Geopolitics

Highlights The collapse in oil prices supercharges the geopolitical risks stemming from the global pandemic and recession. Low oil prices should discourage petro-states from waging war, but Iran may be an important exception. Russian instability is one of the most important secular geopolitical consequences of this year’s crisis. President Trump’s precarious status this election year raises the possibility of provocations or reactions on his part. Europe faces instability on its eastern and southern borders in coming years, but integration rather than breakup is the response. Over a strategic time frame, go long AAA-rated municipal bonds, cyber security stocks, infrastructure stocks, and China reflation plays. Feature Chart 1Someone Took Physical Delivery! Oil markets melted this week. Oil volatility measured by the Crude Oil ETF Volatility Index surpassed 300% as WTI futures for May 2020 delivery fell into a black hole, bottoming at -$40.40 per barrel (Chart 1). Our own long Brent trade, initiated on 27 March 2020 at $24.92 per barrel, is down 17.9% as we go to press. Strategically we are putting cash to work acquiring risk assets and we remain long Brent. The forward curve implies that prices will rise to $35 and $31 per barrel for Brent and WTI by April 2021. We initiated this trade because we assessed that: The US and EU would gradually reopen their economies (they are doing so). Oil production would be destroyed (more on this below). Russia and Saudi Arabia would agree to production cuts (they did). Monetary and fiscal stimulus would take effect (the tsunami of stimulus is still growing). Global demand would start the long process of recovery (no turn yet, unknown timing). On a shorter time horizon, we are defensively positioned but things are starting to look up on COVID-19 – New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has released results of a study showing that 15% of New Yorkers have antibodies, implying a death rate of only 0.5%. The US dollar and global policy uncertainty may be peaking as we go to press (Chart 2). However, second-order effects still pose risks that keep us wary. Chart 2Dollar And Policy Uncertainty Roaring Geopolitics is the “next shoe to drop” – and it is already dropping. A host of risks are flying under the radar as the world focuses on the virus. Taken alone, not every risk warrants a risk-off positioning. But combined, these risks reveal extreme global uncertainty which does warrant a risk-off position in the near term. This week’s threats between the US and Iran, in particular, show that the political and geopolitical fallout from COVID-19 begins now, it will not “wait” until the pandemic crisis subsides. In this report we focus on the risks from oil-producing economies, but we first we update our fiscal stimulus tally. Stimulus Tsunami Chart 3Stimulus Tsunami Still Building Policymakers responded to COVID-19 by doing “whatever it takes” to prop up demand (Chart 3). Please see the Appendix for our latest update of our global fiscal stimulus table. The latest fiscal and monetary measures show that countries are still adding stimulus – i.e. there is not yet a substantial shift away from providing stimulus: China has increased its measures to a total of 10% of GDP for the year so far, according to BCA Research China Investment Strategy. This includes a general increase in credit growth, a big increase in government spending (2% of GDP), a bank re-lending scheme (1.5% of GDP), an increase in general purpose local government bonds (2% of GDP), plus special purpose bonds (4% of GDP) and other measures. On the political front, the government has rolled out a new slogan, “the Six Stabilities and the Six Guarantees,” and President Xi Jinping said on an inspection tour to Shaanxi that the state will increase investments to ensure that employment is stabilized. This is the maximum reflationary signal from China that we have long expected. The US agreed to a $484 billion “fourth phase” stimulus package, bringing its total to 13% of GDP. President Trump is already pushing for a fifth phase involving bailouts of state and local governments and infrastructure, which we fully expect to take place even if it takes a bit longer than packages that have been passed so far this year. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has opened the way for the EU to issue Eurobonds, in keeping with our expectations. Germany is spending 12% of GDP in total – which can go much higher depending on how many corporate loans are tapped – while Italy is increasing its stimulus to 3% of GDP. As deficits rise to astronomical sums, and economies gradually reopen, will legislatures balk at passing new stimulus? Yes, eventually. Financial markets will have to put more pressure on policymakers to get them to pass more stimulus. This can lead to volatility. In the US the pandemic is coinciding with “peak polarization” over the 2020 election. Lack of coordination between federal and state governments is increasing uncertainty. Currently disputes center on the timing of economic reopening and the provisioning bailout funds for state and local governments. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is threatening to deny bailouts for American states with large, unfunded public pension benefits (Chart 4A). He is insisting that the Senate “push the pause button” on coronavirus relief measures; specifically that nothing new be passed until the Senate convenes in Washington on May 4. He may then lead a charge in the Republican Senate to try to require structural reforms from states in exchange for bailouts. Estimates of the total state budget shortfall due to the crisis stand at $500 billion over the next three years, which is almost certainly an understatement (Chart 4B). Chart 4AUS States Have Unfunded Liabilities Chart 4BUS States Face Funding Shortfalls Could a local government or state declare bankruptcy? Not anytime soon. Technically there is no provision for states to declare bankruptcy. A constitutional challenge to such a declaration would go to the Supreme Court. One commonly cited precedent, Arkansas in 1933, ended up with a federal bailout.1 A unilateral declaration could conceivably become a kind of “Lehman moment” in the public sector, but state governors will ask their legislatures to provide more fiscal flexibility and will seek bailouts from the federal government first. The Federal Reserve is already committed to buying state and local bonds and can expand these purchases to keep interest rates low. Washington would be forced to provide at least short-term funding if state workers started getting fired in the midst of the crisis because of straightened state finances – another $500 billion for the states is entirely feasible in today’s climate. Constraints will prevail on the GOP Senate to provide state bailout funds. This conflict over state finances could have a negative impact on US equities in the near term, but it is largely a bluff – McConnell will lose this battle. The fundamental dynamic in Washington is that of populism combined with a pandemic that neutralizes arguments about moral hazard. Big-spending Democrats in the House of Representatives control the purse strings while big-spending President Trump faces an election. Senate Republicans are cornered on all sides – and their fate is tied to the President’s – so they will eventually capitulate. Bottom Line: The global fiscal and monetary policy tsunami is still building. But there are plenty of chances for near-term debacles. Over the long run the gargantuan stimulus is the signal while the rest is noise. Over the long run we expect the reflationary efforts to prevail and therefore we are long Treasury inflation-protected securities and US investment grade corporate bonds. We recommend going strategically long AAA-rated US municipal bonds relative to 10-year Treasuries. Petro-State Meltdown Since March we have highlighted that the collapse in oil prices will destabilize oil producers above and beyond the pandemic and recession. This leaves Iran in danger, but even threatens the stability of great powers like Russia. Normally there is something of a correlation between the global oil price and the willingness of petro-states to engage in war (Chart 5). Chart 5Petro-States Cease Fire When Oil Drops When prices fall, revenues dry up and governments have to prioritize domestic stability. This tends to defer inter-state conflict. We can loosely corroborate this evidence by showing that global defense stocks tend to be correlated with oil prices (Chart 6). Global growth is the obvious driver of both of these indicators. But states whose budgets are closely tied to the commodity cycle are the most likely to cut defense spending. Chart 6Global Growth Drives Oil And Guns Russia is case in point. Revenues from Rostec, one of Russia’s largest arms firms, rise and fall with the Urals crude oil price (Chart 7). The Russians launch into foreign adventures during oil bull markets, when state coffers are flush with cash. They have an uncanny way of calling the top of the cycle by invading countries (Chart 8). Chart 7Oil Correlates With Russian Arms Sales Chart 8Russian Invasions Call Peak In Oil Bull Markets Chart 9Turkish Political Risk On The Rise In the current oil rout, there is already some evidence of hostilities dying down in this way. For instance, after years of dogged fighting in Yemen, Saudi Arabia is finally declaring a ceasefire there. Turkey, which benefits from low oil prices, has temporarily gotten the upper hand in Libya vis-à-vis Khalifa Haftar and the Libyan National Army, which depends on oil revenues and backing from petro-states like Russia and the GCC. Of course, Turkey’s deepening involvement in foreign conflicts is evidence of populism at home so it does not bode well for the lira or Turkish assets (Chart 9). But it does highlight the impact of weak oil on petro-players such as Haftar. However, the tendency of petro-states to cease fire amid low prices is merely a rule of thumb, not a law of physics. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Already we are seeing that Iran is defying this dynamic by engaging in provocative saber-rattling with the United States. Iran And Iraq The US and Iran are rattling sabers again. One would think that Iran, deep in the throes of recession and COVID-19, would eschew a conflict with the US at a time when a vulnerable and anti-Iranian US president is only seven months away from an election. Chart 10US Maximum Pressure On Iran Iran has survived nearly two years of “maximum pressure” from President Trump (Chart 10), and previous US sanction regimes, and has a fair chance of seeing the Democrats retake Washington. The Democrats would restart negotiations to restore the 2015 nuclear deal, which was favorable to Iran. Therefore risking air strikes from President Trump is counterproductive and potentially disastrous. Yet this logic only holds if the Iranian regime is capable of sustaining the pain of a pandemic and global recession on top of its already collapsing economy. Iran’s ability to circumvent sanctions to acquire funds depended on the economy outside of Iran doing fine. Now Iran’s illicit funds are drying up. This could lead to a pullback in funding for militant proxies across the region as Iran cuts costs. But it also removes the constraint on Iran taking bolder actions. If the economy is collapsing anyway then Iran can take bigger risks. Furthermore if Iran is teetering, there may be an incentive to initiate foreign conflicts to refocus domestic angst. This could be done without crossing Trump’s red lines by attacking Iraq or Saudi Arabia. With weak oil demand, Iran’s leverage declines. But a major attack would reduce oil production and accelerate the global supply-demand rebalance. Iran’s attack on the Saudi Abqaiq refinery last September took six million barrels per day offline briefly, but it was clearly not intended to shut down that production permanently. Threats against shipping in the Persian Gulf bring about 14 million barrels per day into jeopardy (Chart 11). Chart 11Closing Hormuz Would Be The Biggest Oil Shock Ever Iran-backed militias in Iraq have continued to attack American assets and have provoked American air strikes over the past month, despite the near-war scenario that erupted just before COVID. Iranian ships have harassed US naval ships in recent days. President Trump has ordered the navy to destroy ships that threaten it; Iranian commander has warned that Iran will sink US warships that threaten its ships in the Gulf. There is a 20% chance of armed hostilities between the US and Iran. Why would Iran be willing to confront the United States? First, Iran rightly believes that the US is war-weary and that Trump is committed to withdrawing from the Middle East. But this could prompt a fateful mistake. The equation changes if the US public is incensed and Trump’s election campaign could benefit from conflict. Chart 12Youth Pose Stability Risk To Iran Second, the US is never going to engage in a ground invasion of Iran. Airstrikes would not easily dislodge the regime. They could have the opposite effect and convert an entire generation of young, modernizing Iranians into battle-hardened supporters of the Islamic revolution (Chart 12). This is a dire calculation that the Iranian leaders would only make if they believed their regime was about to collapse. But they are quite possibly the closest to collapse that they have been since the 1980s and nobody knows where their pain threshold lies. They are especially vulnerable as the regime approaches the uncharted succession of Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei. Since early 2018 we have argued that there is a 20% chance of armed hostilities between the US and Iran. We upgraded this to 40% in June 2019 and downgraded it back to 20% after the Iranians shied from direct conflict this January. Our position remains the same 20%. This is still a major understated risk at a time when the global focus is entirely elsewhere. It will persist into 2021 if Trump is reelected. If the Democrats win the US election, this war risk will abate. The Iranians will play hard to get but they are politically prohibited from pursuing confrontation with the US when a 2015-type deal is available. This would open up the possibility for greater oil supply to be unlocked in the future, but sanctions are not likely to be lifted till 2022 at earliest. Russia Russia may not be on the verge of invading anyone, but it is internally vulnerable and fully capable of striking out against foreign opponents. Cyberattacks, election interference, or disinformation campaigns would sow confusion or heighten tensions among the great powers. The Russian state is suffering a triple whammy of pandemic, recession, and oil collapse. President Vladimir Putin’s approval rating has fallen this year so far, whereas other leaders in the western world have all seen polling bounces (even President Trump, slightly) (Chart 13). Putin postponed a referendum designed to keep him in office through 2036 due to the COVID crisis. In other words, the pandemic has already disrupted his carefully laid succession plans. While Putin can bypass a referendum, he would have been better off in the long run with the public mandate. Generally it is Putin’s administration, not his personal popularity, that is at risk, but the looming impact on Russian health and livelihoods puts both in jeopardy (Chart 14) and requires larger fiscal outlays to try to stabilize approval (Chart 15). Chart 13Putin Saw No COVID Popularity Bump Chart 14Russian Regime Faces Political Discontent Moreover, regardless of popular opinion, Putin is likely to settle scores with the oligarchs. The fateful decision to clash with the Saudis in March, which led to the oil collapse, will fall on Igor Sechin, Chief Executive of Rosneft, and his faction. An extensive political purge may well ensue that would jeopardize domestic stability (Chart 16). Chart 15Russia To Focus On Domestic Stability Chart 16Russian Political Risk Will Rise Russian tensions with the US will rise over the US election in November. The Democrats would seek to make Russia pay for interfering in US politics to help President Trump win in 2016. But even President Trump may no longer be a reliable “ally” of Putin given that Putin’s oil tactics have bankrupted the US shale industry during Trump’s reelection campaign. The American and Russian air forces are currently sparring in the air space over Syria and the Mediterranean. The US has also warned against a malign actor threatening to hack the health care system of the Czech Republic, which could be Russia or another actor like North Korea or Iran. These issues have taken place off the radar due to the coronavirus but they are no less real for that. Venezuela We have predicted Venezuela’s regime change for several years but the oil meltdown, pandemic, and insufficient Russian and Chinese support should put the final nail in the regime’s coffin. Hugo Chavez’s rise to power, the last “regime change,” occurred as oil prices bottomed in 1998. Historically the Venezuelan armed forces have frequently overthrown civilian authorities, but in several cases not until oil prices recovered (Chart 17). Chart 17Venezuelan Coups Follow Oil Rebounds The US decision to designate Nicolas Maduro as a “narco-terrorist,” to deploy greater naval and coast guard assets around Venezuela, to reassert the Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt Corollary, and to pull Chevron from the country all suggest that Washington is preparing for regime change. Such a change may or may not involve any American orchestration. Venezuela is an easy punching-bag for President Trump if he seeks to “wag the dog” ahead of the election. Venezuela would be a strategic prize and yet it cannot hurt the US economy or financial markets substantially, giving limited downside to