cybersecurity was immediately identified as an area where pushback was long overdue. Cyber conflict is highly likely to persist, not only with Russia but also with China. Cyber operations are a way for states to engage in Great Power struggle while still managing the level of tensions and avoiding a military conflict in the real world. The cyber realm is a realm of anarchy in which states are insecure about their capabilities and are constantly testing opponents’ defenses and their own offensive capabilities. They can also act to undermine each other with plausible deniability in the cyber realm, since multiple state and quasi-state actors and a vast criminal underworld make it difficult to identify culprits with confidence. Revisionist states like China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran have an advantage in asymmetric warfare, including cyber, since it enables them to undermine the US and West without putting their weaker conventional forces in jeopardy. Cybersecurity stocks have corrected but the general up-trend is well established and fully justified (Chart 7). It is not clear, however, that investors should favor cybersecurity stocks over the general NASDAQ index (Chart 8). The trend has been sideways in recent years and is trying to form a bottom. Cybersecurity stocks are volatile, as can be seen compared to tech stocks as a whole, and in both cases the general trend is for rising volatility as the macro backdrop shifts in favor of higher interest rates and inflation expectations (Chart 9). Chart 7Cyber Security Stocks Corrected Chart 8Major Hacks Failed To Boost Cyber Vs NASDAQ Chart 9Volatility Of Cyber & Tech Stocks Rising Great Power struggle will not remain limited to the cyber realm. There is a fundamental problem of military insecurity plaguing the world’s major powers. Furthermore the global economic upturn and new energy and industrial innovation race will drive up commodity prices, which will in turn reactivate territorial and maritime disputes. Turf battles will re-escalate in the South and East China Seas, the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean basin, the Mediterranean, and even the Baltic Sea and Arctic. One way to play this shift is as a geopolitical “back to work” trade – long defense stocks relative to cybersecurity stocks (Chart 10). The global defense sector saw a run-up in demand, capital expenditures, and profits late in the last business cycle. That all came crashing down with the pandemic, which supercharged cybersecurity as a necessary corollary to the swarm of online activity as households hunkered down to avoid the virus and obey government social restrictions. Cybersecurity stocks have higher EV/EBITDA ratios and lower profit margins and return on equity compared to defense stocks or the broad market. Chart 10Long Defense / Short Cyber Security: 'Back To Work' For Geopolitics The trade does not mean cybersecurity stocks will fall in absolute terms – we maintain our bullish case for cybersecurity stocks – but merely that defense stocks will make relative gains as economic normalization continues in the context of Great Power struggle. Bottom Line: Structurally elevated geopolitical risks will continue to drive demand for cybersecurity in absolute terms. However, we would favor global defense stocks on a relative basis. The US Is Not As War-Weary As People Think America is consumed with domestic divisions and distractions. Since 2008 Washington has repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to confront foreign rivals over small territorial conquests. This risk aversion has created power vacuums, inviting ambitious regional powers like China, Russia, Iran, and Turkey to act assertively in their immediate neighborhoods. However, the US is not embracing isolationism. Public opinion polling shows Americans are still committed to an active role in global affairs (Chart 11). The 2020 election confirms that verdict. Nor are Americans demanding big cuts in defense spending. Only 31% of Americans think defense spending is “too much” and only 12% think the national defense is stronger than it needs to be (Chart 12). Chart 11No Isolationism Here True, the Democratic Party is much more inclined to cut defense spending than the Republicans. About 43% of Democrats demand cuts, while 32% are complacent about the current level of spending (compared to 8% and 44% for Republicans). But it is primarily the progressive wing of the party that seeks outright cuts and the progressives are not the ones who took power. Chart 12Americans Against ‘Forever Wars’ But Not Truly Dovish Biden and his cabinet represent the Washington establishment, including the military-industrial complex. Even if Vice President Kamala Harris should become president she would, if anything, need to prove her hawkish credentials. Defense spending cuts might be projected nominally in Biden’s presidential budgets but they will not muster majorities in the two narrowly divided chambers of Congress. Biden has co-opted Trump’s (and Obama’s) message of strategic withdrawal and military drawdown. He is targeting a date of withdrawal from Afghanistan on May 1, notwithstanding the leverage that a military presence there could yield in its priority negotiations with Iran. Yet he is not jeopardizing the American troop presence in Germany and South Korea, much more geopolitically consequential spheres of action in a long competition with Russia and China. While it is true (and widely known) that Americans have turned against “forever wars,” this really means Middle Eastern quagmires like Iraq and Afghanistan and does not mean that the American public or political establishment have truly become anti-war “doves.” The US public recognizes the need to counter China and Russia and Congress will continue appropriating funds for defense as well as for industrial policy. The Biden administration will increase awareness about the risks of a lack of deterrence and alliance-building. This is especially apparent given the military buildup in China. The annual legislative session has revealed an important increase in military focus in Beijing in the context of the US rivalry. Previously, in the thirteenth five-year plan and the nineteenth National Party Congress, the People’s Liberation Army aimed to achieve “informatization and mechanization” reforms by 2020 and total modernization by 2035. However, at the fifth plenum of the central committee in October, the central government introduced a new military goal for the PLA’s 100th anniversary in 2027 – a “military centennial goal” to match with the 2021 centennial of the Communist Party and the 2049 centennial goal of the founding of the People’s Republic. While details about this new military centenary are lacking, the obvious implication is that the Communist Party and PLA are continuing to shift the focus to “fighting and winning wars,” particularly in the context of the need to deter the United States. The official defense budget is supposed to grow 6.8% in 2021, only slightly higher than the 6.6% goal in 2020, but observers have long known that China’s military budget could be as much as twice as high as official statistics indicate. The point is that defense spending is going up, as one would expect, in the context of persistent US-China tensions. Bottom Line: Just as US-China cooperation will be hindered by mutual efforts to reduce supply chain dependency and support domestic demand, so too it will be hindered by mutual efforts to increase defense readiness and capability in the event of military conflict. The beneficiary of continued high levels of US defense spending and Chinese spending increases – in the context of a more general global arms buildup – will be global arms makers. Investment Takeaways Geopolitical risk remains structurally elevated despite the temporary drop in tensions in late 2020 and early 2021. The China-backed Microsoft Exchange hack reinforces the Biden administration’s initial foreign policy comments and actions suggesting that US policy will remain hawkish on China. While Biden will adopt a more defensive rather than offensive strategy relative to Trump, there is no chance that he will return to the status quo ante. The Obama administration itself grew more hawkish on China in 2015-16 in the face of cyber threats and strategic tensions in the South China Sea. Cybersecurity stocks will continue to benefit from secular demand in an era of Great Power competition where nations use cyberattacks as a form of asymmetric warfare and a means of minimizing the risks of conflict. The recent correction in cybersecurity stocks creates a good entry point. We closed our earlier trade in January for a gain of 31% but have remained thematically bullish and recommend going long in absolute terms. We would favor defense over cybersecurity stocks as a geopolitical version of the “back to work” trade in which conventional economic activity revives, including geopolitical competition for territory, resources, and strategic security. Defense stocks are undervalued and relative share prices are unlikely to fall to 2010-era lows given the structural increase in geopolitical risk (Chart 13). Chart 13Global Defense Stocks Oversold Chart 14Global Defense Stocks Profitable, Less Indebted Defense stocks have seen profit margins hold up and are not too heavily burdened by debt relative to the broad market (Chart 14). Defense stocks have a higher return on equity than the average for non-financial corporations and cash flow will improve as a new capex cycle begins in which nations seek to improve their security and gain access to territory and resources (Chart 15). Chart 15Defense Stocks: High RoE, Capex Will Revive Chart 16Discount On Global Defense Stocks Valuation metrics show that global defense stocks are trading at a discount (Chart 16).     Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table 1 Appendix Table 1Biden Administration's First 100 Days: Key Statements And Actions On China Footnotes 1 See Federal Register, "America’s Supply Chains", Mar. 1, 2021, federalregister.gov and Richard Cowan and Alexandra Alper, "Top U.S. Senate Democrat directs lawmakers to craft bill to counter China", Feb. 23, 2021, reuters.com.

Highlights The US has largely passed a “stress test” of its political system. Rule of law is intact. The US dollar and treasuries may fall further due to cyclical and macro developments but not due to a structural loss of confidence in US governance. The judicial system will become the key check on the Biden administration as it shifts from short-term economic relief to its longer-term agenda, especially on executive orders. The court becomes even more important as a check if the Democrats muster the votes to remove the filibuster. This is possible but not imminent. Packing the court is much harder. Major court cases only sometimes have a major impact on the stock market but key sectors can be given certainty through court verdicts after being disrupted by policy. The US dollar is bouncing on the basis of economic recovery and political stability which poses a near-term risk to cyclical sectors. Feature US government bonds continued to sell off over the past week as the economic recovery gained steam and investors rotated into cyclical equities and commodities. The US Senate passed the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan – a massive and likely excessive infusion of fiscal relief – sending it to the House where it will be ratified shortly and passed over to President Joe Biden for signing. Across America shops and restaurants are opening up as immunization to COVID-19 advances and hospitalizations collapse. Meanwhile the Supreme Court announced its first set of rulings under the Biden administration: it dismissed former President Trump’s last challenge to the 2020 election and ruled on other issues such as free speech. The country has tentatively passed a political “stress test.” The rule of law remains intact. On the surface these two trends stand in opposition. US treasuries have been attractive to a savings-rich world not just because of the size of the US economy but also because of the country’s 245-year tradition of good governance – the balance of freedom and stability in its government and financial markets. The share of foreign holdings of US treasuries is declining but the reason is that the Federal Reserve is increasing its share (Chart 1). Foreigners are not liquidating their holdings just yet, although it is a risk given the US’s combination of extremely easy monetary and fiscal policy and populist politics. Chart 1Foreign Holdings Of US Treasuries In this report we focus on governance in the wake of the Trump administration and COVID-19 pandemic. Is US governance eroding? If so, how will it impact the markets? How will the courts interact with the Biden administration? Should investors care about the rule of law? With a new business cycle beginning, any assurance of a basic level of US governance allows risk appetite to recover and enables investors to pursue higher-yielding cyclical assets with less inhibition. But it also suggests that US assets will remain safe havens. How Rule Of Law Matters To Investors Rule of law and the independence of the judiciary are critical aspects of good governance that make a market attractive to foreign investors and secure for domestic investors. Nowhere is this clearer than in the breakdown of global reserve currencies. The United States and its developed market allies hold pride of place (Chart 2). Nevertheless the US has lost some of its reserve status to other currencies over two decades of partisanship and repeated crises, from 9/11 through Trump’s trade war. Chart 2Rule Of Law: Bedrock For Reserve Currencies Government bond yields exhibit some degree of correlation, inversely, with rule of law: better governance implies lower yields and vice versa. As the global savings glut grew over the past few decades, investors sought to preserve capital in securities perceived to be the safest. This is apparent whether judging by a simple comparison of developed and emerging market bond yields or by the World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators.1 The relationship between governance and bond yields is strongest with emerging markets but it loosely holds among developed markets like the US, as shown in Chart 3. Chart 3Bond Yields Lower Where Laws Rule It is the level of governance rather than any change matters, since bond yields have fallen for all developed markets regardless of changes in governance over the past decade. However, governments that take negative steps that harm governance attract fewer foreign purchases of their debt than those that improve governance (Chart 4). This is true of developed and emerging economies. The implication is that demand for US treasuries would have been even greater over the past decade if the US political system had remained stable like Canada’s. Chart 4Improved Rule Of Law Attracts Bond Investors Differences in developed economy governance only slightly (if at all) correlate with portfolio or direct investment flows (Charts 5 and 6). This is not surprising as governance does not translate into short-term corporate earnings growth and foreign countries invest directly in developed markets to access technology and consumer markets. By contrast, in emerging markets, better governance goes along with stronger equity demand and foreign direct investment. Chart 5Rule Of Law A Boon For Equity Flows? Chart 6Eroding Rule Of Law Discourages Direct Investment Still the global phenomenon suggests that an erosion of rule of law can shake up one’s faith in a government’s ability or willingness to make debt payments and its operating environment for private companies. Domestically focused investors have to be concerned about rule of law since its collapse would undermine political stability as well as property rights, the surety of contracts, and the redress of grievances. US Rule Of Law Post-Trump And Post-COVID The US has the world’s longest continuously running constitution and one of the highest standards of living. Other countries with similarly high standards of living have similar constitutions or even adopted theirs from the United States. At the same time US governance has deteriorated in recent years, raising the question of whether bond investors or private entrepreneurs face greater governance risk. The drop in rule of law is apparent in the World Bank’s index (Chart 7A). The turmoil of the 2020 election cycle proves beyond doubt that the US suffers from some serious governance problems. At the same time the independence of the US judiciary is rising in the ranks (Chart 7B). Looking ahead, this trend will likely continue as the judicial system managed to get through the disruptive Trump presidency and the 2020 pandemic and election with minimal damage to its independence. Chart 7AUS Rule Of Law Erosion Will Pause Chart 7BUS Judicial Independence Has Improved This is a remarkable feat as the underlying problem in the US system – political polarization – threatens to entangle the judiciary as much as any other institution. Today, with polarization subsiding yet still at a historically high level, the court’s integrity and credibility are critical to the overall maintenance of the rule of law (Chart 8). Chart 8US Polarization Set To Fall Chart 9Trust In Supreme Court Fairly SteadyPolarization creates gridlock in Congress, which forces other branches of government to fill the vacuum and deliver solutions, thus becoming more controversial. This process has ensnared the high court from time to time as well as the central bank and other institutions.2 Over the past ten years the courts have struggled to minimize the damage from polarization. Confidence in the high court has fallen, but not catastrophically, and most voters feel about the same as ever toward the court (Chart 9). Meanwhile disapproval of Congress is stuck around 80%. The Trump era featured a range of claims about the rule of law in America that can now be assessed with some distance. The Democratic Party was not able to remove President Trump through extra-electoral means, while President Trump was not able to ride roughshod over the courts via executive order. Several of Trump’s initiatives were upheld, such as his immigration ban, while others were shot down, such as his attempt to deport the so-called “Dreamers” or add a question about citizenship on the US census. The 2020 election irregularities were not enough to sway the outcome of the electoral vote while the insurrection at the Capitol stood no chance of overthrowing the system. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts refrained from presiding over Trump’s second impeachment – differentiating it from the impeachment of a sitting president – without intervening to tell the Senate whether it could impeach a previous president. Going forward, however, the courts will act as a check on the Biden administration and therefore new controversies will arise. One of the Trump administration’s lasting legacies was to appoint three justices to the high court, creating a six-to-three conservative ideological leaning on the court. Since the Democrats won control of both the White House and Congress, the Supreme Court becomes a critical check on the administration and will thus attract opposition (Chart 10). Speculation about a conservative ideological takeover of the court has proved overrated, based on the court’s neutrality amid the election. Antagonism will inevitably increase going forward as Biden moves away from COVID relief and economic welfare to his larger legislative agenda. Yet the second reconciliation bill, which features infrastructure and green energy investments, would have to include major surprises to create anything as controversial as the dispute over the individual mandate, which imposed a tax on citizens who did not purchase health insurance.3 In other words, a major clash over legislation is more likely only when the Senate Democratic majority removes the filibuster, the rule that effectively requires 60 votes in the Senate to pass regular legislation. This can happen but it does not appear imminent. Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia opposes removing it, keeping the Democrats at least one vote shy of repealing it, though he has recently shown some flexibility by suggesting that the Senate return to the good old days when senators had to deliver a filibuster in person (and therefore the procedural hurdle was more burdensome to maintain). Chart 10Balance Of Power In The Three Branches Thus the main arena of friction between the Biden administration and the judiciary will boil down to executive action, as with the Trump administration. Not all of this friction will be partisan but certainly ideological leanings will matter in the most important cases. While the number of Trump’s judicial appointments is often exaggerated – President Obama appointed more (Chart 11) – it is still the case that conservatives possess an improved ideological advantage due to the past few decades of appointments (Chart 12). So far Biden has faced pushback on his 100-day deportation moratorium. Chart 11Trump's Judicial Impact Overstated Chart 12Federal Courts A Bulwark For Conservatives Table 1 highlights the most investment-relevant Supreme Court cases coming due in the current session. The court will determine, among other things, whether Facebook can be treated similar to a telephone company in some respects; whether the federal government or states oversee cases brought against oil and natural and gas companies over climate change; and to what extent tech company acquisitions include patents and copyrights. The use of executive authority to reallocate funds that Congress has appropriated for different reasons, and state exemptions for Medicaid requirements, are also on the docket. Table 1Major Cases Pending At Supreme Court In addition we would identify several policy areas that are likely to become relevant to investors due to contemporary political and geopolitical concerns combined with historical precedent: National Security: The Trump administration relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s historic deference to presidents on issues involving national security and foreign policy. This tendency will likely continue, giving President Biden a freer hand in cases where he claims a national security justification, particularly in dealing with export controls vis-à-vis China. The hack into Microsoft’s Exchange email system, allegedly committed by Chinese state-backed hackers, highlights our Geopolitical Strategy view that the Biden administration will not reduce the US-China power struggle. Industrial Policy: The Supreme Court famously rebuked President Harry Truman for trying to seize control of private steel production during the Korean war (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer, 1952). Similar cases could emerge in an era in which the president is attempting to assert US government control over critical supply chains in health, tech, and defense. Immigration: The Supreme Court rebuked the Trump administration on the question of the “Dreamers,” undocumented immigrants brought to the US as children, whom the Obama administration refused to deport under an initiative called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The court said the Trump administration failed to provide adequate procedural justification for revoking the DACA program. Now the Biden administration’s executive orders loosening immigration and border controls face challenges from lower courts that could ascend the ladder. Also, following from the logic of Trump’s defeat on this issue, it is possible that the