President Trump if he pursues such a strategy. Obviously any conflict with Venezuela this year is far less relevant to global investors than one with Iran, North Korea, China, or Russia. Regime change would be positive for oil supply and negative for prices over the long run. But that is a story for the next cycle of energy development, as it would take years for government and oil industry change in Venezuela to increase production. The US election cycle is a critical aggravating factor for all of these petro-state risks. Shale producers are going bankrupt, putting pressure on the economy and some swing states. The risk of a conflict arises not only from Trump playing “wag the dog” after the crisis abates, but also from other states provoking the president, causing him to react or overreact. The “Other Guys” Oil producers outside the US, Canada, gulf OPEC, and Russia – the “other guys” – are extremely vulnerable to this year’s global crisis and price collapse. Comprising half of global production, they were already seeing production declines and a falling global market share over the past decade when they should have benefited from a global economic expansion. They never recovered from the 2014-15 oil plunge and market share war (Chart 18). Angola (1.4 million barrels per day), Algeria (one million barrels per day), and Nigeria (1.8 million barrels per day) are relatively sizable producers whose domestic stability is in question in the coming years as they cut budgets and deplete limited forex reserves to adjust to the lower oil price. This means fewer fiscal resources to keep political and regional factions cooperating and provide basic services. Algeria is particularly vulnerable. President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, who ruled as a strongman from 1999, was forced out last year, leaving a power vacuum that persists under Prime Minister Abdelaziz Djerad, in the wake of the low-participation elections in December. An active popular protest movement, Hirak, already exists and is under police suppression. Unemployment is high, especially among the youth. Neighboring Libya is in the midst of a war and extremist militants within Libya and North Africa would like to expand their range of operations in a destabilized Algeria. Instability would send immigrants north to Europe. Oil production will be reduced involuntarily as well as voluntarily this year due to regime failures. Brazil is not facing the risk of state failure like Algeria, but it is facing a deteriorating domestic political outlook (Chart 19). President Jair Bolsonaro’s popularity was already low relative to most previous presidents before COVID. His narrow base in the Chamber of Deputies got narrower when he abandoned his political party. He has defied the pandemic, refused to endorse social distancing or lockdown orders by local governments, and fired his Health Minister Luiz Henrique Mandetta. Chart 18Petro-States: 'Other Guys' Face Instability Chart 19Brazilian Political Risk Rising Again Brazil has a high number of coronavirus deaths per million people relative to other emerging markets with similar health capacity and susceptibility to the disease. This, combined with sharply rising unemployment, could prove toxic for Bolsonaro, who has not received a bounce in popular opinion from the crisis like most other world leaders. Thus on balance we expect the October local elections to mark a comeback for the Worker’s Party. The limited fiscal gains of Bolsonaro’s pension reform are already wiped out by the global recession, which will set back the country’s frail recovery from its biggest recession in a century. The country is still on an unsustainable fiscal path. Bolsonaro does not have a strong personal commitment to neoliberal structural reform, which has been put aside anyway due to the need for government fiscal spending amid the crisis. Unless Bolsonaro’s popularity increases in the wake of the crisis – due to backlash against the state-level lockdowns – the economic shock is negative for Brazil’s political stability and economic policy orthodoxy. Bottom Line: Our rule of thumb about petro-states suggests that they will generally act less aggressive amid a historic oil price collapse, but Iran may prove a critical exception. Investors should not underestimate the risk of a US-Iran conflict this year. Beyond that, the US election will have a decisive impact as the Democrats will seek to resume the Iranian nuclear deal and Iran would eventually play ball. Venezuela is less globally relevant this year – although a “wag the dog” scenario is a distinct possibility – but it may well be a major oil supply surprise in the 2020s. More broadly the takeaway is that oil production will be reduced involuntarily as well as voluntarily this year due to regime failures. Investment Takeaways Obviously any conflict with Iran could affect the range of Middle Eastern OPEC supply, not just the portion already shuttered due to sanctions on Iran itself. Any Iran war risk is entirely separate from the risk of supply destruction from more routine state failures in Africa. These shortages have been far less consequential lately and have plenty of room to grow in significance (Chart 20). The extreme lows in oil prices today will create the conditions for higher oil prices later when demand recovers, via supply destruction. Chart 20More Unplanned Outages To Come Chart 21European Political Risk No Longer Underrated An important implication – to be explored in future reports – is that Europe’s neighborhood is about to get a lot more dangerous in the coming years, as the Middle East and Russia will become less stable. Middle East instability will result in new waves of immigration and terrorism after a lull since 2015-16. These waves would fuel right-wing political sentiment in parts of Europe that are the most vulnerable in today’ crisis: Italy, Spain, and France (Chart 21). This should not be equated with the EU breaking apart, however, as the populist parties in these countries are pursuing soft rather than hard Euroskepticism. Unless that changes the risk is to the Euro Area’s policy coherence rather than its existence. Finally Russian domestic instability is one of the major secular consequences of the pandemic and recession and its consequences could be far-reaching, particularly in its great power struggle with the United States. We are reinitiating a strategic long in cyber security stocks, the ISE Cyber Security Index, relative to the S&P500 Info Tech sector. Cyberattacks are a form of asymmetrical warfare that we expect to ramp up with the general increase in global geopolitical tensions. The US’s recent official warning against an unknown actor that apparently intended to attack the health system of the Czech Republic highlights the way in which malign actors could attempt to capitalize on the chaos of the pandemic. We also recommend strategic investors reinitiate our “China Play Index” – commodities and equities sensitive to China’s reflation – and our BCA Infrastructure Basket, which will benefit from Chinese reflation as well as US deficit spending. China’s reflation will help industrial metals more so than oil, but it is positive for the latter as well. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 John Mauldin, "Don't Be So Sure That States Can't Go Bankrupt," Forbes, July 28, 2016, forbes.com.   Section II: Appendix : GeoRisk Indicator China Russia UK Germany France Italy Canada Spain Taiwan Korea Turkey Brazil Appendix Table 1 The Global Fiscal Stimulus Response To COVID-19 Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Over the past year we have discussed “peak polarization” for the United States with many clients. We have held the contrarian view that political animosities within the US are nearing their peak. Feature Prior to COVID-19 we argued that polarization would either peak this year, with the US election, or in roughly two years – a scenario in which President Donald Trump won reelection and an epic partisan battle ensued with House Democrats over his second-term policy priority (probably the southern border wall). The global pandemic and recession have changed things. They are accelerating the peaking process, as a domestic consensus is forming on Big Government, border controls, and protectionism against China. It is also less likely that President Trump will scrape through with a narrow victory in November – rather, he will win or lose decisively. Policy consensus and a decisive electoral outcome should reduce polarization in the coming years. The risk to this view is that President Trump is reelected for a second time without a majority of the popular vote and then attempts major cuts to social spending to correct the country’s gargantuan budget deficits. This risk is vastly overrated. A corollary of our view is that US polarization will hit a boiling point in this election year. Polarization will remain extreme until the election results are confirmed, settled, and done. The conflict between Trump and the Democratic governors over when to reopen the virus-plagued economy is case in point. For investors, this view implies that, in the very near term, the dollar and global safe-haven flows will remain strong, defensive plays have further to run, and US equities will continue to outperform global. But over the long run, the dollar is already at extreme highs and global equities outside the US offer better value. The COVID Confederacy When we chose our theme for this year’s presidential election, “Civil War Lite,” we argued that the US faced a host of social and political challenges that would come to head by November 3. These challenges could manifest in violent social unrest or in an electoral or constitutional crisis that harmed government legitimacy. We did not expect COVID-19, but it has created exactly what our Civil War Lite theme implies: a clash between federal and state governments over who has the final say in the American system. Specifically, the Democratic-led states on the east and west coast are quarreling with the Trump administration over how and when to reopen their economies in the wake of tough “shelter in place” measures that have ground the economy to a halt in order to stem the pandemic. For the first time since the great realignment of US politics in the 1930s, the US is having an historic nationwide crisis in which the Republicans are asserting an overriding federal government and the Democrats are insisting on states’ rights. United States governors have formed two coalitions to determine when and how to reopen. On the West Coast, California Governor Gavin Newsom joined with the governors of Oregon and Washington states to set up a working group. On the East Coast – the epicenter of the pandemic in the US – Andrew Cuomo, Governor of New York, joined with his counterparts from New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania to set up a similar working group. Governor Cuomo fought a war of words with President Trump over who has the authority to invoke and revoke emergency health and security actions. President Trump declared, “When somebody is the president of the United States, the authority is total.” Cuomo rebuked him by saying, “we have a constitution … we don’t have a king.” Trump replied by suggesting that Cuomo and his fellow governors were engaging in “mutiny” and implied that he could use his enormous powers and funds as head of the federal government to decide the conflict. The conflict between President Trump and the “COVID Confederacy” heightens uncertainty in the near term. All parties have since softened their tone. Cuomo said he did not want confrontation, President Trump said that he would “authorize” all fifty governors to reopen their economies, and Newsom asserted his executive authority over California without addressing Trump’s comments directly. This conflict may be overrated from the point of view of long-term American stability – President Trump is not about to impose a naval blockade like Abraham Lincoln. But it is not overrated in the near term for financial markets. That is because the reopening plan remains undecided. The “COVID Confederacy,” as we facetiously call it, makes up a combined 38% of US gross domestic product (Table 1), which is shown here in our flow-based cartogram of the United States (Map 1). Each state is colored red or blue according to its Republican or Democratic Party Electoral College vote in 2016, and it is sized proportionally to its economic output. Map 1The COVID Confederacy: States That May Break With Federal Government Over Quarantines Table 1The COVID Confederacy As Share Of GDP We think this conflict matters because it heightens the uncertainty over the duration of quarantine measures, and hence the sufficiency of fiscal stimulus and the length of time until economic normalization. Markets do not like uncertainty. Second, the conflict could still escalate, given that President Trump could still try to push for an earlier economic opening than the Blue States are ready for. Third, even assuming that all sides recognize they need to cooperate amid crisis, the US election still hangs in the balance and the decision to open the economy will increase the death count and thus hypercharge the political contest. Bottom Line: We expect US politics to weigh on US and hence global equities in the near term, as they have already rallied by 24% since their trough in March. When And How Will The US Reopen? How will Trump’s conflict with the Democratic governors be resolved? President Trump is in an impossible situation. Reopening the economy earlier will lead to an increase in deaths – the US will move toward or past Sweden in Chart 1. This is in an election environment in which each death will be heavily politicized while the dangers of deeper recession will be more abstract. Not reopening the economy will add to the US’s historic losses in employment, production, and retail sales (Chart 2). Chart 1Reopening Will Improve Economy But Increase Deaths Per Million Chart 2Delayed Reopening Will Weigh On Stocks Even in the best-case scenario, in which the economy starts to reopen in May, mitigation efforts succeed, and deaths are limited, Trump will still be left with large-scale unemployment and recession. Historically unemployment is the best indicator for which direction the president’s approval will ultimately go (Chart 3). And bear in mind that interior Republican states will be at risk of subsequent outbreaks because they are on a later time frame for the virus peak and yet are most likely to comply with Trump’s reopening plan. The implication is that Trump is constrained and will ultimately decide to maintain the lockdowns longer than he is implying (May 1), and longer than the market expects. He would not want to be seen as losing the fight to the virus. As we go to press, Trump is finalizing “Opening Up America Again” guidelines. Leaving decisions to governors could mean accepting longer lockdowns. Chart 3AUnemployment Rate Leads The Way For Presidents Chart 3BUnemployment Rate Leads The Way For Presidents Meanwhile the Democratic governors who make up the COVID confederacy have a perverse incentive to hold out longer in maintaining strict social distancing. If they reopen too soon, deaths go up and they suffer the political consequences. Yet in normalizing the economy they risk helping Trump get reelected. To be sure, the governors cannot cut off their own economies to spite Trump. But they can continue to drag their feet. First, to show that they are “more competent” leaders who “rely on science” and thus ensure that Trump takes the blame for the increase in deaths. Second, because Trump’s declaration of “total authority” forces them to defend their power and prerogative as governors – this is a constitutional constraint on President Trump. A major problem for Trump is that, unlike Abraham Lincoln, he is asserting total authority over the states not to fight and win the war (in this case, against the virus), but to ease the recession. This is a risky position because subsequent outbreaks will hurt him. Public opinion polling suggests that 64% of voters think the government should prioritize fighting the virus while 29% think it should prioritize rebooting the economy – and this split is 51% versus 43% among Republicans (Chart 4). Chart 4Voters More Afraid Of Virus Than Recession Business leaders at the first meeting of Trump’s “Great American Economic Revival Industry Groups” testified that premature opening is counterproductive if virus testing is inadequate. It is risky for their employees, threatens dire legal consequences down the road, and may need to be reversed. To be sure, economic pressure will change voters’ and business leaders’ minds eventually. The Democratic governors will capitulate as demand for loosening grows. They may be bickering over a one or two week difference in reopening timelines. Testing is improving markedly, and New York is on track to be much better equipped to handle the required testing in the month of May. Still, there is a great risk that the governors delay at least two weeks beyond Trump’s timeline. And a two-week delay with these states costs, at minimum, $237 billion, or 3% of their GDP this year. There is also a risk that the dispute escalates and Trump resorts to coercion to pressure the states to reopen sooner, creating more uncertainty. If the federal government loosens guidance and Trump uses the “bully pulpit” to speed up reopening, the overall effectiveness of the state lockdowns will decline. This could cause the governors to tighten controls before they loosen them, or it could even cause the federal government to reverse course. House Democrats have cooperated on fiscal stimulus (see Appendix) with President Trump and Senate Republicans because they would not dare delay relief for households merely to undermine the president. But the political logic works differently for Democratic state governors when it comes to reopening the economy – they benefit politically from saving lives and opposing President Trump. Bottom Line: Ultimately the COVID confederacy of Democratic states will suffer immense pressure to reopen, so their contest with Trump may only amount to one or two weeks’ difference. But this “Civil War Lite” can get worse before it gets better. Investors face rising uncertainty over the coming month over the pace and extent of US reopening. Peak Polarization Chart 5Why We Called 2020 ‘Civil War Lite’ We chose our election theme because of the extreme levels of polarization in US politics. These will come to a head with the November 3, 2020 general election. It cannot be overstated that today’s polarization is empirically extreme – this is not subjective. Our quantitative election model shows that more and more states have a near-certain probability of sending their Electoral College votes to the party they already favor – meaning that these states are uncompetitive in the election due to the fixed opinion of voters (Chart 5, top panel). The difference in Republican and Democratic approval of the president is soaring far above the high points of the past forty years (Chart 5, bottom panel), a very simple sign of polarization. The most rigorous measure of polarization in American political science shows that polarization is the highest since the Civil War in the 1860s (a time when these data lose applicability). It is comparable to the Reconstruction era in the 1870s and the populist era in the early 1900s (Chart 6). Our quantitative model relies on leading economic indicators as of February and thus still gives President Trump victories in New Hampshire and Wisconsin. It predicts him winning the White House with 273 Electoral College votes, only a three-seat margin over the required 270 to win the Oval Office.1 The economic collapse will hurt his odds as data come in, as is clear when we “shock” our model with a 2008-sized slowdown (Chart 7). Chart 6US Polarization The Highest Since The Civil War Chart 7Our US Election Quant Model Shows A Tight Race The clearest and simplest sign of polarization is the long-term decline in presidential approval ratings and increase in disapproval ratings. Approval has not hit the low point, when George W. Bush presided over a financial meltdown on top of a foreign military quagmire, but it is near Truman and Nixon-era lows (Chart 8A). Chart 8AA Very Simple View Of US Political Polarization The lesson from this last chart is that Americans most approve of their presidents during times of prosperity at home and peace abroad, such as the late 1950s and early 1960s, the late 1980s (as the Soviets collapsed), and the late 1990s, during the post-Cold War “peace dividend.” Yet Trump’s first three years in office, despite peace and prosperity, did not witness a huge increase in approval. Extreme polarization will come to a head with the November election. Disapproval is even more telling. Historically, the disapproval rating peaks at a crisis point and then dramatically subsides – with a series of lower and lower peaks – in the subsequent years. This was true after the Korean War and Truman administration scandals, the Watergate scandal and Nixon’s resignation, and the first Iraq war and 1990-91 recession. But in the case of the Great Recession, polarization only briefly declined before it rapidly began mounting again, reaching a post-2008 peak under President Trump (Chart 8B). Chart 8BA Very Simple View Of US Political Polarization The last point suggests that the US was building toward a new crisis point and COVID-19 has created that moment. The question is whether Trump’s approval ultimately goes up or down as a result, and whether the nation bands together in the wake of the election as it did after past crisis elections (e.g. 1932, 1952, 1968, 1976). House Democrats and Republicans have cooperated on stimulus packages, as mentioned, but this cooperation will give way to cut-throat competition as the acute crisis subsides and the election approaches. Bottom Line: US polarization is historically extreme and will intensify ahead of the election. Election And Reconstruction Prior to COVID there were three main scenarios for polarization to escalate further in the 2020-22 period: Trump Narrowly Reelected: It is inherently rare for a president to win the Electoral College vote without winning the popular vote. It happened in 2000 and 2016, marking the polarized times. If it happened again it could easily be accompanied with vote recounts or Supreme Court intervention, like in 2000, or foreign meddling. Such a crisis would push polarization higher, once again emphasizing the parallel with the 1870s, such as the 1876 “Stolen Election.” Trump Narrowly Defeated: The same could be said if Trump were to lose narrowly. Disputed vote recounts, or faithless electors in the Electoral College, or other unexpected incidents would give rise to accusations of a Deep State coup d'état against President Trump, leaving his supporters disaffected. Wag The Dog: It is also conceivable that an international crisis could occur in which the President is accused of “wagging the dog,” orchestrating a rally-around-the-flag effect to get reelected. Our top contenders for such an event are Venezuela, Iran, or North Korea. The crisis has Iran even closer to the brink and it is continuing to spar with the US in the Gulf and in Iraq (Charts 9A & 9B). A war of choice would heighten polarization, particularly at a time when the public is war-weary. (Obviously a genuine, non-manipulated war could also occur, but it would reduce not heighten polarization.) Chart 9AIran Was Extremely Vulnerable … Chart 9B… Even Prior To COVID-19 COVID-19 has changed the outlook because it is much more likely now that Trump loses the election – yet it is also more likely that if he wins, he wins the popular vote. Chart 10Public View Of Trump’s Handling Of Pandemic Unclear Thus Far Trump is more likely to lose because he faces recession and charges of mishandling the pandemic. The “bounce” in his approval rating has already subsided (Chart 10). The bounce in his and Republican support have subsided faster than that of other comparable world leaders and ruling parties. Trump’s polling bounce was also extremely small relative to other major presidential bounces in modern history – especially bounces derived from an exogenous crisis that was not the president’s fault, like COVID. “Enemy” shocks tend to create a 20%-30% boost to approval (Table 2). This is especially worrisome evidence for Trump. Table 2Trump’s Crisis Polling Bounce Compared To Previous Presidential Bounces And yet Trump is more likely than he was prior to COVID to see his approval rise above 50% and win the popular vote. He briefly polled above 50% during the bounce. Look at Chart 10 again – his approval bounce is bottoming at 45%, higher than last year’s lows. There is still a 35% chance that Trump guides the country through the crisis and is rewarded at the voting booth. There are four reasons we still give Trump a 35% chance of winning. First, COVID itself is obviously not Trump’s fault (nor is it Xi Jinping’s). Second, the economy is going to benefit from historic stimulus. Third, COVID reinforces Trump’s major policy themes: tighter borders and more domestic manufacturing. Fourth, Biden is a weak challenger. Most importantly, a new national consensus is forming regardless of the US election outcome. The crisis has led to border shutdowns and highlighted the risk of globalization and border insecurity. Note that US policy on immigration first tightened under President Obama (Chart 11). In the post-COVID environment, candidate Biden will not be willing to be accused of wanting open borders. So this likely is an abiding theme in US politics – Biden will be more pro-immigration than Trump, but he will have to have some limits to protect against any future Trumpian populists. Chart 11AUS Will Tighten Immigration Laws One Way Or Another Chart 11BUS Will Tighten Immigration Laws One Way Or Another The COVID crisis has also exacerbated US-China tensions, urging “decoupling” and calling attention to US reliance on China to make testing kits, protective equipment, and key pharmaceuticals (Chart 12). As we have argued before, the US containment policy toward China began under President Obama’s “Pivot to Asia” and is likely to continue under a Biden administration, particularly in the wake of COVID. Biden will be less tariff-happy than Trump, but he cannot win the Rust Belt, and keep it, if he is soft on China. What about fiscal policy? The great debate is over taxes and spending. And yet COVID has laid the starkest divisions to rest. Trump was never a “limited government” Republican, but if he wins reelection on this basis there is very little chance that he will revert to a pre-COVID Republican position of slashing social spending and taxes. First, Democrats may still keep the House. Second, like Boris Johnson in the UK, Trump would need to solidify the new conservative beachhead among the working class. This would require fiscal accommodation, i.e. limited spending retrenchment, despite the extraordinary stimulus of the pandemic. Biden, for his part, will raise taxes but not as much as Democrats may desire due to the need for economic recovery. Thus polarization is much more likely to fall in the wake of COVID and the US election on a new policy consensus of more secure borders, trade protectionism, and greater government spending. This new consensus will be reinforced by the more left-leaning ideology of the Millennial generation, which will reinforce the shift toward Big Government that is occurring under a Baby Boomer Republican president (Chart 13). Chart 12US Will Diversify Supply Chain Away From China Chart 13The Democratic Party Ascendancy In the meantime the election conflict, rather than this new consensus, will dominate the national scene. Bottom Line: If Trump loses because of his handling of the pandemic and recession, it will likely be a landslide. Polarization will decrease, just as after earlier boiling points. His followers will be discouraged, leaving only a rump of loyalists. A new Democratic consensus is likely to emerge that incorporates policies that Obama and Trump had in common on borders and manufacturing. Polarization is likely to fall on a new policy consensus of more secure borders, trade protectionism and greater government spending.  If Trump wins because of his handling of the crisis, he is not likely to squeak by narrowly in the election. In this scenario he has by definition received a swell of support for his conduct amid a historic crisis. He would grow his mandate. This will reduce polarization under a new Big Government Republican consensus. Investment Takeaways Tactically we remain long defensive plays. We see no immediate end to dollar strength, safe haven flows, and US equity outperformance until the US pandemic stabilizes and a clear path for economic reopening begins to unfold. Even if US equities fall because of US political uncertainty this year, they can outperform international equities at least until Chinese and global growth stabilize and turn up. Strategically, we remain overweight global equities relative to US equities on the basis of relative valuations and looming US policy headwinds arising from more government intervention, more redistribution, and more on-shoring. China’s stimulus should help lift international equities over a one-year horizon. Note that in the near term this US equity underweight may continue to be offside. Housekeeping We are throwing in the towel on our long EUR-USD trade, which has lost 2% since inception, and our long German consumer services trade, which is down 6%. We are also closing our long Thai bonds trade relative to Malaysia for a miniscule gain of 1.4 basis points. We still recommend both of these markets as strong emerging market plays. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Over the past several months the model showed a tie, 269-269, which would have given Trump the victory through an arcane congressional process for selecting the president. Appendix: The Global Fiscal Stimulus Response To COVID-19

Highlights The near-term is fraught with risk for US equities and global risk assets. Investors concerned over uncertainty, a slow recovery, and economic aftershocks must also guard against geopolitics. COVID-19 is not a victory for dictatorship over democracies. Democracies face voters and will ultimately improve government effectiveness. President Trump is likely to lose the US election. As this becomes increasingly likely, his policy will turn more aggressive, increasing geopolitical risks – particularly in US-China relations. Stay short CNY-USD. Stay long defense stocks. Feature Chart 1Another Downdraft Is Likely US equity prices have risen 26% since their March 23 low point, but our review of systemic global crises suggests that a re-test of the bottom would not be surprising (Chart 1). A range of mitigating health policies – plus still-growing policy stimulus – will most likely prevent a depression. But a longer than expected economic trough, due to some persistent level of social distancing pre-vaccine, and negative second-order effects, such as emerging market crises, could trigger another wave of selling. Moreover we expect another shoe to drop: geopolitics. A Light At The End Of The Tunnel Governments are starting to get a handle on the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of daily new cases in the European Union, which is most clearly correlated with global equities, has subsided (Chart 2). Chart 2Any Setbacks Will Hit Equity Market Hard The US is also seeing new cases crest. To be safe one should count on a subsidiary spike that could easily set back US equities after a notable stock market rally (Chart 2, second panel). But Europe has shown that social distancing works, which US investors will recognize. Italy’s Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte is expected to begin the gradual loosening of social controls to restart the economy. Since Italy is the hardest hit of the western nations (second only to Spain), its leaders will not relax lockdown measures unless they are sure they can do so safely (Chart 2, bottom panel). Still, if governments loosen controls too soon, they may have to tighten them again. Uncertainty will therefore persist regarding the pace of economic normalization, which is bound to be slow due to the fact that discretionary spending will remain suppressed, as it is today in China, and the special precautions that at-risk populations like the elderly will have to take. Economic stimulus measures are still growing in size. Japan’s stimulus, which we count at 16% of GDP, is smaller than the headline 20% but still very large. We have long argued that Japan was on the forefront of the move toward debt monetization among developed markets, but COVID-19 has accelerated the paradigm shift. The United Kingdom has now explicitly stated that the Bank of England will directly finance government debt. The Spanish government is proposing Universal Basic Income (UBI), which it hopes to make permanent, rather than merely for the duration of the pandemic. The jury is still out on whether the weak Pedro Sanchez government will be able to pass it but the current is in favor of “whatever it takes.” Italy’s Five Star Movement has long advocated universal basic income and is part of a ruling coalition that has received a wave of popular support to combat the crisis. At present only a more limited “income of emergency” is being legislated, in keeping with the more centrist Democratic Party, a coalition partner. But Italy’s devastation creates the impetus for bolder moves, either by this government or a subsequent government in 2021 or after. The European institutions are backstopping these states, at least for now, so any deeper disagreements about climbing down from stimulus will have to wait until the coming years. The EU itself is likely to announce additional fiscal measures, via the European Stability Mechanism, whose austerity requirements will be waived, and the European Investment Bank. We can see a token agreement on “coronabonds” (joint debt issuance by the Euro Area), but investors should not fixate on the eurobond debate. These would require a new mechanism, which is inexpedient, whereas the existing mechanisms are already sufficient to bankroll the huge deficit spending plans that the member states are already rolling out. The United States is negotiating an additional “phase four” package that could range between $500 billion and $2 trillion, meaning anywhere from 2.5% to 10% of GDP in new measures (Chart 3). Our estimate would err on the high side because it will largely consist of the same key elements as the “phase three” $2.3 trillion package: unemployment benefits and cash to households, plus a larger dollop for local governments than in the last package. Chart 3Fiscal Tsunami Is Still Building Congress is scheduled to return to vote the week of April 20, but an early return is entirely possible if the pandemic worsens. If the infection curve is flattening, then Republican Senators may hold out longer in negotiations. Squabbling would cause temporary agitation in equity markets. The Democrats and the Republicans still have a mutual interest in spending profusely: the Republicans to try to salvage their seats through economic improvement by November; the Democrats to prove their election proposition that a larger role for government is necessary. Finally, China is preparing to announce more stimulus. So far Chinese measures amount to only 3% of GDP but this is insufficient given the weakness in China’s economic rebound thus far. The expansion in quasi-fiscal spending (government-controlled credit expansion) is an open question, but we would guesstimate a