Supreme Court could overturn some of Biden’s revocations of Trump’s orders if not adequately justified. Environment: The Biden administration has pledged to phase out the fossil fuel industry over time, yet legislative majorities will be lacking and much of the activity occurs on private land free from direct federal control. The result is that Biden administration will revive regulatory expansions from the Obama era to attempt to raise the cost of carbon emissions. These actions will likely provoke court rulings. Labor: One of the Clinton presidency’s biggest legal controversies, outside the impeachment, centered on executive orders aimed at stopping businesses from hiring replacements for workers who went on strike. The Biden administration explicitly aims to have a muscular policy on labor regulation and to promote union interests and these could run afoul of the courts. Big Tech and free speech: The court has just ruled with an eight-to-one majority in favor of a free speech case on campus. The only reason Chief Justice Roberts dissented was because the case was moot. Future cases may not be moot in an era in which first amendment quarrels are heating up as Big Business, Big Tech, and mainstream media ramp up censorship of disfavored speech. The Supreme Court is likely to enforce first amendment protections robustly which could result in breaking open the digital arena for alternative platforms and services with looser standards. Bottom Line: With Democratic control over the White House and Congress, the judicial branch will become a critical source of limitations on the Biden administration’s policies. While controversial cases could possibly arise from any ambitious proposals in Biden’s second reconciliation bill, the main source of friction will center on executive orders. This is the case at least until the filibuster is removed, which is possible down the road but not imminent. Could Democrats Pack The Court? Finally there is an ongoing concern over the risk of “court packing,” i.e. partisan enlargement of the Supreme Court, under the Biden administration. During the 2020 campaign several leading Democratic Party figures suggested the party could increase the size of the high court so as to reduce the six-to-three conservative leaning. The threat was partly intended to motivate the progressive voting base and deter the Republicans from going forward with the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett ahead of the election. However, the possibility of court packing remains as long as polarization is extreme and the ruling party has at least 51 votes needed to repeal the filibuster in the Senate. President Biden said he was “not a fan” of court packing but one of his first acts in office was to appoint a commission of experts to study the idea of Supreme Court reform. This can be interpreted as a way of sidelining the question or as a preliminary to packing the court should it become possible later. Packing the court is politically explosive so while Democrats could remove the filibuster if and when they get the votes, they are less likely to succeed at packing the vote due to public opinion (though it cannot be ruled out over the long run). The bar to altering the filibuster is much lower than that to changing the composition of the court. History suggests that it would be a market-relevant episode if court packing were attempted. Franklin Delano Roosevelt attempted to pack the court after it ruled elements of the New Deal unconstitutional, notably a wage hike mandated by the National Industrial Recovery Act (Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 1935). Roosevelt narrowly fell short of expanding the court after the Senate majority leader, a key ally, passed away unexpectedly. The S&P rallied when higher wages were struck down but there are many reasons for these developments – industrial production was rallying at the time, and when industrial production recovered later, and court packing was ruled out, the market remained low. At minimum one cannot say the case was inconsequential to the market (Chart 13). Chart 13FDR Tried To Stack The Courts In a more recent example of a Supreme Court ruling having a substantial market impact, the court ruled with a narrow five-to-four vote to uphold the legality of most of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, the signature legislative effort of Obama’s presidency (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 2012). The market reaction at that time was positive, even in the health care sector, as the result removed uncertainty. Only later, in 2015, when the major provisions of the law took effect, did the sector start to feel the negative effects (Chart 14). It is reasonable to expect that any showdown over a major piece of legislation and the courts would have a similar impact today: the market would struggle with uncertainty but rally on the verdict. Chart 14Supreme Court Ruling On Obamacare Had Market Impact Otherwise the Supreme Court’s ideological balance will likely be in place for a while. Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Clinton, is 82 years old while Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President Bush, is 72 years old. The other justices are all younger than 66, meaning that conservatives would retain a five-to-four advantage even if Biden had the chance to replace both Breyer and Thomas. Bottom Line: As things stand, court packing is out of reach, more so than removing the filibuster, and therefore the current Supreme Court balance will remain an effective check on the Biden administration. Investment Takeaways The judicial system will become the major check on the Biden administration if its second reconciliation bill contains surprisingly ambitious and controversial provisions or if the Democrats ever get the votes to remove the filibuster. Otherwise the court is primarily a check on Biden’s executive orders. Climate policy is a likely area of friction given that the Biden administration will attempt to pioneer new areas of federal involvement in raising the cost of private industry when it comes to carbon emissions. At the same time the court could insist that the digital arena is a common forum where different voices must be heard, which could open the way to competitors to the tech giants. While the energy sector faces policy risks, it is favored by cyclical economic factors and will also benefit from checks and balances. Whereas the tech sector is not cyclically favored and could face some pushback from courts regarding competition (Chart 15). US rule of law is mostly intact. The selloff in the dollar and treasuries is driven by cyclical factors, not a structural loss of confidence in the rule of law or the American legal and political system. The Trump saga did not in itself trigger a collapse of the US dollar or government bonds – what did that was the Federal Reserve’s shift back to ultra-easy policy and the blowout fiscal spending stemming from the COVID-19 crisis. The US dollar is bouncing on the strong outlook for the economy as well as political stabilization. Chart 16 highlights that this is a near-term risk to cyclical sectors. Assuming the dollar resumes its cyclical weakening path it will power the next leg of outperformance for these sectors. Chart 15Courts Could Impact Energy, Tech Chart 16Dollar Bounce A Near-Term Risk To Cyclical Outperformance   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com     Appendix Table A1Political Risk Matrix Table A2Political Capital Index Table A3APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A3BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A3CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Table A4Biden’s Cabinet Position Appointments   Footnotes 1     The World Bank uses expert judgment and opinion polls to evaluate rule of law, defined as quality of contract enforcement, property rights, and functioning of the law and justice systems. Biases stem from the policy elite and non-governmental organizations of the western world. For instance, Hong Kong’s high rankings have all too predictably been undercut by Communist China’s power grab there.              2     Polarization escalated after Roe v. Wade and similar rulings that legalized abortion (1973), the Bush v. Gore ruling that decided the 2000 election, the NFIB v. Sebelius ruling that approved the Affordable Care Act (2012), and the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling that legalized gay marriage (2015).   3    The individual mandate is not expected to get shot down by the court this year, though it is conceivable. Even so, Biden’s second reconciliation bill would give the Democrats the chance to respond to any court ruling on health care reform. Biden’s health initiatives of automatic enrollment and government-provided insurance will be challenged but do not seem as controversial as the individual mandate in principle.       

Special Report

Highlights The Senate will pass the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan largely as it stands. Markets will now turn to Biden’s second major reconciliation bill for FY2022 – the one with tax hikes. Democrats will go forward with tax hikes on corporations and the wealthy. But they will spend more than they tax for fear of squandering their term in power. Tax hikes threaten sectors like tech that already face headwinds from rising bond yields. The health sector is also at risk. Stick with cyclicals and value plays.  Feature Markets have seesawed as volatility spikes in the face of rapidly rising bond yields. Value stocks such as financials stand to benefit relative to growth stocks as the market comes to grips with the first hint of normal inflation expectations since 2019 (Chart 1). Underlying the trend is a sea change in US fiscal policy. Chart 1Value Stocks To Reignite On Rising Bond Yields The House of Representatives passed the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan so it will now go to the Senate for revision, back to the House for approval, and then to President Biden’s desk by around March 14. Investors will now turn to Biden’s second major legislative act prior to the 2022 midterm election cycle: the fiscal year 2022 budget reconciliation process. Before we outline the time frame and tax hikes that that process will entail, we should take a moment to review the current bill. Senate Will Pass American Rescue Plan Largely As Is The House version of the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan contains $1,400 household rebates, direct checks via the Internal Revenue Service, for people who make less than $75,000 per year (double those numbers for married couples). Unemployment benefits are supposed to rise from $300 to $400 per week for 73 weeks instead of 50 weeks, with an expiration on August 29 instead of March 14. Those with children or other dependents will receive additional payments. The bill also includes $75 billion for fighting COVID-19, $350 billion for state and local governments, $170 billion for schools and universities, $225 billion for small business, $38 billion for the airline industry and various other tax benefits for families and workers.1 Those who have been let go from their jobs can more easily retain their previous health insurance. Chart 2 provides a visual comparison of the American Rescue Plan with the $900 billion in fiscal relief passed at the end of 2020 prior to House passage and Senate revision. Already the Senate version excludes a hike to the minimum wage, from $7.25 to $15 per hour, as the Senate parliamentarian ruled that does not qualify under the “Byrd rule” because it does not directly impact spending or taxation.2 Vice President Kamala Harris, who is also president of the Senate, could reverse this decision but otherwise the minimum wage will have to be considered in a separate bill later. Chart 2American Rescue Plan The Senate could pare back other aspects of the bill – such as state and local aid, given that local government revenues are in much better shape than expected. Chart 2 highlights that the state and local aid component is much larger this time around. Still, the purpose of Senate negotiations is to secure the votes of moderate Democrats, as winning over 10 Republicans is no longer feasible, and moderate senators are not going to sink the first legislative proposal of a president of their own party. The Senate is virtually guaranteed to pass the bill, likely by March 14 when current unemployment benefits expire. The bill’s economic impact will be to speed the vaccination process and provide another infusion of cash into households and various public institutions. Families are just starting to receive the last round of benefits passed in December and they had not exhausted the 14% year-on-year increase in real income that they saw as a result of last year’s CARES Act when the Coronavirus Response and Relief Act sent incomes soaring yet again (Chart 3). Economic growth will be supercharged as economic activity normalizes, consumer confidence recovers, and the service sector revives. Chart 3Washington Lavishes Households With Dole Biden’s Second Bill Will Pass This Fall The second budget reconciliation procedure, for fiscal year 2022, will begin in mid-April. The formal deadline to adopt a budget resolution is April 15 but the average delay would put the resolution in June.3 The maximum delay would see the resolution passed in October but that is unlikely in today’s context (Diagram 1). After the resolution passes, the House and Senate must reconcile their budgets, pass the same bill, and send it to the president for his signature.  