minimum of 3% of GDP. Dramatic measures should be expected because China is undergoing the first recessionary environment since the Cultural Revolution and President Xi Jinping risks a monumental economic destabilization if he hesitates to shore up aggregate demand, which would ultimately threaten single-party rule. We see little chance of him making this mistake. The problem is that animal spirits and external demand will remain weak regardless, an occasion for disappointments among bullish equity investors. Moreover US-China geopolitical risks are rising again, as discussed below. Our updated list of fiscal measures for 25 countries can be found in the Appendix. Bottom Line: The pandemic is peaking in the US and EU, while more stimulus is coming. This is positive for equity investors with a 12-month time frame but the near-term remains vulnerable to another selloff. Democracies Are Not Less Effective Than Dictatorships The pandemic has given rise to wildly misleading narratives in the financial community and mainstream media about the political ramifications for different nations. Getting these narratives right is important for one’s investment strategy. The most popular is that China “won” – is expanding its global influence – while the United States “lost” – is failing at global leadership. More broadly the authoritarian eastern model is said to be triumphing over the western democratic model. The real distinction among states is whether they were familiar with pandemics emanating from China, the unreliability of China’s transparency and communications, and the need to track and trace infections from the beginning. Thus South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Vietnam, and Japan have all had relatively benign experiences and all but Vietnam are democracies, with varying degrees of representation and contestation. Nor is COVID-19 an “eastern” versus “western” thing. Germany did an effective job testing, tracking, and tracing infections as well. Germans are relatively law-abiding and trust Chancellor Angela Merkel and the state governments to “do the right thing.” Canada, with its experience of SARS, has also reacted effectively. Denmark, Austria, and the Czech Republic are already tentatively reopening their economies. Yet the number of new confirmed cases per million people shows that Germany is not wildly different from the US and Italy (Chart 4). The truth is that Italy’s bad fortune alerted the US and G7 states to take the threat more seriously – the US has had good outcomes in Washington State but bad outcomes in highly populated New York. Nor is it true that the American health care system is uniquely terrible in treating patients, as is so widely claimed. US deaths per million are worse than Germany but better than Italy (Chart 5) – and Italy’s health system is also not to blame. Failure of ruling parties to spring into decisive action is the main differentiator. Chart 4US In Line With Italy In New Cases … Chart 5… But Better In Limiting Deaths Chart 6Dictatorships Good At Halting Freedoms Dictatorships have had fewer cases and deaths, if their statistics can be trusted – which is a big if.1 This does not suggest that their governance model is better, but rather that they are better at halting freedoms, such as free movement (Chart 6). North Korea has zero cases of COVID-19. People were already under lockdown. Variation within the dictatorships stems from their policy responses and experience fighting pandemics. China, the origin of several recent outbreaks, has extensive experience. It also has a functional health system, fiscal resources, and a heavily centralized power structure. Iran, however, has less experience and capability. The question now is Russia, which was slow to react and has a growing outbreak, yet has a heavily centralized power structure to flatten the curve. Incidentally domestic risk is an important reason for Russia to cooperate with OPEC on oil production cuts, as we have argued. These points can be demonstrated by comparing COVID-19 deaths per million to each nation’s health capabilities and underlying vulnerability to the disease. Note that our intention is to highlight the role of policy in outcomes, not to attempt a full explanation of an epidemiological phenomenon. In Chart 7A, we judge health capacity by health spending per head and life expectancy at the age of 60. Nations that spend a lot per person, and whose people live longer, have better health systems. Yet many of these states are seeing the highest number of deaths because they are European and Europe was the epicenter of the outbreak. Chart 7ARich, Healthy Countries Got Hit Hardest Because Unprepared The US ranks right along with Germany and Sweden.2 Policy responses – early testing, tracking, and tracing – explain why South Korea has far fewer deaths than Italy and Spain on a population-weighted basis. However, the underlying conditions still matter, as the US’s health system, travel bans, and distance from the crisis produced better outcomes than its other policy responses would have implied. These data will be more accurate once the infection curve has flattened across the world. The situation is changing rapidly. If the US rises up in deaths per capita, it will be because of its slow responses, or subsequent policies. The same goes for emerging market economies that are ranking low in deaths but either have not seen the full effect of the pandemic, or had more time to adjust policy due to the crisis in Europe. Emerging market economies have lower health capacity, but also younger and hence healthier populations. The older the society, and the higher proportion of severe illnesses like heart and lung disease, the more susceptible to COVID-19 deaths, as Chart 7B shows. But yet again, the policy response still proves decisive. China has more deaths than some countries that are more vulnerable, because it got hit first. If Brazil and Turkey rise higher and higher above China in deaths, as is likely, it is because of policy failure, not basic vulnerability. Chart 7BEurope And US: Vulnerable Populations, Governments Slow To React Russia stands out as especially vulnerable in this Chart 7B. Here is where authoritarian measures may pay off, as with China, but only in the short term – since Russia will still be left with an elderly population highly prone to severe illness and a creaking health system. As mentioned above, the risk to Russian stability is a factor pushing for geopolitical cooperation in oil market cartel behavior to push prices up and improve the fiscal outlook to enable better domestic stability management. Bottom Line: Government policy, particularly preparedness and rapid action, have been the decisive factors in containing COVID-19, not dictatorial or democratic government types. The richest countries have the most freedoms and the most vulnerable elderly demographics. Within the rich countries, southern Europe reacted slowly and got hit hardest, with some exceptions. The US’s incompetence has been overrated, based on deaths, probably because of President Trump’s general unpopularity. These results are preliminary but they suggest that the US and EU will experience political change to address their lack of rapid action. Non-democracies will still have to deal with the recession and the consequences on social stability. Democracies Face Voter Blowback Democracies will face the wrath of voters once the immediate crisis dies down. The crisis has driven people to rally around the flag, creating polling bounces for national leaders and ruling parties. In some cases the trough-to-peak increase in popular support is remarkable – President Trump's approval reached 10 percentage points briefly, and he rose over 50% approval in some polls for the first time in his presidency (Chart 8A). Yet these initial bounces are already subsiding, as in Trump’s case (Chart 8B). Chart 8ADemocracies Are Accountable To Voters Chart 8BAnd Polling Bounces Are Fading By this measure, the US, Italy, France, and Spain all face serious political reckonings going forward. Trump is the first in the firing line. Our quantitative election model relies on state-level leading economic indicators that are lagging and show him still winning with 273 Electoral College votes (Chart 9A). However, if we introduce a 2008-magnitude economic shock to these indexes, the Democrats flip Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire, yielding 334 Electoral College votes for former Vice President Joe Biden (Chart 9B). This is assuming Trump’s approval rating stays the same, which, at 46%, is strong relative to the whole term in office. Chart 9AOur Quant Election Model Will Turn Against Trump When Data Catches Up Chart 9BA 2008-Style Shock To States Gives Democrats The White House Our qualitative judgement reinforces our election model. Historically, US elections are referendums on the ruling party. An incumbent president helps the party win reelection. But a recession is usually insurmountable. George Bush Sr lost in 1992 despite a shallow recession that ended the year before. While Joe Biden is a flawed candidate in numerous ways, the question voters face in November is whether they are better off than they were four years ago. With thousands of deaths and an unemployment rate at or above 20%, it is hard to see swing state voters answering “yes.” Not impossible, but we subjectively put the odds at 35%, and that could easily be revised downward if Trump’s polling falls back down to the 42% range. Trump will also be responsible for the handling of the pandemic itself. His administration obviously made several policy mistakes. A paper trail will highlight intelligence warnings as early as November, and warnings from his inner circle as early as January, that will hurt him.3 Objectively, the Republican Party’s greatest policy flaw, prior to COVID-19, was health care – and this will connect with COVID-19 even if the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) has little to do with crisis response. Bottom Line: The first and most important political casualty of the pandemic will be Trump’s presidency. Not because the US is uniquely incompetent in the face of the pandemic – although it obviously could have done better, judging by several of the other democracies – but because this year happens to be an election year and democracies hold governments accountable. Major Risk Of Clash With China Chart 10China Likely To Depreciate The Renminbi There are two downside geopolitical risks that follow directly from the above. First, while the Democratic candidate Joe Biden is a “centrist,” his position will move to the left of the political spectrum. This is to energize the progressive faction of the party – which is already energized. The market will be taken aback if Biden produces major leftward shifts, in the direction of Senator Bernie Sanders, on taxes, regulation, health care, pharmaceuticals, banks, energy, or tech. This is not a problem when the market is down 36%, but as the market rallies, it becomes more relevant. While US taxes and regulation will go up, Biden will still have to win over the Midwestern Rust Belt voter through trade protectionism, a la Trump and Bernie. This will be exacerbated by the pandemic, which has supercharged American popular enmity toward China and fear of supply chain vulnerability toward China. When Biden reveals that he is protectionist too, US equities will react negatively. Second, more immediately, the clash with China may happen much sooner. As President Trump comes to realize he is losing his grip on power, he will have an incentive to retaliate against China for its mishandling of the pandemic, shift the blame, and achieve long-term strategic objectives as well. This makes Trump’s approval rating a critical indicator – not only of his reelection odds, but of whether he determines he has lost and therefore adopts more belligerent foreign or trade policy. We view the danger zone as anything less than 43%. If Trump becomes a lame duck, he could target China, or other countries, such as Venezuela. The advantage of the latter is that it could have the desired political effect without threatening the economic restart. A conflict with Iran would have bigger consequences – particularly negative for Europe. But in the COVID-19 context, Venezuela and Iran are not relevant to American voters. A conflict with North Korea, however, is part of the strategic conflict with China and would be hard to keep separate from broader tensions. This is only likely if Kim Jong Un stages a major provocation. At present, Washington and Beijing are keeping a lid on tensions. Presidents Trump and Xi are in communication. Beijing has rebuked the foreign minister who accused the US military of bringing COVID-19 to Wuhan. Trump has stopped using inflammatory rhetoric about the “Chinese virus.” China is not depreciating the renminbi, it is upholding other aspects of the trade deal, and it is sending face masks and ventilators to assist the US with the health crisis. But this could change. With its economy under extreme pressure, Beijing must take greater moves to stimulate. An obvious victim will be the renminbi, which is arguably stronger than it should be, especially if China cuts interest rates further, no doubt in great part because of the “phase one” trade deal with the United States (Chart 10). If and when Beijing decides that it must ease the downward pressure on exports and the economy, the renminbi will slide. This will provoke Trump. If he is convinced he cannot salvage the economy anyway, then he has an incentive to channel American anger toward China into new punitive measures over currency manipulation. Finally, the ingredients for our “Taiwan black swan” scenario are falling into place. Taiwan has long attempted to gain representation in the World Health Organization but has been blocked by Beijing’s assertion of the One China principle. However, Taiwan is now caught in an escalating tussle with the WHO leadership that involves both Washington and Beijing. Taipei warned the WHO as early as December that COVID-19 could be transmitted by humans and that the pandemic risk was high.4 Both China and the WHO leadership are simultaneously under pressure from the Trump administration for failing to share information and sound the alarm to prepare other nations. Bottom Line: If President Trump decides to prosecute China for its handling of the virus, and/or promote US-Taiwan relations in a way that aggravates China, then the trigger for a major geopolitical incident will have arrived. Investment Implications It is impossible to predict the precise catalyst or timing of such a crisis. We observe that the US and China are each experiencing historic economic dislocation, their strategic relationship has broken down over the past decade, and their populations are incensed at each other over grievances relating to the trade war, COVID-19, and various disinformation campaigns. Taiwan is at the epicenter of this conflict, due to its defense relationship with the United States and renewed political tensions with China under Xi Jinping. But the Chinese tech sector, North Korea, the South and East China Seas, Xinjiang, and Iran are also potential catalysts. Geopolitics is the other shoe to drop in the wake of COVID-19. Presidents Trump and Xi Jinping are the biggest sources of geopolitical risk, as we outlined in our 2020 forecast. They are cooperating in the immediate crisis, but in the aftermath there will be recriminations. A worsening domestic situation, a loss of prestige for either leader, or a foreign policy provocation could trigger punitive measures, saber rattling, or even military incidents. Risk assets are rallying on the light at the end of the tunnel. We are reaching and in some countries passing the peak intensity of the (first wave of the) pandemic. But the economic aftermath is extremely uncertain and the political fallout has hardly begun. In the US, the implication is clearly negative for Trump. But if that implication is realized, it points to much higher geopolitical risks within 2020 than are currently being considered as the world focuses on the virus. If President Trump chooses to wag the dog with Venezuela, that is obviously a much more positive outcome for global risk assets than if he attempts to achieve American strategic objectives of curbing China’s global assertiveness. Tactically, we remain defensive and recommend defensive US equity sectors and the Japanese yen. On a 12-month and beyond time frame we are more bullish on global growth and are long gold and oil. We remain strategically short CNY-USD and short Taiwanese equities relative to Korean.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Appendix TableThe Global Fiscal Stimulus Response To COVID-19 Footnotes 1 Given that one of Iran’s top health officials has criticized China for its questionable data and lack of transparency, one does not need to trust the US Intelligence Community’s assessment that China misled the world in the early days of the outbreak. See Matthew Petti, "Even Iran Doesn't Believe China's Coronavirus Stats," April 6, 2020. 2 Readers accustomed to the apocalyptic view of the US health system may wonder that the US comes out looking very well on health capacity. This is because we combine and standardize the scores for per capita spending and longevity. However our data also show that the US is inefficient on health: its life expectancy scores are slightly lower than those of the Europeans, yet it spends more per head. 3 See Josh Margolin and James Gordon Meek, "Intelligence report warned of coronavirus crisis as early as November: Sources," ABC News, April 8, 2020, and Maggie Haberman, "Trade Adviser Warned White House in January of Risks of a Pandemic," New York Times, April 6, 2020. 4 See "Taiwan says WHO failed to act on coronavirus transmission warning," Financial Times, March 19, 2020.

Highlights Europe’s dirty little secret: Euro area debt is already mutualised. Investment implication: Overweight Italian BTPs, underweight German bunds, and overweight the euro on a structural (2-year plus) horizon. ESM plus ECB plus OMT equals a compromise solution to fund stimulus at a mutualised euro area interest rate. Investment implication: Overweight Italian BTPs, underweight German bunds on a cyclical (6-12 month) horizon. Spain’s high early peak in morbidity means that it has taken its pain upfront, at least compared to other countries.  Investment implication: upgrade Spain’s IBEX to a tactical overweight – and remove it from the cyclical underweight basket. Feature Chart of the WeekThe Underperformances Of China, Italy And Spain Were A Mirror-Image Of Their Covid-19 Morbidity Curves More About Morbidity Curves Most analyses of the pandemic tend to focus on the grim daily mortality statistics. Yet the key to the pandemic’s evolution is not its mortality rate, but rather its morbidity (severe illness) rate. This is because, without a vaccine, the total area underneath the morbidity curve is fixed. The cumulative number of people who will fall severely ill is pre-determined at the outset (Figures 1-3). Figure I-1The Area Under The Morbidity Curve Is Fixed, A High First Peak Means A Low Second Peak Figure I-2A Low First Peak Means An Extended First Peak…   Figure I-3…Or A High Second Peak Very optimistically assuming a Covid-19 morbidity rate of 1 percent, and that 65 percent of the population must get infected to exhaust the pandemic, we know that Covid-19 will ultimately make 0.65 percent of the population severely ill. Absent a vaccine, this number is set in stone. But the number of deaths is not set in stone. It depends on the availability of emergency medical treatment for those that are severely ill. For Covid-19 this means access to ventilation in an intensive care unit (ICU). Yet even the best equipped countries only have ICUs for 0.03 percent of the population. Therefore, the emergency treatment must be rationed either by supply or by demand. Without a Covid-19 vaccine, we cannot change the cumulative number of people who will become severely ill. Rationing by supply means that we must deny emergency treatment to the severely ill – not just Covid-19 patients but victims of, say, heart attacks or car crashes. Accept more deaths. Rationing by demand means that we must flatten the demand (morbidity) curve so that demand is always satisfied by the limited ICU supply. During the pandemics of 1918-19 and 1957, countries could ration emergency medical treatment by supply. Not in 2020. In an era of universal healthcare, everybody is entitled to, and expects to get, emergency medical care. Which means we must ration emergency medical treatment by demand. As such, we must analyse the 2020 response differently to the responses in 1918-19 and 1957. To repeat, without a vaccine, we cannot change the area under the morbidity curve. There is no way of escaping this truth. A low first peak requires a very elongated peak or a high second peak (Chart I-2). Conversely, countries that have suffered a high first peak will need a shorter peak and small (or no) second peak. Chart I-2Japan's Early Stabilisation Was A False Dawn Turning to an equity market implication, the underperformances of highly cyclical and domestically exposed Spain and Italy have closely tracked their morbidity curves (Chart I-1). Given that both countries have suffered very high first peaks in morbidity, the strong implication is that they have taken their pain upfront – at least compared to other countries. In the case of Spain, the market is also technically oversold (see Fractal Trading System). Investment implication: upgrade Spain’s IBEX to a tactical overweight – and remove it from the cyclical underweight basket. How Europe Could Unite Europe is dithering on its fiscal response to the pandemic. Specifically, Germany and the Netherlands are pushing back against the concept of mutualised euro area debt in the form of ‘corona-bonds’. But a pandemic is an act of nature, an indiscriminate exogenous shock. What is the point of the economic and monetary union if Italy must fund its response to an act of nature at the Italian 10-year yield of 1.5 percent rather than the euro area 10-year yield of 0 percent? (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4) Chart I-3To Fight An Act Of Nature Why Should Italy Borrow At A Higher Rate... Chart I-4...When It Could Borrow At A Lower Mutualised Rate? The good news is there is a compromise solution to fund stimulus at a mutualised interest rate. It uses the euro area’s €500 billion bailout fund, the European Stability Mechanism (ESM). But the compromise solution carries two problems which need mitigation. First, ESM credit lines come with conditionality. Italy would rightly balk if it were shackled like Greece, Portugal, and Ireland were after the euro debt crisis. Luckily, the ESM is likely to regard the current ‘act of nature’ crisis very differently to the debt crisis and impose only minimum and appropriate conditionality – for example, that credit lines should be used for healthcare and social welfare spending. Second, ESM credit lines come with a stigma. Taking fright that Italy is tapping the ESM, the bond market might drive up the yields on Italian BTPs. If this pushed up Italy’s overall funding rate, it would defeat the purpose of using the ESM in the first place. ESM plus ECB plus OMT equals a compromise solution to borrow at a mutualised interest rate. The hope is that the bond market, realising that Italy is using the bailout facility to counter an act of nature, would not drive up BTP yields. But if it did, the ECB could counter this by buying BTPs. One option would be to use its Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT) facility. Set up during the euro debt crisis, the OMT’s specific function is to counter bond market attacks when they are not justified by the economic fundamentals. In other words, to prevent a liquidity crisis escalating into a solvency crisis. Thereby, ESM plus ECB plus OMT equals a compromise solution to fund stimulus at a mutualised euro area interest rate. Investment implication: Overweight Italian BTPs, underweight German bunds on a cyclical (6-12 month) horizon. Europe’s Dirty Little Secret Outwardly, Germany and the Netherlands are reluctant to go down the slippery slope to mutualised euro area debt. But here’s the dirty little secret they don’t want you to know. Euro area debt is already mutualised. The stealth mutualisation has happened via the Target2 banking imbalance which now stands at €1.5 trillion. This imbalance is an accounting identity showing that Italy is owed ‘German euros’ via its large quantity of bank deposits in German banks while Germany is symmetrically owed ‘Italian euros’ via its large effective holding of Italian government bonds. The imbalance is irrelevant if a German euro equals an Italian euro. But if Italy defaulted on its bonds – by repaying them in a reinstated and devalued lira – then Target2 means that Germany must pick up the bill (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Target2 Means That If Italy Defaults, Germany Picks Up The Bill The Target2 imbalance is the result of the ECB’s QE program, in which the central bank has bought hundreds of billions of Italian bonds. If Italy repaid those bonds in a devalued lira, then the ECB would become insolvent, and the central bank’s remaining shareholders would have to plug the hole. The biggest shareholder would be Germany. Could Germany force Italy to repay its bonds in euros? No. According to a legal principle called ‘lex monetae’ Italy can repay its debt in its sovereign currency, whatever that is. Meanwhile, because of the fragility of the Italian banking system, the Italians who sold the bonds to the ECB deposited the cash in German banks. Legally, these depositors must be paid back in whatever is the German currency. Euro area debt is already mutualised. If euro area debt is already mutualised, why do policymakers continue to pretend that it isn’t? There are three reasons. First no policymaker would want to publicise that Germany is now on the hook if Italy left the euro. Second, no policymaker would want to publicise that the ECB has put Germany in this position (Chart I-6). Chart I-6ECB QE Has Created The Target2 Imbalance Third, and most important, policymakers would point out that the mutualisation of debt only happens if the euro breaks up. They would argue that because the euro is irreversible, the debt is not mutualised. In fact, their argument is completely back to front. The truth is: Because euro area debt is now mutualised, the euro has become irreversible. Investment implication: Overweight Italian BTPs, underweight German bunds, and overweight the euro on a structural (2-year plus) horizon. Fractal Trading System* As already discussed, this week’s recommended trade is long Spain’s IBEX 35 versus the Euro Stoxx 600. The profit target is 3 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. Meanwhile our other trade, long Australia versus New Zealand has moved into a 2 percent profit. The rolling 12-month win ratio now stands at 66 percent. Chart I-7IBEX 35 Vs. EUROSTOXX 600 When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated  December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com   Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Special Report

Highlights Global shortages of medical equipment – including medicines – are frontloaded until emergency production kicks in. As the crisis abates, political recriminations between the US and China will surge. The US will seek to minimize medical supply exposure to China going forward, a boon for India and Mexico. China has escaped the COVID-19 crisis with minimal impact on food supply. Pork prices are surging due to African Swine Flu, but meat is a luxury. Still, the “Misery Index” is spiking and this will increase social instability. Food insecurity, inflation, and large current account deficits suggest that emerging market currencies will remain under pressure. Turkey and South Africa stand to suffer while we remain overweight Malaysia. Feature Chart 1Collapse In Economic Activity With a third of the world population under some form of lockdown, general activity in the world’s manufacturing powerhouses has collapsed (Chart 1). The breakdown is a double whammy on market fundamentals. On the supply side, government-mandated containment efforts force workers in non-essential services to stay home while, on the demand side, households confined to their homes are unable to spend. Acute demand for medical supplies is causing shortages, while supply disruptions threaten states that lack food security. While global monetary and fiscal stimulus will soften the blow (Chart 2), the economic shock is estimated to be a 2% contraction in real GDP for every month of strict isolation. If measures are extended beyond April, markets will sell and new stimulus will be applied. Already the US Congress is negotiating the $1-$2 trillion infrastructure package that we discussed in our March 4 report, and cash handouts will be ongoing. When the dust settles the political fallout will be massive. Authoritarian states like China and especially Iran will face greater challenges maintaining domestic stability. Democracies like Italy and the US, which lead the COVID-19 case count, are the most likely to experience a change in leadership (Chart 3). Initially the ruling parties of the democracies are receiving a bump in opinion polling, but this will fade as households will be worse off and will likely vent their grievances at the ballot box. Until a vaccine or treatment is discovered, medical equipment and social distancing are the only weapons against the pandemic. National production is (rightly) being redirected from clothing and cars to masks and ventilators to meet the spike in demand. Will the supply shock cause shortages in food and medicine – essential goods for humankind? In this report we address the impact of COVID-19 on global supply security and assess the market implications. Medical Equipment Shortages Will Spur Protectionism Policymakers are fighting today’s crisis with the tools of the 2008 crisis, but a lasting rebound in financial markets will depend on surmounting the pandemic, which is prerequisite to economic recovery (Table 1). As the US faces the peak of its COVID-19 outbreak, public health officials and doctors are raising the alarm on the shortage of medical supplies. A recent US Conference of Mayors survey reveals that out of the 38% of mayors who say they have received supplies from their state, 84.6% say they are inadequate (Chart 4). Italy serves as a warning: A reported 8% of the COVID-19 cases there are doctors and health professionals, often treating patients without gloves or with compromised protective gear. These workers are irreplaceable and when they succumb the virus cannot be contained. In the US, doctors and nurses are re-using masks and sometimes treating patients behind a mere curtain, highlighting the supply shortage. While the shortages are mainly driven by a surge in demand from both medical institutions and households, they also come from the supply side, particularly China. Factory closures and transportation disruptions in China earlier this year, coupled with Beijing’s government-mandated export curbs, reduced Chinese exports, a major source of US and global supplies (Chart 5). Other countries have imposed restrictions on exports of products used in combating the spread of COVID-19. Following export restrictions by the French, German, and Czech governments in early March, the European Commission intervened on March 15 to ensure intra-EU trade. It also restricted exports of protective medical gear outside of the EU. At least 54 nations have imposed new export restrictions on medical supplies since the beginning of the year.1 Both European and Chinese measures will reduce supplies in the US, the top destination for most of these halted exports (Chart 6). Thus it is no wonder that the Trump administration has rushed to cut import duties and boost domestic production. The administration has released strategic stockpiles and cut tariffs on Chinese medical equipment used to treat COVID-19. With the whole nation mobilized, supply kinks should improve greatly in April. After a debacle in rolling out test kits (Chart 7), the US is rapidly increasing its testing capabilities to manage the crisis, with over a million tests completed as of the end of March (Chart 8). Meanwhile a coalition of companies is taking shape to make face masks. The president has invoked the defense production act to force companies to make ventilators. However, with the pandemic peaking in the US, the hardest-hit regions will continue experiencing shortages in the near term. Shortages are prompting public outcry against the US government for its failure to anticipate and redress supply chain vulnerabilities that were well known and warned against. A report in The New York Times tells how Mike Bowen, owner of Texas-based mask-maker Prestige Ameritech, has advised the past three presidents about the danger in the fact that the US imports 95% of its surgical masks. “Aside from sitting in front of the White House and lighting myself on fire, I feel like I’ve done everything I can,” he said. He is currently inundated with emergency orders from US hospitals. The same report tells of a company called Strong Manufacturers in North Carolina that had to cut production of masks because it depends on raw materials from Wuhan, China, where the virus originated.2 The Trump administration will suffer the initial public uproar, but the US government will also seek to reduce import dependency going forward, and it will likely deflect some of the blame by focusing on the supply risks posed by China. Beijing, for its part, is launching a propaganda campaign against the US to distract from its own failures at home (some officials have even blamed the US for the virus). Meanwhile it is cranking up production and shipping medical supplies to crisis hit areas like Italy to try to repair its global image after having given rise to the virus. In addition, the city of Shenzhen is sending 1.2 million N95 masks to the US on the New England Patriots’ team plane. Even Russia is sending small donations. But these moves work to propagandistic efforts in these countries and will ultimately shame the Americans into taking measures to improve self-sufficiency. Bottom Line: The most important supply shortage amid the global pandemic is that of medical equipment. While these shortages will abate sooner rather than later, the supply chain vulnerabilities they have exposed will trigger new policies of supply redundancy and import substitution. The US in particular will seek to reduce dependency on China. That COVID-19 is aggravating rather than reducing tensions between these states, despite China’s role as a key supplier in a time of need, highlights the secular nature of their rising tensions. The US-China Drug War Shortages of pharmaceuticals are also occurring, despite the fact that the primary pandemic response is necessarily “non-pharmaceutical” (e.g. social distancing). The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the first COVID-19 related drug shortage in the US on February 27. While the specific drug was not disclosed, the announcement notes that “the shortage is due to an issue with manufacturing of an active pharmaceutical ingredient used in the drug.”3 The