Diagram 1Timeline Of Biden Administration’s Second Budget Reconciliation, FY2022 The average time between Congress adopting a budget resolution and the president signing a reconciliation bill into law is 150 days, putting completion on September 15, 2021. This period could easily extend to November. In the worst-case, judging by history, Democrats could fail to conclude the process until October 2022 – but that is highly unlikely. A delay till December of this year would be a fumble, but a more realistic fumble, say if moderate Democrats must be won over due to controversial provisions. The second reconciliation bill is supposed to consist of investments over a ten-year period rather than emergency relief for the lingering pandemic and economic recovery. Biden’s proposed $2-$3 trillion green infrastructure program is the highlight but we also expect Democrats to prioritize their health care plan, which is estimated to cost $1.7-$1.9 trillion. Hence $4 trillion is a reasonable expectation for new spending but in this case the headline spending figure will be at least partially defrayed by tax hikes, unlike the first reconciliation bill (Charts 4A & 4B). If Biden raises taxes by half as much as he intends, the full price tag would be $2 trillion. Chart 4ABiden Will Spend, Then Tax Chart 4BBiden Will Spend, Then Tax The precise contours of this bill will remain unknown until Biden presents an outline in April and the House of Representatives drafts a resolution. We test six different scenarios involving different assumptions about Biden’s tax-and-spend proposals, highlighted in Table 1. Generally, we assume that Democrats will much more readily compromise tax hikes rather than spending, given that they want to err on the side of firing up the economic recovery. They are just as capable as Republicans were in 2017 of manipulating the numbers when it comes to the reconciliation requirement that the budget deficit not increase beyond a ten-year time period. Table 1Scenarios For Biden’s Second Reconciliation Bill The results are broken down in terms of revenue, expenditure, and net interest costs in Chart 5. The baseline is Biden’s campaign proposal. Scenario 1 assumes that Biden gets all of the spending he wants but is forced to compromise on tax hikes. Scenario 2 is more realistic as it assumes that Biden gets half of what he wants on both spending and taxes. Scenarios 3-6 examine what would happen if Biden were forced to strike out either his green infrastructure plan or his health and social security plan, depending on different revenue assumptions. In Scenarios 5 and 6 we grant Biden only half of his proposed taxes on corporations and wealthy folks, leaving other tax proposals to the side – otherwise the result would be a net tightening of fiscal conditions, which is neither intended nor politically possible. Chart 5Scenarios For Biden’s Second Reconciliation Bill The impact on the budget deficit in each scenario is shown in Chart 6. The greatest economic stimulus would occur under Scenario 1, which would soon become a problem for investors as it would hasten inflation and rising interest rates. Chart 6Deficit Scenarios For Biden’s Second Reconciliation Bill Scenario 2 is the most realistic policy scenario while being the least inflationary. By contrast, Scenario 4 is realistic but hardly less inflationary than the baseline case. In each of these scenarios it is important to bear in mind that the new government programs would be administered over a ten-year period and therefore the increase to the budget deficit would be more gradual than is the case of the American Rescue Plan, which clearly aims to be disbursed in the first few years. In the case of the Obama administration’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009) the peak in spending occurred in 2013, four years after the bill was passed (analogous to 2025 today) (Chart 7). Infrastructure and green energy projects are also expected to increase productivity and hence potential growth. Chart 7Infrastructure Spending Could Peak Four Years After Bill’s Passage, As In 2009-13 The Byrd rule will become even more important with Biden’s second reconciliation bill because the bill will contain a mishmash of Biden’s campaign proposals. Democrats will try to pass as much of their agenda via fast track as possible so as to meet promises ahead of the 2022 midterm election. An advantage of health care spending is that it is unlikely to be struck down by the Senate parliamentarian given that the Obama administration relied on reconciliation to pass a critical second installment to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Biden’s health care plan is more popular than climate change policy, with both the general public and moderate Democrats, and it is guaranteed to pass reconciliation. Infrastructure spending faces greater challenges under reconciliation but they are not insurmountable. Infrastructure is normally handled via the traditional budget process or the Highway Trust Fund and some measures are likely to run afoul of the Byrd rule. Still, workarounds can be found.4  Hence the infrastructure plan is likely to be compromised but not prohibited due to technicalities. Even if infrastructure fails to make it into reconciliation, Biden can use the deadline to top up the exhausted Highway Trust Fund or to reauthorize the Surface Transportation Act as alternative pathways. It is not impossible to get Republican cooperation on infrastructure though the green agenda will meet resistance. The reconciliation process is nominally forbidden from increasing the budget deficit beyond ten years. Short-term spending is exempt, as is the case with the American Rescue Plan and its crisis-response measures, but the purpose of the second reconciliation bill is to invest in long-term, productivity-enhancing programs. A new government health insurance option and/or a green infrastructure buildout will take many years to implement and could increase deficits beyond the ten-year window. But Democrats, like Republicans, will be able to use accounting chicanery and gimmicks to make the budget outlook serve their purposes in passing the legislation. As long as they keep moderate members of the party on their side.   Yes, Taxes Will Go Up … But That May Not Be All Bad For Markets Why should Democrats raise taxes at all? Why not focus on stimulus without taking on the political risk of higher taxes? After all, Republicans passed tax cuts via reconciliation without offsetting them by spending cuts. Was it not the higher taxes in Obamacare that greatly fueled resistance from Republicans and their victory in the House of Representatives in 2010? First, on the level of intentions, the Democrats clearly seek to increase taxes on corporations, high-income earners, and capital gains: Both Biden and Harris said they would raise taxes on the campaign trail and in the presidential debates despite the risk to their election prospects. Biden committed only to prevent tax hikes on those making less than $400,000 per year. Harris’s weakest moment in her debate with Mike Pence was her insistence that she would raise taxes but she stuck to her guns. Both factions of the Democratic Party want to raise taxes. Traditional Democrats view tax hikes as a way of paying for a larger government role in addressing social and economic imbalances. Populists view tax hikes as a way of redistributing from the ultra-rich. While budget deficits are not a general concern, combating inequality is a theme shared across the party. Second, on the level of capability, Democrats can get at least some of the tax increases that they want: The US is not overtaxed on the whole. True, Biden’s full tax agenda would push the US back up to the top of the OECD countries in terms of the corporate tax if an “integrated” view of both firm-level taxes and taxes on dividends and capital gains (Chart 8). But this point suggests that Biden will moderate his tax plan rather than abandon it altogether. Popular opinion did not favor Trump for cutting corporate taxes. Chart 8Biden’s Corporate Tax Proposal Would Make US An Outlier Again The macroeconomic impact of raising taxes is manageable in the context of the extraordinary fiscal stimulus that the US is passing. There is no clear relationship between tax rates and economic growth but it is natural for the Democrats to fear that they could squander their term in power by excessive fiscal tightening. Yet the negative economic impact of raising the corporate rate is only 0.8% of GDP over the long run, and half of that if the corporate rate is raised only halfway to what Biden intends (25% instead of 28%) (Table 2), according to the conservative-leaning Tax Policy Foundation. Table 2Economic Impact Of Corporate Tax Not Dramatic President Biden has the political capital early in his term to revise the Trump tax cuts according to Democratic prerogatives. His popularity will not hold up for long (Chart 9). And he only just has enough legislative power. While household sentiment is weak and economic conditions are moderate, both are set to improve as the pandemic fades and fiscal stimulus takes effect (Table 3). While tax hikes will embolden Republican opposition and the Democrats will have lost their chance to affect the tax code if Republicans win in 2022. At the moment, Republicans are divided and unpopular, so Democrats have a window of opportunity (Chart 10). Chart 9Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis? Chart 10Independents Up, Republicans Down Table 3Political Capital Index While Democrats could chuck all the Senate rules out the window in order to pass their spending plans without any offsets, this would anger moderates who tend to uphold Senate rules and norms. The party cannot afford to lose a single vote from their caucus in the Senate. Yet moderate Democrats are not against tax increases in principle. What they would oppose is either excessive tax hikes or a fiscal spending bonanza without any revenue offsets at all.5  It is entirely feasible to back-load tax increases so that they take effect in the latter half of the ten-year budget window, especially after the 2024 election. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is advising precisely this course of action and has herself argued that corporate tax hikes will go through.6 There may be some risk that Democrats go full left-wing populist and abandon any semblance of fiscal responsibility so as to supercharge the economy. So far they have agreed to maintain the Senate filibuster and scrap the minimum wage hike but this acceptance of Senate norms may not last as pressure builds. The second reconciliation bill is the last chance to fast-track major initiatives before the midterm. Vice President Harris could overrule the Senate parliamentarian across the board. This scenario is unlikely. The White House and Congress will find a balance that raises some revenue but errs on the fiscally accommodative side, as our scenarios above highlight. Investment Takeaways The market’s concern is that the Democrats will “overdo” the fiscal response and we fully share this concern. The American Rescue Plan alone will plug the output gap by almost three times more than the amount required. The coming tax hikes will not offset the wave of new spending that is coming down the pike. Democrats will partially reverse Trump’s tax cuts in the context of additional pump-priming that constitutes a net increase to the budget deficit. The net effect is inflationary.   If Congress were to pass another $2 trillion bill without any substantial revenue offsets then the market would face an even bigger inflationary jolt and an even earlier return to rate hikes by the Fed. But this scenario is unlikely. So the inflationary risk is clear but investors need not panic in the short run.  Our infrastructure trade is back on track as the reflation trade rumbles onward (Chart 11). The Democrats will get at least one more major bill passed and it will likely include at least half of Biden’s agenda, including around $2 trillion on green infrastructure. We will discuss the renewable energy portion at length in a forthcoming report. The health care sector faces headwinds from both Biden’s health policies and corporate tax hikes. The sectors that stand to benefit the most from a higher corporate tax rate are those that benefited least from Trump’s Tax Cut and Jobs Act – namely energy, industrials, materials, and financials, in that order (Chart 12A). These are also the cyclical plays that we favor in today’s accommodative policy environment. Chart 11Infrastructure Trade Back On Track   Chart 12ACyclicals Outperforming Health Care Chart 12BCyclicals To Outperform Tech? The same cyclical sectors are also trying to make headway against the tech sector, which stands to suffer from higher interest rates as well as higher taxes, including a minimum tax on book earnings, if that part of Biden’s agenda makes it through the negotiations this fall (Chart 12B).   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table A1APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A1BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A1CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Table A2Political Risk Matrix Table A3Biden’s Cabinet Position Appointments Footnotes 1See Jeff Drew, “House passes $1.9 trillion stimulus bill with a variety of small business relief,” and Alistair M. Nevius, “Tax provisions in the American Rescue Plan Act,” February 27, 2021, Journal of Accountancy, journalofaccountancy.com.     2See “The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate’s ‘Byrd Rule,’” Congressional Research Service, December 1, 2020, fas.org.            3The current delay centers on whether the Senate will confirm Biden’s appointee for director of the Office of Management and Budget, Neera Tanden, who lost support from key moderate Democrat Joe Manchin. If she does not receive a compensatory Republican vote then Biden will have to appoint someone else and the Senate will have to confirm. Thus the budget resolution could easily be delayed into May or June.       4For the difficulties, see Peter Cohn, “Democrats plan a spending blowout, but hurdles remain,” Roll Call, January 11, 2021, rollcall.com. For workarounds, see Zach Moller and Gabe Horwitz, “Reconciliation: How It Works and How to Use It to Help American Workers Recover,” Third Way, February 1, 2021, thirdway.org. 5See Alexander Bolton, “Democrats hesitant to raise taxes amid pandemic,” The Hill, February 25, 2021, thehill.com. 6See Saleha Mohsin and Christopher Condon, “Yellen Favors Higher Company Tax, Signals Capital Gains Worth a Look”, Bloomberg, February 22, 2021, Bloomberg.com  

Special Report

Highlights The Biden administration will not attempt a major diplomatic “reset” with Russia. The era of engagement is over. Russia faces rising domestic political risk and rising geopolitical risk at the same time. A war in the Baltics is possible but unlikely. Putin has benefited from taking calculated risks and wants to keep the US and Europe divided. The Russian economy is weighed down by structural flaws as well as tight policy. Investors focused on absolute returns should sell Russian assets. For EM-dedicated investors, our Emerging Markets Strategy recommends a neutral allocation to Russian stocks and local currency bonds and an overweight allocation to US dollar-denominated sovereign and corporate debt. Feature “We will not hesitate to raise the cost on Russia.” – US President Joseph R. Biden, State Department, February 4, 2021 The Biden presidency will differ from its predecessors in that there will not be a major attempt to engage Russia at the outset. Previous US presidents sought to reach out to their Russian counterparts to create room for maneuver. This was true of Presidents Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump. Even Biden has shown a semblance of reengagement by extending an arms reduction pact. But investors should not be misled. The United States and the Democratic Party have shifted their approach to Russia since the failure of the diplomatic “reset” that occurred in 2009-11 and Washington will take a fundamentally more hawkish approach. Russia is not Biden’s top foreign policy focus – that would be Iran and China. But as with China, engagement has given way to Great Power struggle and hence there will not be a grace period before geopolitical tensions re-escalate. Tensions will keep the risk premium elevated for Russia’s currency and assets. The same is true of emerging European markets that get caught up in any US-Russia conflicts. Putin, Biden, And Grand Strategy Understanding US-Russia relations in 2021 requires a brief outline of both the permanent and temporary strategies of the United States and Russia. Russia’s grand strategy over the centuries has focused on establishing a dominant central government, controlling as large of a frontier as possible, and maintaining a high degree of technological sophistication. The nightmare of the Russian elite consists of foreign powers manipulating and weaponizing the country’s extremely diverse peoples and territories against it, reducing the world’s largest nation-state to its historical origin as a geographically indefensible and technologically backward principality. Chart 1Russia's Revival In Perspective Russia can endure long stretches of austerity in order to undermine and outlast rival states in this effort to achieve defensible borders. Russia’s strategy since the rise of President Vladimir Putin has focused on rebuilding the state and military after the collapse of the Soviet Union so as to restore internal security and re-establish political dominance in the former Soviet space (Chart 1). Partial invasions of Georgia and Ukraine and a military buildup along the border with the Baltic states show Russia’s commitment to prevent American or US-allied control of strategic buffer spaces. Expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union poses an enduring threat to Putin’s strategy. Putin has countered through conventional and nuclear deterrence as well as the use of “hybrid warfare,” trade embargoes, cyberattacks, and disinformation. To preempt challengers within the former Soviet space Russia also maintains a “veto” over geopolitical developments outside that space, as with nuclear proliferation (Iran), civil wars (Syria, Libya), or resource production (OPEC 2.0). The evident flaw in Putin’s strategy is the decay of the economy, the long depreciation of the ruble, and the drop in quality of life and labor force growth. See the macro sections below for a full discussion of these negative trends. Compare the American strategy: America’s grand strategy is to control North America, dominate the oceans, prevent the rise of regional empires, and maintain the leading position in technology and talent. A nightmare for American policymakers would be a collapse of the federal union among the disparate regions and the rise of a secure foreign empire that could supplant the US’s naval preponderance. This is especially true if the rival empire were capable of supplanting US supremacy in technology, since then the US would not even be safe within North America. America’s strategy under the Biden administration is to mitigate internal political divisions through economic growth, maintain its global posture by refurbishing alliances, and reassert its technological primacy by encouraging immigration and trade. The status quo of strong growth and rising polarization has been beneficial for US technology but not for foreign and defense policy (Chart 2). Political polarization has prevented the US from executing a steady long-term strategy for over 30 years. As a result, Russia has partially rebuilt the Soviet sphere of influence and China is constructing a sphere of its own. A few conclusions can be drawn from the above. First, China poses a greater challenge to the US than Russia from a strategic point of view. China is capable of creating a regional empire that can one day challenge the US for technological leadership. Modern Russia must summon all its strength to carve out small pieces of its former empire – it is not a contender for supremacy in technology or in any regions other than its own. Second, however, Russia’s resurgence under Putin poses a secondary challenge to American grand strategy. Russia can undermine US strategy very effectively. The effect today is to aid the rise of China, on which Russia’s economy increasingly depends (Chart 3). Chart 2US Tech Boom Coincided With Disinflation, Polarization Chart 3Russia’s Turn To The Far East Unlike the US, Russian leadership has not changed over the past year – and Vladimir Putin’s tactics are likely to be consistent. These were underscored by the constitutional revisions approved by popular vote in September 2020. Not only will Putin be eligible to remain president till 2036 but also Russia reaffirmed its willingness to intervene militarily into neighboring regions by asserting its right to defend Russian-speaking peoples everywhere. Finally, Russia ensured there would be no giving away of territories, thus ruling out a solution on Ukraine over Crimea.1 Bottom Line: The US-Russia conflict will continue under the Biden administration, even though Biden’s primary concern will be China. Biden’s Foreign Policy Intentions It is too soon to draw conclusions about Biden’s foreign policy “doctrine” as he has not yet faced any major challenges or taken any major actions. Biden’s first two foreign policy speeches and interim national security strategy guidance establish his foreign policy intentions, which will have to be measured against his administration’s capabilities.2 His chief intentions are to revive the economy and court US allies: First, Biden asserts that every foreign action will be taken with US working families in mind, co-opting Trump’s populism and emphasizing that US international strength rests on internal unity which flows from a strong economy. This goal will largely be met as the administration is already passing a major economic stimulus and is likely to pass a second bill with long-term investments by October. The impact on Russia is mixed but the Biden administration is largely correct that a strong recovery in the US economy and reduction in political polarization will be a major asset in its dealings with Russia and other rivals. Second, Biden asserts that diplomacy will be the essence of his foreign policy. He aims to create or rebuild an alliance of democracies that spans from the UK and European Union to the East Asian democracies. The two goals of economy and diplomacy are connected because Biden envisions the democracies working together to make “historic investments” in technology, setting global standards and rules of trade, and defending against hacking and intellectual property theft. This goal will have mixed success: the EU and US will manage their own trade tensions reasonably well but they will disagree on how to handle Russia and especially China. Biden explicitly sets up this alliance of democracies against autocracies. He calls China the US’s “most serious competitor” but also highlights Russia: “The challenges with Russia may be different than the ones with China, but they’re just as real.”3 Table 1 shows the Biden administration’s notable comments and actions on Russia so far. What is clear is that the US will not seek an extensive new diplomatic engagement with Russia.4 The failure of the Obama administration’s “diplomatic reset” with Russia has disabused the Democratic Party of the notion that strategic patience and outreach are the right approaches to Putin’s regime. The reset and its failure are described in detail in Box 1. Table 1Biden Administration's First 100 Days: Key Statements And Actions On Russia Box 1: What Was The US-Russia Diplomatic Reset? What Comes Next? Most American presidents open their foreign policy with overtures to Russia to create space to maneuver, given that Russia is capable of undermining US aims in so many areas. The Barack Obama administration made a notable effort at this in 2009, which was dubbed the “diplomatic reset.” It was a rest because relations had collapsed over Russia’s use of natural gas pipelines as a weapon against Ukraine and especially its invasion of Georgia in 2008. Then Vice President Joe Biden led the reset. President Putin had stepped aside in accordance with constitutional term limits, putting his protégé Dmitri Medvedev in the presidential seat, which supported the reset because Medvedev had at least some desire to reform Russia’s economy. The reset lasted long enough for Washington and Moscow to agree on the need for a strategic settlement on the question of Iran – which would culminate in the 2015 nuclear deal – as well as to admit Russia to the World Trade Organization (WTO). But the aftermath of the financial crisis proved an inauspicious time for a reset. Along with the Arab Spring, popular unrest emerged in Moscow in 2011 and western influence crept into Ukraine – all of it allegedly fomented by Washington. Putin feared he would lose central control at home and frontier control abroad. He also sensed an opportunity given that commodity prices were filling state coffers while the US was focused on domestic policy, increasingly polarized, and unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary to solidify its influence in eastern Europe. Russia’s betrayal of the reset resulted in a string of losses for the US and its European allies: the Edward Snowden affair, the invasion of Ukraine, the intervention in Syria, the meddling in the 2016 US election, and most recently the SolarWinds hack. The Obama administration refrained from a strong reaction over Crimea partly to seal the Iran deal. But Russia pressed its advantage after that. It is doubtful that Russia’s influence decided the 2016 election but, regardless, the Democratic Party fell from power and then watched in dismay as the Trump administration revoked the Iran deal. Now that the Democrats are back in power they will seek to retaliate not only for the SolarWinds hack but also for the betrayal of the reset. However, retaliation will come at a time of Washington’s choosing. Bottom Line: The Biden administration’s foreign policy will emphasize alliances of democracies in opposition to autocracies like Russia and China. Biden is planning a more hawkish approach to Russia than previous recent administrations. Biden’s Foreign Policy Capabilities There are a few clear limitations on Biden’s foreign policy goals. First, his administration will largely be focused on domestic priorities. In foreign affairs there is at best the chance to salvage the Obama administration’s foreign policy legacy. Second, Biden’s dealings with China will take up most of his time and energy. China’s fourteenth five-year plan contains a state-driven technological Great Leap Forward that will frustrate any attempt by Biden to reduce tensions. Biden will