FDA is monitoring 20 other (non-critical) drugs potentially at risk of shortages because the sole source is China. The global spread of the pandemic will increase these shortages. On March 3 India announced export restrictions on 26 drugs, including paracetamol and several antibiotics, due to supply disruptions caused by the Chinese shutdown. While Chinese economic activity has since picked up, India is now among the string of countries under a nationwide lockdown. Similar measures enforced across Europe will also hamper the production and transportation of these goods. The implication is that even if Chinese drugs return to market, supplies further down the chain and from alternative suppliers will take a hit. The risk that this will evolve into a drug shortage depends on the intensity of the outbreak. Drug companies generally hold 3-6 months’ worth of inventories. Consequently, while inventories are likely to draw as supplies are disrupted, consumers may not experience an outright shortage immediately. In the US, as with equipment and protective gear, the government’s strategic stockpile will buffer against shortfalls in supplies of critical drugs. COVID-19 is aggravating rather than reducing US-China tensions. Nevertheless the supply chain is getting caught up in the larger US-China strategic conflict. Even before the pandemic, the US-China trade war brought attention to the US’s vulnerabilities to China’s drug exports. This dispute is not limited to illicit drugs, as with China’s production of the opioid fentanyl, but also extends to mainstream medicines, as highlighted in the selection of public statements shown in Table 2. How much does the US rely on China for medicine? According to FDA data, just over half of manufacturing facilities producing regulated drugs in finished dosage form for the US market are located abroad, with China’s share at 7% (Chart 9).4 The figures are higher for manufacturing facilities producing active pharmaceutical ingredients, though still not alarming – 72% of the facilities are located abroad, with 13% in China. Of course, high-level data understate China’s influence. The complex nature of global drug supply chains means that the source of finished dosage forms masks dependencies and dominance higher up the supply chain (Figure 1). For instance, active pharmaceutical ingredients produced in Chinese facilities are used as intermediate goods by finished dosage facilities in India as well as China. The FDA reports that Indian finished dosage facilities rely on China for three-quarters of the active ingredients in their generic drug formulations, which are then exported to the US and the rest of the world. Any supply disruption in China – or any other major drug producer – will lead to shortages further down the supply chain. Chinese influence becomes more apparent when the sample is restricted to generic prescription drugs. These are especially relevant because nearly 70% of Americans are on at least one prescription drug, of which more than 90% are dispensed in the generic form. In this case, 87% of ingredient manufacturers and 60% of finished dosage manufacturers are located outside the US, with 17% of ingredient facilities and 8% of dosage facilities in China (Chart 10). Of all the facilities that manufacture active ingredients that are listed on the World Health Organization’s Essential Medicines List – a compilation of drugs that are considered critical to the health system – 71% are located aboard with 15% located in China (Chart 11). Moreover, manufacturers are relatively inflexible when adapting to market conditions and shortages. Drug manufacturing facilities generally operate at above 80% of their capacity and are thus left with little immediate capacity to ramp up production in reaction to shortages elsewhere. In addition, manufacturers face challenges in changing ingredient suppliers – there is no centralized source of information on them, and additional FDA approvals are required. The US will look to reduce its dependency on China for its drug supplies regardless of 2020 election outcome. China also has overwhelming dominance in specific categories. The Council on Foreign Relations reports that China makes up 97% of the US antibiotics market.5 Other common drugs that are highly dependent on China for supplies include ibuprofen, acetaminophen, hydrocortisone, penicillin, and heparin (Chart 12). Taking it all together, US vulnerability can be overstated. Consider the following: Of the 370 drugs on the Essential Medicines List that are marketed in the US, only three are produced solely in China. None of these three are used to treat top ten causes of death in the United States. Import substitution is uneconomical. Foreign companies, especially Chinese companies, are attractive due to their lower costs and lax regulations. While China’s influence extends higher up the supply chain, this is true for US markets as well as other consumer markets. While China can cut off the US from the finished dosages it supplies, it cannot do the same for the ingredients that are used by facilities in other countries and eventually make their way to the US in finished dosage form. Americans are demanding that drug prices be reduced and an obvious solution is looser controls on imports. The recent activation of the Defense Production Act shows that the US can take action to boost domestic production in emergencies. Nevertheless, China is growing conspicuous to the American public due to general trade tensions and COVID-19. As it moves up the value chain, it also threatens increasing competition for the US and its allies. Hence the US government will have a strategic reason to cap China’s influence that is also supported by corporate interests and popular opinion. This will lead to tense trade negotiations with China and meanwhile the US will seek alternative suppliers. China will not want to lose market share or leverage over the United States, so it may offer trade concessions at some point to keep the US engaged. Ultimately, however, strategic tensions will catalyze US policy moves to reduce the cost differential with China and promote its rivals. Pressure on China over its currency, regulatory standards, and scientific-technological acquisition will continue regardless of which party wins the White House in 2020. The Democrats would increase focus on China’s transparency and adherence to international standards, including labor and environmental standards. Both Republicans and Democrats will try to boost trade with allies. The key beneficiaries will be India, Southeast Asia, and the Americas. Taiwan’s importance will grow as a middle-man, but so will its vulnerability to strategic tensions. Bottom Line: The US and the rest of the world are suffering shortfalls of equipment necessary to combat COVID-19. There is also a risk of drug shortages stemming from supply disruptions and emergency protectionist policies. These shortages look to be manageable, but they have exposed national vulnerabilities that will be reduced in future via interventionist trade policies. While the US and Europe will ultimately manage the outbreak, the political fallout will be immense. The US will look to reduce its dependency on China. This will increase investment in non-China producers of active pharmaceutical ingredients, such as India and Mexico. The US tactics against China will vary according to the election result, but the strategic direction of diversifying away from China is clear and will have popular impetus in the wake of COVID-19. Food Security In addition to the challenges posed by COVID-19 on medical supplies, food – another essential good – also faces risk of shortages. China is a case in point. Food prices there were on the rise well before the COVID-19 outbreak, averaging 17.3% in the final quarter of 2019. However inflation was limited to pork and its substitutes – beef, lamb and poultry – and reflected a reduction in pork supplies on the back of the African Swine Flu outbreak. While year-on-year increases in the prices of pork and beef averaged 102.8% and 21.0%, respectively, grain, fresh vegetable, and fresh fruit prices averaged 0.6%, 1.5%, and -5.0% in Q42019 (Chart 13). Chart 13Chinese Inflation Has (Thus far) Been Contained To Pork Chart 14China's Misery Index Is Spiking - A Political Liability However China’s COVID-19 containment measures had a more broad-based impact on food supplies, threatening to push up China’s Misery Index (Chart 14). Travel restrictions, roadblocks, quarantined farm laborers, and risk-averse truck drivers introduced challenges not only in ensuring supplies were delivered to consumers, but also to daily farm activity and planting. The absence of farm inputs needed for planting such as seeds and fertilizer, and animal feed for livestock, was especially damaging in regions hardest hit by the pandemic. Livestock farmers already struggling with swine flu-related reductions in herd sizes were forced to prematurely cull starving animals, cutting the stock of chicken and hogs. Now as the country transitions out of its COVID-19 containment phase and moves toward normalizing activity (Chart 15), food security is top of the mind. Authorities are emphasizing the need to ensure sufficient food supplies and adopt policies to encourage production.6 This is especially important for crops due to be planted in the spring. Delayed or reduced plantings would weight on the quality and quantity of the crops, pushing prices up. With food estimated to account for 19.9% of China’s CPI basket – 12.8% of which goes towards pork (Chart 16) – a prolonged food shortage, or a full-blown food crisis, would be extremely damaging to Chinese families and their pocketbooks. However, apart from soybeans and to a lesser extent livestock, China’s inventories are well stocked (Chart 17) and are significantly higher than levels amid the 2006-2008 and 2010-2012 food crises. Inventories have been built up specifically to provide ammunition precisely in times of crisis. Corn and rice stocks are capable of covering consumption for nearly three quarters of a year, and wheat stocks exceeding a year’s worth of consumption. Thus, while not completely immune, China today is better able to weather a supply shock. Moreover, with the exception of soybeans, China is not overly dependent on imports for agricultural supplies (Chart 18).   As the COVID-19 epicenter shifts to the US and Europe, farmers there are beginning to face the same challenges. Reports of delays in the arrival of shipments of inputs such as fertilizer and seeds have prompted American farmers to prepare for the worst and order these goods ahead of time. While these proactive measures will help reduce risks to supply, farmers in Europe and parts of the US who typically rely on migrant laborers will need to search for alternative laborers as the planting season nears. Just last week France’s agriculture minister asked hairdressers, waiters, florists, and others that find themselves unemployed to take up work in farms to ensure food security. As countries become increasingly aware of the risks to food supplies, some have already introduced protectionist measures, especially in the former Soviet Union: The Russian agriculture ministry proposed setting up a quota for Russian grain exports and has already announced that it is suspending exports of processed grains from March 20 for 10 days. Kazakhstan suspended exports of several agricultural goods including wheat flour and sugar until at least April 15. On March 27, Ukraine’s economy ministry announced that it was monitoring wheat export and would take measures necessary to ensure domestic supplies are adequate. Vietnam temporarily suspended rice contracts until March 28 as it checked if it had sufficient domestic supplies. The challenge is that, unlike China, inventories in the rest of the world are not any higher than during the previous food crisis and do not provide much of a buffer against supply shortfalls (Chart 19). Higher food prices would be especially painful to lower income countries where food makes up a larger share of household spending (Chart 20). In addition to using their strategic food stockpiles, governments will attempt to mitigate the impact of higher food prices by implementing a slew of policies: Trade policies: Producing countries will want to protect domestic supplies by restricting exports – either through complete bans or export quotas. Importing countries will attempt to reduce the burden of higher prices on consumers by cutting tariffs on the affected goods. Consumer-oriented policies: Importing countries will provide direct support to consumers in the form of food subsidies, social safety nets, tax reductions, and price controls. Producer-oriented policies: Governments will provide support to farmers to encourage greater production using measures such as input subsidies, producer price support, or tax exemptions on goods used in production. While these policies will help alleviate the pressure on consumers, they also result in greater government expenditures and lower revenues. Thus, subsidizing the import bill of a food price shock can weigh on public finances, debt levels, and FX reserves. Currencies already facing pressure due to the recessionary environment, such as Turkey, South Africa and Chile will come under even greater downward pressure. Food inventories ex-China are insufficient to protect against supply shortages. Bottom Line: COVID-19’s logistical disruptions are challenging farm output. This is especially true when transporting goods and individuals across borders rather than within countries. This will be especially challenging for food importing countries, as some producers have already started erecting protectionist measures and this will result in an added burden on government budgets that are already extended in efforts to contain the economic repercussions of the pandemic. Investment Implications Chart 21Ag Prices Inversely Correlated With USD China will continue trying to maximize its market share and move up the value chain in drug production. At the same time, the US is likely to diversify away from China and try to cap China’s market share. This will result in tense trade negotiations regardless of the outcome of the US election. The COVID-19 experience with medical shortages and newfound public awareness of potential medical supply chain vulnerabilities means that another round of the trade war is likely. Stay long USD-CNY. Regarding agriculture, demand for agricultural commodities is relatively inelastic. This inelasticity should prevent a complete collapse in prices even amid a weak demand environment. Thus given the risk on supplies, prices face upward pressure. However, not all crops are facing these same market dynamics. While wheat and rice prices have started to move in line with the dynamics described above, soybeans and to a greater extent corn prices have not reacted as such (Chart 21). In the case of soybeans, we expect demand to be relatively muted. China accounts for a third of the world’s soybean consumption. 80% of Chinese soybeans are crushed to produce meal to feed China’s massive pork industry. However, the 21% y/y decline in pork output in 2019 on the back of the African Swine Flu outbreak will weigh on demand and mute upward pressures on supplies. Demand for corn will also likely come in weak. The COVID-19 containment measures and the resulting halt in economic activity reduce demand for gasoline and, as a consequence, reduce demand for corn-based ethanol, which is blended with gasoline. In addition to the above fundamentals, ag prices have been weighed down by a strong USD which makes ex-US exporters relatively better off, incentivizing them to raise exports and increase global supplies. A weaker USD – which we do not see in the near term – would help support ag prices. It is worth noting that if there is broad enforcement of protectionist measures, then producers will not be able to benefit from a stronger dollar. In that case we may witness a breakdown in the relationship between ag prices and the dollar. In light of these supply/demand dynamics, we expect rice and wheat prices to be well supported going forward and to outperform corn and soybeans.   Roukaya Ibrahim Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 See "Tackling COVID-19 Together: The Trade Policy Dimension," Global Trade Alert, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland, March 23, 2020. 2 See Rachel Abrams et al, "Governments and Companies Race to Make Masks Vital to Virus Fight," The New York Times, March 21, 2020. 3 The announcement also notes that there are other alternatives that can be used by patients. See "Coronavirus (COVID-19) Supply Chain Update," US FDA, February 27, 2020. 4 All regulated drugs include prescription (brand and generic), over the counter, and compounded drugs. 5 Please see Huang, Yanzhong, "The Coronavirus Outbreak Could Disrupt The US Drug Supply," Council on Foreign Relations, March 5, 2020. 6 The central government ordered local authorities to allow animal feed to pass through checkpoints amid the lockdowns. In addition, Beijing has relaxed import restrictions by lifting a ban on US poultry products and announcing that importers could apply for waivers on goods tariffed during the trade war such as pork and soybeans. The lifting of these restrictions also serves to help China meet its phase one trade deal commitments. Please see "Coronavirus hits China’s farms and food supply chain, with further spike in meat prices ahead," South China Morning Post, dated February 21, 2020.