not be able to devote much attention to Russia if he pursues China with the attention it deserves, i.e. to secure US interests yet avoid a war.5 Third, Biden will be limited by allied risk aversion and the need for consensus on difficult decisions. If his diplomacy with Europe is successful then China and Russia will face steeper costs for any provocative actions. If it fails then European risk aversion will prevail, the allies will remain divided, and China and Russia will faces few costs for maintaining current policies. Table 2Russia’s Pipeline Export Capacity The Nordstream Two pipeline will be a key test of European willingness to follow the US’s lead even if it means taking on greater risks: Nordstream Two is a major expansion of Russian-EU energy cooperation but contrary to America’s national interest. German Chancellor Angela Merkel still backs the project despite Russia’s poisoning and imprisonment of dissident Alexei Navalny and forceful suppression of protests. However, Merkel is a lame duck and there is some evidence that German commitment to the project is fraying.6 Biden has not tried to halt the pipeline project, but he still could. There are only 100 miles left to the pipeline. Construction resumed in January after a hiatus last year due to US sanctions. The project will take five months to complete at the rate of 0.6 miles per day. The Biden administration still has time to halt the project through sanctions. If it does, the Russians will react harshly to this significant loss of economic and strategic influence over Europe (Table 2). Biden will have a crisis on his hands in Europe. If Biden does nothing on Nordstream, then Russia will conclude that his administration is not serious and take actions that undermine the Biden administration in accordance with Putin’s established strategy. This would prompt Biden to act on his pledge to stand up to Putin’s provocations. Whereas if Biden imposes sanctions to halt Nordstream, Russia will retaliate. Elsewhere it is possible that Biden will be too confrontational with Russia for Europe’s liking. Biden plans to increase support for Ukraine, which will prompt an increase in military conflict this spring.7 The US will promote democracy across eastern Europe, including Belarus, and it is possible that Russia could overreact to this threat of turning peripheral regimes against Russia. The EU is on the front lines in the conflict with Russia and will not want the US to act aggressively – but the US is specifically seeking to “raise the cost” on Russia for its aggression.8 Bottom Line: Russia is not Biden’s priority. But his pledge both to promote democracy and retaliate against Russian provocations sets the US up for a period of higher tensions. US-Russia Engagement On Iran? Will the US not need to engage Russia to achieve various policy goals? Specifically, while highlighting competition, Biden says he will engage Russia and China on global challenges, namely the pandemic, climate change, cybersecurity, and nuclear proliferation. Nuclear proliferation is the only one of these areas where US-Russia cooperation might matter. After all, there is zero chance of cybersecurity cooperation. Whereas on nuclear issues, the US and Russia immediately extended the New START arms reduction treaty through 2026 and could also work together on Iran. Biden is determined to restore the Obama administration’s 2015 nuclear deal. Moscow does not have an interest in a nuclear-armed Iran so there is some overlap of interest. The Iranian issue will require Biden to consider whether he is willing to make major concessions to Russia: Compromise the hard line on Russia: A new Iranian administration takes office in August. Biden is likely to have to rush a return to the 2015 nuclear deal before that time if he wants a deal with Iran. Otherwise it would take years for Biden and the Europeans to reconstitute the P5+1 coalition with Russia and China and negotiate an entirely new deal. Biden would have to make major concessions to Russia and China. His stand against autocracy would be compromised from the get-go. Maintain the hard line on Russia: The alternative is for Biden to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal with a flick of his wrist, with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani signing off by August. Biden would extract promises from the Iranians to keep talking about a broader deal in future. In this case Biden would not need to give the Russians or Chinese any new concessions. Chart 4China Enforces Iran Sanctions The Biden administration will be keen to make sure that Russia does not exploit the US eagerness for a deal with Iran as it did with the original deal in 2014-15. Iran has an individual interest in restoring the deal, which is to gain sanction relief and avoid air strikes. The Europeans have helped Iran keep the deal alive. China is at least officially enforcing sanctions (Chart 4). Russia is also urging a return to the deal and would be isolated if it tried to sabotage the deal. This could happen but it would escalate the conflict between the US and Russia. Otherwise, if a deal is agreed, the US will continue putting pressure on Russia in other areas. Bottom Line: The Biden administration is likely to seal an Iranian nuclear deal without any major concessions to Russia. Tail Risk – A War In The Baltics? It is well established that the Putin regime will use belligerent foreign adventures to distract from domestic woes. Just look at poor opinion polling tends to precede major foreign invasions (Chart 5). With the eruption of social unrest in the wake of COVID-19 and the imprisonment of opposition leader Alexei Navalny, it is entirely possible that Russia will activate this tool again. The implication is a new crisis in Ukraine, a larger Russian military presence in Belarus, or further escalation of hybrid warfare or cyberwar in other areas. What about an invasion of the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia? Unlike other hotspots in Russia's periphery this is a perennial "black swan" risk that would equate with a geopolitical earthquake in Europe. A Baltic war is conceivable based on Russia’s geographic proximity, military superiority, and military buildup on the border and in the Kaliningrad exclave. The combined military spending of NATO dwarfs that of Russia but NATO is extremely vulnerable in this far eastern flank (Chart 6). However, Europe would cutoff Russia’s economy and join the US in countermeasures while Russia would be left to occupy hostile countries.9 Chart 5Putin Lashes Out When Popularity Falls The Baltic states are members of NATO and thus an attack on one is theoretically an attack on all. President Trump ultimately endorsed Article V of the NATO treaty on collective self-defense and President Biden has enthusiastically reaffirmed it. The guarantee is meaningless without greater military support to enforce it, so NATO could try to reinforce its forward presence there. This could provoke Russia to retaliate, likely with measures short of full-scale war. Chart 6Russia Would Be Desperate To Invade Baltics Since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, US rivals have observed that the American public lacks the willingness to fight small wars. It responded weakly to Russia’s invasion of Crimea and China’s encroachments in the South China Sea and Hong Kong. However, foreign rivals do not know whether the unpredictable US leadership and public are willing to fight a major war. Hence Russia and China are likely to continue to focus on incremental gains and calculated risks rather than frontal challenges. Based on the Biden administration’s moderate political capital (very narrow electoral and legislative control), the US will continue to be divided and distracted. Russia, China, and other powers will test the administration and make an assessment before they attempt any major foreign adventures. The testing period is imminent, however, and thus holds out negative surprises for investors. It is also possible that Biden could make the first move – particularly on Russia, where retaliation for the 2020 SolarWinds hack should be expected. Bottom Line: A full-scale war in the Baltics is possible but unlikely as the Russians have succeeded through calculated risks whereas they face drastic limitations in a major war against the NATO alliance. Growth Weighed Down By Tight Policy We now turn to Russia’s domestic economic conditions. Here, Russia also faces major challenges. Authorities are determined to keep a tight lid on both monetary and fiscal policies. In particular, high domestic borrowing costs and negative fiscal thrust will weigh down domestic demand over the next six-to-12 months. There are three reasons authorities will maintain tight monetary and fiscal policies: First, concerns about high inflation are deeply entrenched among consumers, enterprises, and policymakers. Russian consumers and businesses tend to have higher-than-realized inflation expectations. This is due to the history of high inflation as well as stagflation in Russia. A recent consumer poll reveals that rising prices are the number one concern among households (Table 3). Remarkably, the poll was conducted in August amid the height of the pandemic and high unemployment. This suggests that households do not associate growth slumps with lower inflation but rather fear inflation even amid a major recession (i.e., worry about stagflation). Table 3Fear Of Inflation Prevalent Amongst Consumers’ Expectations Second, Central Bank of Russia Governor Elvira Nabiullina is one of the most hawkish central bankers in the world. Her early tenure was characterized by the 2014-15 currency crisis and a major inflation spike. To combat structural inflation and bring down persisting high inflation expectations, the central bank has adopted a very hawkish policy stance since 2014. There is no sign that the central bank is about to change its hawkish policy. Specifically, monetary authorities have been syphoning liquidity from the banking system. With relatively tight banking system liquidity and high borrowing costs, private credit growth will fail to accelerate from current levels. Third, the government still projects an austere budget for 2021. The fiscal thrust will be -1.7% of GDP this year (Chart 7). While a moderate spending increase is likely, it will not be sufficient to boost materially domestic demand. There are no signs yet that the fiscal rule10 will be further relaxed, potentially releasing more funds for the government to spend this year. The fiscal rule has become an important gauge of the country’s ability to weather swings in energy prices. In addition to the points listed above, policymakers’ inflation worries stem from the economy’s structural drawbacks: Despite substantial nominal currency depreciation in recent years, Russia runs a current account deficit excluding energy. When a country runs a chronic current account deficit, including periods of major domestic demand recessions and currency devaluations, it is a symptom of a lack of productivity gains. Real incomes grew at a quick pace from the mid-1990s, largely driven by the resource boom in the 2000s. Yet rising real incomes were not complemented by expanding domestic manufacturing capacity to produce consumer and industrial goods. As such, imports of consumer goods and services rose alongside real incomes. Russia has been underinvesting. Gross fixed capital formation excluding resources industries and residential construction has never surpassed 10% of GDP in either nominal or real terms (Chart 8). Chart 7Russia: Fiscal Policy Will Remain Austere In 2021 Chart 8Russia: Underinvestment Within Domestic Sectors Geopolitical tensions with the West have discouraged FDI inflows and hindered Russian companies’ ability to raise capital externally. This has inhibited capital spending and ”know-how” transfer and, hence, bodes ill for productivity gains. Russian domestic industries are highly concentrated and, in some cases, oligopolistic in nature. This allows incumbents to raise prices. The number of registered private enterprises has fallen below early 2000s levels (Chart 9). Despite chronic currency depreciation, Russian resource companies have failed to grab a large share of their respective export markets. For instance, Russia’s oil market share of total global oil production has been flat for over a decade and the nation has been losing market share in the global natural gas industry. A shrinking labor force due to poor demographics and meager immigration complements Russia’s sluggish productivity growth and caps its potential GDP growth (Chart 10). Chart 9Russia: Increasing Industry Concentration Some positive signs are appearing in the form of import substitution. Since the Ukraine conflict in 2014 and the resulting Western sanctions, the government has enacted various laws and decrees to incentivize domestic production, and with it providing substitutions for imported goods. Their impact is noticeable in certain sectors. Chart 10Russia: Poor Potential Growth Outlook In particular, the country has invested heavily in the food industry, as food imports are 16% of overall imports. Agricultural sector output has been rising while imports of key food categories have declined. Recent decrees on industrial goods will likely boost domestic production of some goods and processed resources. Around 40% of Russian imports are concentrated in machinery, industrial equipment, transportation parts, and vehicles. Hence, raising competitiveness in production of industrial goods is essential for Russia to reduce reliance on imports. In short, fewer imports of goods for domestic consumption will make inflation less sensitive to fluctuations in the exchange rate. The current trend is mildly positive, but its pace remains slow. Bottom Line: Russia needs to raise its productivity and labor force growth and, hence, potential GDP growth to deliver reasonable high-income growth without raising inflation. The Cyclical OutLook: Worry About Growth, Not Inflation Cyclically, high domestic borrowing costs and lackluster fiscal spending will weigh down domestic growth and cap inflation for the next 12 months. Russia’s real borrowing costs are among the highest in the EM space. High borrowing costs are causing notable financial stress amongst corporate and household debtors. Commercial banks’ NPLs and provisions are high and rising (Chart 11). Unwilling to take on more credit risk, banks have shunned traditional lending and have instead expanded their assets into financial securities. This trend will likely persist and corporate and consumer credit will fail to boost investment and consumption. The recent pickup in inflation was primarily due to rising food prices and the previous currency depreciation pass-through. Chart 12 illustrates the recent currency appreciation heralds a rollover in core inflation. Chart 11Russia: High Borrowing Costs Are Leading To Higher Credit Stress Chart 12Russia: Inflation Will Rollover Due To Stable RUB In fact, a broad range of inflation indicators suggest that core inflation remains within the central bank target (Chart 13). These measures of inflation are less correlated with the ruble movements. Chart 13Russia: Inflation Is At Central Bank Target Of 4% Chart 14Russia: Tame Recovery In Domestic Activity High-frequency data suggest that consumer spending and business activity remain tame (Chart 14). Bottom Line: The latest uptick in Russia’s core CPI is likely transitory. Cyclical conditions for a material rise in inflation and hence monetary tightening are not in place. Investment Takeaways Chart 15Russia Underperforms Amid Commodity Bull Run Russia’s sluggish economy and austere policy backdrop suggest that the fires of domestic political unrest will continue to burn. While political instability may force the Kremlin to ease fiscal policy, the easing so far envisioned is slight. The implication is that Russia faces rising domestic political risk simultaneously with the rise in international, geopolitical risk stemming from the Biden administration’s efforts to promote democracy in Russia’s periphery and push back against its regional and global attempts to undermine the US-led global order. So far the totality of Russia’s risks have outweighed the benefits of the global economic recovery as Russian assets are trailing the rally in commodity prices (Chart 15). The ruble is above the lows reached at the height of the Ukraine crisis, whether compared to the GBP or the EUR, suggesting further downside when US-Russia tensions spike (Chart 16). The currency is neither cheap nor expensive at present (Chart 17). Chart 16Ruble Will Fall Further On Geopolitical Risk But Floor Not Far Chart 17Russia: The Ruble Is Fairly Valued   Chart 18Geopolitical Risk Will Revive Despite Apparent Top Our Geopolitical Risk Indicator for Russia is forming a bottom, implying that global investors believe the worst has passed. This is a mistake and we expect the indicator to change course and price in new risk. The result will weigh on Russian equities, which are fairly well correlated with this indicator (Chart 18). Overall, we recommend investors who care about absolute returns to sell Russian assets. For dedicated EM equity as well as EM local currency bond portfolios, BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy recommends a neutral stance on Russia (Chart 19). Rising bond yields in the US will continue weighing especially on high-flying growth stocks. The low market-cap weight of technology/growth stocks in the Russian bourse makes the latter less vulnerable to rising global bond yields. Concerning local rates, we see value in 10-year swap rates, as tight monetary and fiscal policies will keep a lid on inflation. With the central bank unlikely to hike rates anytime soon, a steep yield curve offers good value in the long end of the curve for fixed income investors. Finally, orthodox macro policies will benefit fixed-income investors on the margin. In regard to EM credit (USD bonds) portfolio, the Emerging Markets Strategy team recommends overweighting Russia (Chart 20). The government has little local currency debt and minimal US dollar debt. Not surprisingly, Russia has been a low-beta credit market and it will outperform its EM peers in a broad sell off. Chart 19Russia: Move To Neutral Local Currency Bond Allocation Lastly, the Emerging Markets Strategy is moving Ukrainian local currency government bonds to underweight and closing the 5-year local currency bond position. Risks of military confrontation on the Ukraine front have escalated. Chart 20Russia: Remain Overweight On USD Credit     Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Andrija Vesic Associate Editor Emerging Markets Strategy AndrijaV@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 See Pavlo Limkin et al, “Putin’s new constitution spells out modern Russia’s imperial ambitions,” Atlantic Council, September 10, 2020, atlanticcouncil.org. 2 See White House, “Remarks by President Biden on America’s Place in the World,” February 4, 2021, and “Remarks by President Biden at the 2021 Virtual Munich Security Conference,” February 19, 2021, whitehouse.org. 3 See “Remarks … at the … Munich Security Conference” in footnote 2 above. 4 We first outlined this US-Russia disengagement in our last joint special report on Russia, “US-Russia: No Reverse Kissinger (Yet),” July 3, 2020, bcaresearch.com. 5 See Margarita Assenova, “Clouds Darkening Over Nord Stream Two Pipeline,” Jamestown Foundation, February 1, 2021, Jamestown.org. 6 Biden’s “Interim National Security Strategic Guidance,” White House, March 3, 2021, whitehouse.org, reinforces this point by focusing most of its attention on China and largely neglecting Russia. 7 See “Kremlin concerned about rising tensions in Donbass,” Tass, March 4, 2021, tass.com. 8 One way in which this could transpire would be a carbon border tax. The EU says imposing a tariff on carbon-intensive imports will proceed unilaterally if there is not a UN agreement in November because it is a “matter of survival” for its industry as it raises green regulation. The Biden administration also promised in its campaign to levy a “carbon adjustment fee.” Russia, which is exposed as a fossil fuel exporter that does not have a carbon pricing scheme, says such a fee would go against WTO rules. See Kate Abnett, “EU sees carbon border levy as ‘matter of survival’ for industry,” Reuters, January 18, 2021, reuters.com; Sam Morgan, “Moscow cries foul over EU’s planned carbon border tax,” Euractiv, July 27, 2020, euractiv.com. 9 See Heinrich Brauss and Dr. András Rácz, “Russia’s Strategic Interests and Actions in the Baltic Region,” German Council on Foreign Relations, DGAP Report, January 7, 2021, dgap.org; Christopher S. Chivvis et al, “NATO’s Northeastern Flank: Emerging Opportunities for Engagement,” Rand Corporation, 2017. 10 The rule stipulates that a portion of oil and gas revenues that the government can spend is determined by a fixed oil price benchmark. Currently, the benchmark oil price stands at $42 per barrel. The fiscal rule also encompasses constraints on the National Welfare Fund withdrawals in oil prices below $42 per barrel.

Highlights The Senate will pass the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan largely as it stands. Markets will now turn to Biden’s second major reconciliation bill for FY2022 – the one with tax hikes. Democrats will go forward with tax hikes on corporations and the wealthy. But they will spend more than they tax for fear of squandering their term in power. Tax hikes threaten sectors like tech that already face headwinds from rising bond yields. The health sector is also at risk. Stick with cyclicals and value plays.  Feature Markets have seesawed as volatility spikes in the face of rapidly rising bond yields. Value stocks such as financials stand to benefit relative to growth stocks as the market comes to grips with the first hint of normal inflation expectations since 2019 (Chart 1). Underlying the trend is a sea change in US fiscal policy. Chart 1Value Stocks To Reignite On Rising Bond Yields The House of Representatives passed the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan so it will now go to the Senate for revision, back to the House for approval, and then to President Biden’s desk by around March 14. Investors will now turn to Biden’s second major legislative act prior to the 2022 midterm election cycle: the fiscal year 2022 budget reconciliation process. Before we outline the time frame and tax hikes that that process will entail, we should take a moment to review the current bill. Senate Will Pass American Rescue Plan Largely As Is The House version of the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan contains $1,400 household rebates, direct checks via the Internal Revenue Service, for people who make less than $75,000 per year (double those numbers for married couples). Unemployment benefits are supposed to rise from $300 to $400 per week for 73 weeks instead of 50 weeks, with an expiration on August 29 instead of March 14. Those with children or other dependents will receive additional payments. The bill also includes $75 billion for fighting COVID-19, $350 billion for state and local governments, $170 billion for schools and universities, $225 billion for small business, $38 billion for the airline industry and various other tax benefits for families and workers.1 Those who have been let go from their jobs can more easily retain their previous health insurance. Chart 2 provides a visual comparison of the American Rescue Plan with the $900 billion in fiscal relief passed at the end of 2020 prior to House passage and Senate revision. Already the Senate version excludes a hike to the minimum wage, from $7.25 to $15 per hour, as the Senate parliamentarian ruled that does not qualify under the “Byrd rule” because it does not directly impact spending or taxation.2 Vice President Kamala Harris, who is also president of the Senate, could reverse this decision but otherwise the minimum wage will have to be considered in a separate bill later. Chart 2American Rescue Plan The Senate could pare back other aspects of the bill – such as state and local aid, given that local government revenues are in much better shape than expected. Chart 2 highlights that the state and local aid component is much larger this time around. Still, the purpose of Senate negotiations is to secure the votes of moderate Democrats, as winning over 10 Republicans is no longer feasible, and moderate senators are not going to sink the first legislative proposal of a president of their own party. The Senate is virtually guaranteed to pass the bill, likely by March 14 when current unemployment benefits expire. The bill’s economic impact will be to speed the vaccination process and provide another infusion of cash into households and various public institutions. Families are just starting to receive the last round of benefits passed in December and they had not exhausted the 14% year-on-year increase in real income that they saw as a result of last year’s CARES Act when the Coronavirus Response and Relief Act sent incomes soaring yet again (Chart 3). Economic growth will be supercharged as economic activity normalizes, consumer confidence recovers, and the service sector revives. Chart 3Washington Lavishes Households With Dole Biden’s Second Bill Will Pass This Fall The second budget reconciliation procedure, for fiscal year 2022, will begin in mid-April. The formal deadline to adopt a budget resolution is April 15 but the average delay would put the resolution in June.3 The maximum delay would see the resolution passed in October but that is unlikely in today’s context (Diagram 1). After the resolution passes, the House and Senate must reconcile their budgets, pass the same bill, and send it to the president for his signature.  