Special Report

Highlights The odds of an emergency meeting of OPEC 2.0 to get supply under control are growing, based on the repeated overtures from Russian officials providing the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) an opening to resume talks on their production-management regime. We have developed a not-unreasonable scenario in which global oil consumption falls by ~ 20% y/y in April to assess the COVID-19-induced price impact. Even an aggressive 3.5mm b/d cut from OPEC 2.0 – presuming a rapprochement between KSA and Russia – and an additional 200k b/d market-induced cut by North American producers still sees Brent prices bottoming over the next two months at ~ $18/bbl. OECD inventories surge, reaching ~ 3.6 billion by June 2020, before production cuts and demand restoration start to drain them. Comments from Texas Railroad Commission (RRC) leadership indicate they could be back in the business of pro-rating production in the Lone Star state. If a new OPEC 3.0 described here can move quickly enough, Brent prices could revive to ~ $45/bbl by year end, and clear $60/bbl by 2Q21.  We are getting long Dec20 Brent and WTI at tonight’s close. Feature Refiners worldwide are reducing runs as the COVID-19 pandemic continues to cut through oil demand like a scythe through wheat.1 Refiners’ inability to sell gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, and a host of other products, is forcing crude oil to back up globally in storage facilities, pipelines and, soon, on ships (Chart 1).2  This is occurring while KSA and Russia wage a global market-share war, targeting each others’ refinery customers with lower and lower prices. Without a concerted effort by OPEC 2.0 – the coalition led by KSA and Russia – and the US shales to rein in production, the global supply of storage will be exhausted and oil prices will push well below $20/bbl to force output to shut in.  Indeed, numerous grades of crude oil worldwide already are trading below $20/bbl after factoring in their spreads vs. Brent crude oil as regional takeaway and storage infrastructure are overwhelmed (Chart 2). Chart 1Even With Production Cuts Oil Inventories Will Surge Chart 2Global Crude Prices Trading Below $20/bbl Chart 3“The Other Guys” Production Declines Will Accelerate The consequences for oil producers outside core-OPEC will be disastrous, as they were following the last market-share war led by OPEC in 2014-16.  The producer group we’ve dubbed “The Other Guys” – producers outside core-OPEC – will continue to see production falling, most likely at an accelerating rate, if the market-share war persists (Chart 3).  Even within core-OPEC – principally the GCC states – governments will be required to cut spending on public works, salaries for workers, and services.3 Sovereign wealth funds and foreign reserves will have to be drawn down to fill holes in budgets, as happened during the last market-share war of 2014-16 launched by OPEC.  The IMF last week noted the world economy is in recession, and that EM economies in particular will see growth fall sharply as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.4 “We are in an unprecedented situation where a global health pandemic has turned into an economic and financial crisis. With a sudden stop in economic activity, global output will contract in 2020. … emerging market and developing countries, especially low-income countries, will be particularly hard hit by a combination of a health crisis, a sudden reversal of capital flows and, for some, a sharp drop in commodity prices. Many of these countries need help to strengthen their crisis response and restore jobs and growth, given foreign exchange liquidity shortages in emerging market economies and high debt burdens in many low-income countries.”  For commodity markets, this means the principal source of demand growth is being severely hobbled. The Oil Demand Hit … Estimating the demand destruction caused by COVID-19 is fraught with uncertainty.  Instead of attempting such an estimate, we simulate a sharp drop in oil demand of close to 20% y/y in April 2020, which is consistent with the lockdowns that are bringing the global economy to a standstill.  Specifically, we have 2Q20 demand falling ~ 12mm b/d (y/y vs. 2Q19).  Thereafter, demand picks up rapidly in 2H20, reaching a growth rate of 800k b/d by 4Q20.  For all of 2020, we model average demand losses equal to 3.8mm b/d.  For next year, we expect the combination of massive fiscal and monetary stimulus hitting markets globally will lift demand 5.3mm b/d. Net, we view the COVID-19 demand shock as transitory.  But it leaves a huge amount of unrefined crude oil in storage and massive amounts of unsold products in inventory. Left unaddressed, crude oil will continue to fill storage globally, as will unsold refined products.  This will leave oil producers and refiners in an untenable situation, even after demand returns to normal following the pandemic. Strategists in Riyadh, Moscow and Austin, Texas, know this. … Requires A Supply Offset KSA is forcing its competitors to endure what John Rockefeller, one of the founders of Standard Oil Co., once called a “good sweating.”5  A good sweating was a price-cutting strategy designed to drive competitors out of business and force them to sell to Rockefeller’s company.  This occurred in 2014-16 and in 1986, when KSA had to rein in fellow OPEC members that were free-riding on its production discipline. We believe KSA is well aware it cannot endure a years-long market-share war, nor does it want to.  Its primary goal in the current circumstances is to remind oil producers globally that it can, when it choses, take as much market share as it deems necessary.  After flooding global markets in April 2020 we expect the core-OPEC producers in the Gulf (Kuwait, the UAE, Iraq and, of course, KSA) to reduce production by ~ 2.5mm b/d starting in May 2020, and hold these cuts until 2021 (around the time inventories are drawn down to their 5-year average).  In 2021, we have the group increasing production by 2.5mm b/d in 1Q21. As for Russia, we have them increasing production in April 2020 – contributing to the surge in inventories globally.  However, beginning in May, we believe Russia and its non-OPEC allies will agree to remove ~ 1mm b/d , in line with the cuts we expect from core-OPEC. Russia faces political and geopolitical constraints that work against maintaining the market-share war. First, President Vladimir Putin has already been forced to shift his national strategy over the past three years to address growing concerns with domestic discontent due to the recession caused by the 2014 oil shock and the economic austerity policies his government pursued afterwards. These policies give Putin policy room to fight today’s market-share war, but they also portend another massive blow to the livelihood and wellbeing of the nation. Second, Putin is in the midst of arranging an extension of his term in office through 2036, which requires the constitutional court to approve of constitutional changes as well as a popular referendum. The referendum has been delayed due to the pandemic and need for an emergency response. While Putin is generally popular and has underhanded means of orchestrating the referendum, it would be extremely dangerous for him to compound the pandemic and global recession with an oil market-share war that makes matters even worse for the Russian people while simultaneously preparing for a plebiscite.   Third, internationally, Putin cannot ultimately defeat the Saudis or US shale in terms of market share. Therefore the domestic risks posed above are not compensated by an improvement in Russia’s international standing – neither in oil markets nor in broader strategic influence, given that an economic recession hurts Russia’s ability to maintain and modernize its military and security forces. In the US shales, we are modeling a sharp fall-off in production starting as early as May 2020.  For the rest of 2020, production will gradually decline naturally from low rig counts. In 2H20 – probably in 4Q20 – we expect the Texas Railroad Commission to once again regulate oil production in the state, provided other state regulators (e.g., in North Dakota) and producing countries, (e.g., Russia and KSA) also sign on to take on a similar role.6 In addition to the market-driven shut-ins between now and 4Q20, we expect the RRC to secure production cuts of up to 1.5mm b/d by Dec 2020. As prices pick up next year, shale production will stabilize and slowly move up. The supply-demand assumptions we make in this scenario produce a physical surplus for the better part of 2020 (Chart 4). Chart 4Supply-Demand Imbalance Leads to Physical Surplus Prices Could Fall Further, Then Take Off Even if we see OPEC 2.0 cut, and sharp drops in US shale output followed by renewed pro-rationing by state regulators in the US led by Texas, the fact that they’ve all increased production for April means storage will inevitably rise drastically in the coming months (Chart 5).  As inventory skyrockets in the wake of both the massive demand and supply shocks in 1Q20 and April 2020, prices will fall to $20/bbl (Chart 6). Chart 5Inventories Swell on Demand Shock, Then Drain on Supply Cuts Chart 6Brent Prices Forced Lower, Then Move Above $60/bbl Once the large-scale OPEC 2.0 cuts start, prices rebound rapidly. Demand also starts picking up this summer, which also will lift prices. For 2020, we expect Brent prices to average $35/bbl, while in 2021 we expect Brent to average $66/bbl. Over this period, WTI will trade $2-$4/bbl below Brent.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1     Please see Global oil refiners shut down as coronavirus destroys demand published by reuters.com March 26, 2020, and S&P Global Platts report Refinery margin tracker: Global refining margins take a severe hit on falling gasoline demand published March 23. 2     This appears to be happening now, as pipeline operators ask shippers to reduce the rate at which they fill the lines.  Please see Pipelines ask U.S. drillers to slow output as storage capacity dwindles published by worldoil.com March 30, 2020.  3    Prominently among the GCC states, KSA cuts public spending 5% and introduced fiscal measures meant to cushion the blow of the COVID-19 shock and to offset the low prices resulting from its market-share war with Russia.  Please see Saudi Arabia announces $32 billion in emergency funds to mitigate oil, coronavirus impact published by cnbc.com March 20, 2020. 4     Please see the Joint Statement by the Chair of International Monetary and Financial Committee and the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund issued by International Monetary and Financial Committee Chair Lesetja Kganyago and International Monetary Fund Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva March 27, 2020. 5     Please see Daniel Yergin’s The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power, published by Simon & Schuster in 1990, particularly Chapter 2 for a discussion of Rockefeller’s “good sweating,” in which competitors were driven out of business by low prices engineered by Rockefeller if they refused to sell out to Standard Oil. 6     The tone of remarks from TRR Chairman Wayne Christian has become more agreeable to having the TRR Commission return to pro-rating oil production in the Lone Star state.  His recent editorial for worldoil.com notes, “Any action taken by Texas must be done in lockstep with other oil producing states and nations, ensuring that they cut production at similar times and in similar amounts.”  Please see  Christian’s editorial, Texas RRC Chairman Wayne Christian: We must stabilize worldwide oil markets, published by worldoil.com March 25, 2020.  