Diagram 1Timeline Of Biden Administration’s Second Budget Reconciliation, FY2022 The average time between Congress adopting a budget resolution and the president signing a reconciliation bill into law is 150 days, putting completion on September 15, 2021. This period could easily extend to November. In the worst-case, judging by history, Democrats could fail to conclude the process until October 2022 – but that is highly unlikely. A delay till December of this year would be a fumble, but a more realistic fumble, say if moderate Democrats must be won over due to controversial provisions. The second reconciliation bill is supposed to consist of investments over a ten-year period rather than emergency relief for the lingering pandemic and economic recovery. Biden’s proposed $2-$3 trillion green infrastructure program is the highlight but we also expect Democrats to prioritize their health care plan, which is estimated to cost $1.7-$1.9 trillion. Hence $4 trillion is a reasonable expectation for new spending but in this case the headline spending figure will be at least partially defrayed by tax hikes, unlike the first reconciliation bill (Charts 4A & 4B). If Biden raises taxes by half as much as he intends, the full price tag would be $2 trillion. Chart 4ABiden Will Spend, Then Tax Chart 4BBiden Will Spend, Then Tax The precise contours of this bill will remain unknown until Biden presents an outline in April and the House of Representatives drafts a resolution. We test six different scenarios involving different assumptions about Biden’s tax-and-spend proposals, highlighted in Table 1. Generally, we assume that Democrats will much more readily compromise tax hikes rather than spending, given that they want to err on the side of firing up the economic recovery. They are just as capable as Republicans were in 2017 of manipulating the numbers when it comes to the reconciliation requirement that the budget deficit not increase beyond a ten-year time period. Table 1Scenarios For Biden’s Second Reconciliation Bill The results are broken down in terms of revenue, expenditure, and net interest costs in Chart 5. The baseline is Biden’s campaign proposal. Scenario 1 assumes that Biden gets all of the spending he wants but is forced to compromise on tax hikes. Scenario 2 is more realistic as it assumes that Biden gets half of what he wants on both spending and taxes. Scenarios 3-6 examine what would happen if Biden were forced to strike out either his green infrastructure plan or his health and social security plan, depending on different revenue assumptions. In Scenarios 5 and 6 we grant Biden only half of his proposed taxes on corporations and wealthy folks, leaving other tax proposals to the side – otherwise the result would be a net tightening of fiscal conditions, which is neither intended nor politically possible. Chart 5Scenarios For Biden’s Second Reconciliation Bill The impact on the budget deficit in each scenario is shown in Chart 6. The greatest economic stimulus would occur under Scenario 1, which would soon become a problem for investors as it would hasten inflation and rising interest rates. Chart 6Deficit Scenarios For Biden’s Second Reconciliation Bill Scenario 2 is the most realistic policy scenario while being the least inflationary. By contrast, Scenario 4 is realistic but hardly less inflationary than the baseline case. In each of these scenarios it is important to bear in mind that the new government programs would be administered over a ten-year period and therefore the increase to the budget deficit would be more gradual than is the case of the American Rescue Plan, which clearly aims to be disbursed in the first few years. In the case of the Obama administration’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009) the peak in spending occurred in 2013, four years after the bill was passed (analogous to 2025 today) (Chart 7). Infrastructure and green energy projects are also expected to increase productivity and hence potential growth. Chart 7Infrastructure Spending Could Peak Four Years After Bill’s Passage, As In 2009-13 The Byrd rule will become even more important with Biden’s second reconciliation bill because the bill will contain a mishmash of Biden’s campaign proposals. Democrats will try to pass as much of their agenda via fast track as possible so as to meet promises ahead of the 2022 midterm election. An advantage of health care spending is that it is unlikely to be struck down by the Senate parliamentarian given that the Obama administration relied on reconciliation to pass a critical second installment to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Biden’s health care plan is more popular than climate change policy, with both the general public and moderate Democrats, and it is guaranteed to pass reconciliation. Infrastructure spending faces greater challenges under reconciliation but they are not insurmountable. Infrastructure is normally handled via the traditional budget process or the Highway Trust Fund and some measures are likely to run afoul of the Byrd rule. Still, workarounds can be found.4  Hence the infrastructure plan is likely to be compromised but not prohibited due to technicalities. Even if infrastructure fails to make it into reconciliation, Biden can use the deadline to top up the exhausted Highway Trust Fund or to reauthorize the Surface Transportation Act as alternative pathways. It is not impossible to get Republican cooperation on infrastructure though the green agenda will meet resistance. The reconciliation process is nominally forbidden from increasing the budget deficit beyond ten years. Short-term spending is exempt, as is the case with the American Rescue Plan and its crisis-response measures, but the purpose of the second reconciliation bill is to invest in long-term, productivity-enhancing programs. A new government health insurance option and/or a green infrastructure buildout will take many years to implement and could increase deficits beyond the ten-year window. But Democrats, like Republicans, will be able to use accounting chicanery and gimmicks to make the budget outlook serve their purposes in passing the legislation. As long as they keep moderate members of the party on their side.   Yes, Taxes Will Go Up … But That May Not Be All Bad For Markets Why should Democrats raise taxes at all? Why not focus on stimulus without taking on the political risk of higher taxes? After all, Republicans passed tax cuts via reconciliation without offsetting them by spending cuts. Was it not the higher taxes in Obamacare that greatly fueled resistance from Republicans and their victory in the House of Representatives in 2010? First, on the level of intentions, the Democrats clearly seek to increase taxes on corporations, high-income earners, and capital gains: Both Biden and Harris said they would raise taxes on the campaign trail and in the presidential debates despite the risk to their election prospects. Biden committed only to prevent tax hikes on those making less than $400,000 per year. Harris’s weakest moment in her debate with Mike Pence was her insistence that she would raise taxes but she stuck to her guns. Both factions of the Democratic Party want to raise taxes. Traditional Democrats view tax hikes as a way of paying for a larger government role in addressing social and economic imbalances. Populists view tax hikes as a way of redistributing from the ultra-rich. While budget deficits are not a general concern, combating inequality is a theme shared across the party. Second, on the level of capability, Democrats can get at least some of the tax increases that they want: The US is not overtaxed on the whole. True, Biden’s full tax agenda would push the US back up to the top of the OECD countries in terms of the corporate tax if an “integrated” view of both firm-level taxes and taxes on dividends and capital gains (Chart 8). But this point suggests that Biden will moderate his tax plan rather than abandon it altogether. Popular opinion did not favor Trump for cutting corporate taxes. Chart 8Biden’s Corporate Tax Proposal Would Make US An Outlier Again The macroeconomic impact of raising taxes is manageable in the context of the extraordinary fiscal stimulus that the US is passing. There is no clear relationship between tax rates and economic growth but it is natural for the Democrats to fear that they could squander their term in power by excessive fiscal tightening. Yet the negative economic impact of raising the corporate rate is only 0.8% of GDP over the long run, and half of that if the corporate rate is raised only halfway to what Biden intends (25% instead of 28%) (Table 2), according to the conservative-leaning Tax Policy Foundation. Table 2Economic Impact Of Corporate Tax Not Dramatic President Biden has the political capital early in his term to revise the Trump tax cuts according to Democratic prerogatives. His popularity will not hold up for long (Chart 9). And he only just has enough legislative power. While household sentiment is weak and economic conditions are moderate, both are set to improve as the pandemic fades and fiscal stimulus takes effect (Table 3). While tax hikes will embolden Republican opposition and the Democrats will have lost their chance to affect the tax code if Republicans win in 2022. At the moment, Republicans are divided and unpopular, so Democrats have a window of opportunity (Chart 10). Chart 9Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis? Chart 10Independents Up, Republicans Down Table 3Political Capital Index While Democrats could chuck all the Senate rules out the window in order to pass their spending plans without any offsets, this would anger moderates who tend to uphold Senate rules and norms. The party cannot afford to lose a single vote from their caucus in the Senate. Yet moderate Democrats are not against tax increases in principle. What they would oppose is either excessive tax hikes or a fiscal spending bonanza without any revenue offsets at all.5  It is entirely feasible to back-load tax increases so that they take effect in the latter half of the ten-year budget window, especially after the 2024 election. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is advising precisely this course of action and has herself argued that corporate tax hikes will go through.6 There may be some risk that Democrats go full left-wing populist and abandon any semblance of fiscal responsibility so as to supercharge the economy. So far they have agreed to maintain the Senate filibuster and scrap the minimum wage hike but this acceptance of Senate norms may not last as pressure builds. The second reconciliation bill is the last chance to fast-track major initiatives before the midterm. Vice President Harris could overrule the Senate parliamentarian across the board. This scenario is unlikely. The White House and Congress will find a balance that raises some revenue but errs on the fiscally accommodative side, as our scenarios above highlight. Investment Takeaways The market’s concern is that the Democrats will “overdo” the fiscal response and we fully share this concern. The American Rescue Plan alone will plug the output gap by almost three times more than the amount required. The coming tax hikes will not offset the wave of new spending that is coming down the pike. Democrats will partially reverse Trump’s tax cuts in the context of additional pump-priming that constitutes a net increase to the budget deficit. The net effect is inflationary.   If Congress were to pass another $2 trillion bill without any substantial revenue offsets then the market would face an even bigger inflationary jolt and an even earlier return to rate hikes by the Fed. But this scenario is unlikely. So the inflationary risk is clear but investors need not panic in the short run.  Our infrastructure trade is back on track as the reflation trade rumbles onward (Chart 11). The Democrats will get at least one more major bill passed and it will likely include at least half of Biden’s agenda, including around $2 trillion on green infrastructure. We will discuss the renewable energy portion at length in a forthcoming report. The health care sector faces headwinds from both Biden’s health policies and corporate tax hikes. The sectors that stand to benefit the most from a higher corporate tax rate are those that benefited least from Trump’s Tax Cut and Jobs Act – namely energy, industrials, materials, and financials, in that order (Chart 12A). These are also the cyclical plays that we favor in today’s accommodative policy environment. Chart 11Infrastructure Trade Back On Track   Chart 12ACyclicals Outperforming Health Care Chart 12BCyclicals To Outperform Tech? The same cyclical sectors are also trying to make headway against the tech sector, which stands to suffer from higher interest rates as well as higher taxes, including a minimum tax on book earnings, if that part of Biden’s agenda makes it through the negotiations this fall (Chart 12B).   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table A1APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A1BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A1CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Table A2Political Risk Matrix Table A3Biden’s Cabinet Position Appointments Footnotes 1     See Jeff Drew, “House passes $1.9 trillion stimulus bill with a variety of small business relief,” and Alistair M. Nevius, “Tax provisions in the American Rescue Plan Act,” February 27, 2021, Journal of Accountancy, journalofaccountancy.com.     2     See “The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate’s ‘Byrd Rule,’” Congressional Research Service, December 1, 2020, fas.org.            3    The current delay centers on whether the Senate will confirm Biden’s appointee for director of the Office of Management and Budget, Neera Tanden, who lost support from key moderate Democrat Joe Manchin. If she does not receive a compensatory Republican vote then Biden will have to appoint someone else and the Senate will have to confirm. Thus the budget resolution could easily be delayed into May or June.       4    For the difficulties, see Peter Cohn, “Democrats plan a spending blowout, but hurdles remain,” Roll Call, January 11, 2021, rollcall.com. For workarounds, see Zach Moller and Gabe Horwitz, “Reconciliation: How It Works and How to Use It to Help American Workers Recover,” Third Way, February 1, 2021, thirdway.org. 5    See Alexander Bolton, “Democrats hesitant to raise taxes amid pandemic,” The Hill, February 25, 2021, thehill.com. 6    See Saleha Mohsin and Christopher Condon, “Yellen Favors Higher Company Tax, Signals Capital Gains Worth a Look”, Bloomberg, February 22, 2021, Bloomberg.com