Highlights The pandemic has a negative impact on households and has not peaked in the US. But a depression is likely to be averted. Our market-based geopolitical risk indicators point toward a period of rising political turbulence across the world. We are selectively adding risk to our strategic portfolio, but remain tactically defensive. Stay long gold on a strategic time horizon. Feature I'm going where there's no depression, To the lovely land that's free from care. I'll leave this world of toil and trouble My home's in Heaven, I'm going there. - “No Depression In Heaven,” The Carter Family (1936) Chart 1The Pandemic Stimulus Versus The Great Recession Stimulus Markets bounced this week on the back of a gargantuan rollout of government spending that is the long-awaited counterpart to the already ultra-dovish monetary policy of global central banks (Chart 1). Just when the investment community began to worry about a full-fledged economic depression and the prospect for bank runs, food shortages, and martial law in the United States, the market rallied. Yet extreme uncertainty persists over how long one third of the world’s population will remain hidden away in their homes for fear of a dangerous virus (Chart 2). Chart 2Crisis Has Not Verifiably Peaked, Uncertainty Over Timing Of Lockdowns Chart 3The Pandemic Shock To The Labor Market While an important and growing trickle of expert opinion suggests that COVID-19 is not as deadly as once thought, especially for those under the age of 50, consumer activity will not return to normal anytime soon.1 Moreover political and geopolitical risks are skyrocketing and have yet to register in investors’ psyche. Consider: American initial unemployment claims came in at a record-breaking 3.3 million (Chart 3), while China International Capital Corporation estimates that China’s GDP will grow by 2.6% for the year. These are powerful blows against global political as well as economic stability. This should convince investors to exercise caution even as they re-enter the equity market. We are selectively putting some cash to work on a strategic time frame (12 months and beyond) to take advantage of some extraordinary opportunities in equities and commodities. But we maintain the cautious and defensive tactical posture that we initiated on January 24. No Depression In Heaven The US Congress agreed with the White House on an eye-popping $2.2 trillion or 10% of GDP fiscal stimulus. At least 46% of the package consists of direct funds for households and small businesses (Chart 4). This includes $290 billion in direct cash handouts to every middle-class household – essentially “helicopter money,” as it is financed by bonds purchased by the central bank (Table 1). The purpose is to plug the gap left by the near complete halt to daily life and business as isolation measures are taken. A depression is averted, but we still have a recession. Go long consumer staples. Chart 4The US Stimulus Package Breakdown Table 1Distribution Of Cash Handouts Under US Coronavirus Response Act China, the origin of the virus that triggered the global pandemic and recession, is resorting to its time-tried playbook of infrastructure spending, with 3% of GDP in new spending projected. This number is probably heavily understated. It does not include the increase in new credit that will accompany official fiscal measures, which could easily amount to 3% of GDP or more, putting the total new spending at 6%. Germany and the EU have also launched a total fiscal response. The traditionally tight-fisted Berlin has launched an 11% of GDP stimulus, opening the way for other member states to surge their own spending. The EU Commission has announced it will suspend deficit restrictions for all member states. The ECB’s Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program (PEPP) enables direct lending without having to tap the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) or negotiate the loosening of its requirements. It also enables the ECB to bypass the debate over issuing Eurobonds (though incidentally Germany is softening its stance on the latter idea). The cumulative impact of all this fiscal stimulus is 5% of global GDP – and rising (Table 2). Governments will be forced to provide more cash on a rolling basis to households and businesses as long as the pandemic is raging and isolation measures are in place. Table 2The Global Fiscal Stimulus In Response To COVID-19 President Trump has signaled that he wants economic life to begin resuming after Easter Sunday, April 12. But he also said that he will listen to the advice of the White House’s public health advisors. State governors are the ones who implement tough “shelter in place” orders and other restrictions, so the hardest hit states will not resume activity until their governors believe that the impact on their medical systems can be managed. Authorities will likely extend the social distancing measures in April until they have a better handle on the best ways to enable economic activity while preserving the health system. Needless to say, economic activity will have to resume gradually as the government cannot replace activity forever and the working age population can operate even with the threat of contracting the disease (social distancing policies would become more fine-tuned for types of activity, age groups, and health risk profiles). The tipping point from recession to depression would be the point at which the government’s promises of total fiscal and monetary support for households and businesses become incapable of reassuring either the financial markets or citizens. The largest deficit the US government has ever run was 30% of GDP during World War II (Chart 5). Today’s deficit is likely to go well beyond 15% (5% existing plus 10% stimulus package plus falling revenue). If authorities were forced to triple the lockdown period and hence the fiscal response the country would be in uncharted territory. But this is unlikely as the incubation period of the virus is two weeks and China has already shown that a total lockdown can sharply reduce transmission. Chart 5The US's Largest Peacetime Budget Deficit Any tipping point into depression would become evident in behavior: e.g. a return to panic selling, followed by the closure of financial market trading by authorities, bank runs, shortages of staples across regions, and possibly the use of martial law and curfews. While near-term selloffs can occur, the rest seems very unlikely – if only because, again, the much simpler solution is to reduce the restrictions on economic activity gradually for the low-risk, healthy, working age population. Bottom Line: Granting that the healthy working age population can and will eventually return to work due to its lower risk profile, unlimited policy support suggests that a depression or “L-shaped” recovery is unlikely. The Dark Hour Of Midnight Nearing While the US looks to avoid a depression, there will still be a recession with an unprecedented Q2 contraction. The recovery could be a lot slower than bullish investors expect. Global manufacturing was contracting well before households got hit with a sickness that will suppress consumption for the rest of the year. There is another disease to worry about: the dollar disease. The world is heavily indebted and holds $12 trillion in US dollar-denominated debt. Yet the dollar is hitting the highest levels in years and global dollar liquidity is drying up. The greenback has rallied even against major safe haven currencies like the Japanese yen and Swiss franc (Chart 6). Of course, the Fed is intervening to ensure highly indebted US corporates have access to loans and extending emergency dollar swap lines to a total of 14 central banks. But in the near term global growth is collapsing and the dollar is overshooting. This can create a self-reinforcing dynamic. The same goes for any relapse in Chinese growth. Unlike in 2008 – but like 2015 – China is the epicenter of the global slowdown. China has much larger economic and financial imbalances today than it did in 2003 when the SARS outbreak occurred, and it will increase these imbalances going forward as it abandons its attempt to deleverage the corporate sector (Chart 7). Chart 6The Greenback Surge Deprives The World Of Liquidity Chart 7China's Financial Imbalances Are A Worry The rest of emerging markets face their own problems, including poor governance and productivity, as well as the dollar disease and the China fallout. They are unlikely to lift themselves out of this crisis, but they could become the source for credit events and market riots that prolong the global risk-off phase. Bottom Line: It is too soon to sound the all-clear. If the dollar continues on its rampage, then the gigantic stimulus will not be enough, markets will relapse, and fears of deflation will grow. World Of Toil And Trouble Political risk is the next shoe to drop. The pandemic and recession are setting in motion a political earthquake that will unfold over the next decade. Almost all of our 12 market-based geopolitical risk indicators have exploded upward since the beginning of the year. Chart 8China's Political Risk Is Rising These indicators show that developed market equities and emerging market currencies are collapsing far more than is justified by underlying fundamentals. This risk premium reflects the uncertainty of the pandemic, but the recession will destabilize regimes and fuel fears about national security. So the risk premium will not immediately decline in several important cases. China’s political risk is shooting up, as one would expect given that the pandemic began in Hubei (Chart 8). The stress within the Communist Party can be measured by the shrill tone of the Chinese propaganda machine, which is firing on all cylinders to convince the world that Chinese President Xi Jinping did a great job handling the virus while the western nations are failing states that cannot handle it. The western nations are indeed mishandling it, but that does not solve China’s domestic economic and social troubles, which will grow from here. Of course, our political risk indicator will fall if Chinese equities rally more enthusiastically than Chinese state banks expand credit as the economy normalizes. But this would suggest that markets have gotten ahead of themselves. By contrast, if China surges credit, yet equity investors are unenthusiastic, then the market will be correctly responding to the fact that a credit surge will increase economic imbalances and intensify the tug-of-war between authorities and the financial system, particularly over the effort to prevent the property sector bubble from ballooning. China needs to stimulate to recover from the downturn. Obviously it does not want instability for the 100th birthday of the Communist Party in 2021. An even more important reason for stimulus is the 2022 leadership reshuffle – the twentieth National Party Congress. This is the date when Xi Jinping would originally have stepped down and the leading member of the rival faction (Hu Chunhua?) would have taken over the party, the presidency, and the military commission. Today Xi is not at risk of losing power, but with a trade war and recession to his name, he will have to work hard to tighten control over the party and secure his ability to stay in power. An ongoing domestic political crackdown will frighten local governments and private businesses, who are already scarred by the past decade and whose animal spirits are important to the overall economic rebound. It is still possible that Beijing will have to depreciate the renminbi against the dollar. This is the linchpin of the trade deal with President Trump – especially since other aspects of the deal will be set back by the recession. As long as Trump’s approval rating continues to benefit from his crisis response and stimulus deals, he is more likely to cut tariffs on China than to reignite the trade war. This approach will be reinforced by the bump in his approval rating upon signing the $2 trillion Families First Coronavirus Response Act into law (Chart 9). He will try to salvage the economy and his displays of strength will be reserved for market-irrelevant players like Venezuela. But if the virus outbreak and the surge in unemployment turn him into a “lame duck” later this year, then he may adopt aggressive trade policy and seek the domestic political upside of confronting China. He may need to look tough on trade on the campaign trail. Diplomacy with North Korea could also break down. This is not our base case, but we note that investors are pricing crisis levels into the South Korean won despite its successful handling of the coronavirus (Chart 10). Pyongyang has an incentive to play nice to assist the government in the South while avoiding antagonizing President Trump. But Kim Jong Un may also feel that he has an opportunity to demonstrate strength. This would be relevant not because of North Korea’s bad behavior but because a lame duck President Trump could respond belligerently. Chart 9Trump’s Approval Gets Bump From Crisis Response And Stimulus Chart 10South Korean Political Risk Rising We highlighted Russia as a “black swan” candidate for 2020. This view stemmed from President Vladimir Putin’s domestic machinations to stay in power and tamp down on domestic instability in the wake of domestic economic austerity policies. For the same reason we did not expect Moscow to engage in a market share war with Saudi Arabia that devastated oil prices, the Russian ruble, and economy. At any rate, Russia will remain a source of political surprises going forward (Chart 11). Go long oil. Putin cannot add an oil collapse to a plague and recession and expect a popular referendum to keep him in power till 2036. The coronavirus is hitting Russia, forcing Putin to delay the April 22 nationwide referendum that would allow him to rule until 2036. It is also likely forcing a rethink on a budget-busting oil market share war, since more than the $4 billion anti-crisis fund (0.2% of GDP) will be needed to stimulate the economy and boost the health system. Russia faces a budget shortfall of 3 trillion rubles ($39 billion) this year from the oil price collapse. It is no good compounding the economic shock if one intends to hold a popular referendum – even if one is Putin. For all these reasons we agree with BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy that a return to negotiations is likely sooner rather than later. Chart 11Russia: A Lake Of Black Swans However, we would not recommend buying the ruble, as tensions with the US are set to escalate. Instead we recommend going long Brent crude oil. Political risk in the European states is hitting highs unseen since the peak of the European sovereign debt crisis (Chart 12). Some of this risk will subside as the European authorities did not delay this time around in instituting dramatic emergency measures. Chart 12Europe: No Delay In Offering 'Whatever It Takes' Chart 13Political Risk Understated In Taiwan And Turkey However, we do not expect political risk to fall back to the low levels seen at the end of last year because the recession will affect important elections between now and 2022 in Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, and France. Only the UK has the advantage of a single-party parliamentary majority with a five-year term in office – this implies policy coherence, notwithstanding the fact that Prime Minister Boris Johnson has contracted the coronavirus. The revolution in German and EU fiscal policy is an essential step in cementing the peripheral countries’ adherence to the monetary union over the long run. But it may not prevent a clash in the coming years between Italy and Germany and Brussels. Italy is one of the countries most likely to see a change in government as a result of the pandemic. It is hard to see voters rewarding this government, ultimately, for its handling of the crisis, even though at the moment popular opinion is tentatively having that effect. The Italian opposition consists of the most popular party, the right-wing League, and the party with the fastest rising popular support, which is the right-wing Brothers of Italy. So the likely anti-incumbent effect stemming from large unemployment would favor the rise of an anti-establishment government over the next year or two. The result would be a clash with Brussels even in the context of Brussels taking on a more permissive attitude toward budget deficits. This will be all the worse if Brussels tries to climb down from stimulus too abruptly. Our political risk indicators have fallen for two countries over the past month: Taiwan and Turkey (Chart 13). This is not because political risk is falling in reality, but because these two markets have not seen their currencies depreciate as much as one would expect relative to underlying drivers of their economy: In Taiwan’s case the reason is the US dollar’s unusual strength relative to the Japanese yen amidst the crisis. Ultimately the yen is a safe-haven currency and it will eventually strengthen if global growth continues to weaken. Moreover we continue to believe that real world politics will lead to a higher risk premium in the Taiwanese dollar and equities. Taiwan faces conflicts with mainland China that will increase with China’s recession and domestic instability. In Turkey’s case, the Turkish lira has depreciated but not as much as one would expect relative to European equities, which have utterly collapsed. Therefore Turkey’s risk indicator shows its domestic political risk falling rather than rising. Turkey’s populist mismanagement will ensure that the lira continues depreciating after European equities recover, and then our risk indicator will shoot up. Chart 14Brazilian Political Risk Is No Longer Contained Prior to the pandemic, Brazilian political risk had remained contained, despite Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro’s extreme and unorthodox leadership. Since the outbreak, however, this indicator has skyrocketed as the currency has collapsed (Chart 14). To make matters worse, Bolsonaro is taking a page from President Trump and diminishing the danger of the coronavirus in his public comments to try to prevent a sharp economic slowdown. This lackadaisical attitude will backfire since, unlike the US, Brazil does not have anywhere near the capacity to manage a major outbreak, as government ministers have warned. This autumn’s local elections present an opportunity for the opposition to stage a comeback. Brazilian stocks won’t be driven by politics in the near term – the effectiveness of China’s stimulus is critical for Brazil and other emerging markets – but political risk will remain elevated for the foreseeable future. Bottom Line: Geopolitical risk is exploding everywhere. This marks the beginning of a period of political turbulence for most of the major nation-states. Domestic economic stresses can be dealt with in various ways but in the event that China’s instability conflicts with President Trump’s election, the result could be a historic geopolitical incident and more downside in equity markets. In Russia’s case this has already occurred, via the oil shock’s effect on US shale producers, so there is potential for relations to heat up – and that is even more true if Joe Biden wins the presidency and initiates Democratic Party revenge for Russian election meddling. The confluence of volatile political elements informs our cautious tactical positioning. Investment Conclusions If the historic, worldwide monetary and fiscal stimulus taking place today is successful in rebooting global growth, then there will be “no depression.” The world will learn to cope with COVID-19 while the “dollar disease” will subside on the back of massive injections of liquidity from central banks and governments. Gold: The above is ultimately inflationary and therefore our strategic long gold trade will be reinforced. The geopolitical instability we expect to emerge from the pandemic and recession will add to the demand for gold in such a reflationary environment. No depression means stay long gold! US Equities: Equities will ultimately outperform government bonds in this environment as well. Our chief US equity strategist Anastasios Avgeriou has tallied up the reasons to go long US stocks in an excellent recent report, “20 Reasons To Buy Equities.” We agree with this view assuming investors are thinking in terms of 12 months and beyond. Chart 15Oil/Gold Ratio Extreme But Wait To Go Long Tactically, however, we maintain the cautious positioning that we adopted on January 24. We have misgivings about the past week’s equity rally. Investors need a clear sense of when the US and European households will start resuming activity. The COVID-19 outbreak is still capable of bringing negative surprises, extending lockdowns, and frightening consumers. Hence we recommend defensive plays that have suffered from indiscriminate selling, rather than cyclical sectors. Go tactically long S&P consumer staples. US Bonds: Over the long run, the Fed’s decision to backstop investment grade corporate bonds also presents a major opportunity to go long on a strategic basis relative to long-dated Treasuries, following our US bond strategists. Global Equities: We prefer global ex-US equities on the basis of relative valuations and US election uncertainty. Shifting policy winds in the United States favor higher taxes and regulation in the coming years. This is true unless President Trump is reelected, which we assess as a 35% chance. Emerging Markets: We are booking gains on our short TRY-USD trade for a gain of 6%. This is a tactical trade that remains fundamentally supported. Book 6% gain on short TRY-USD.   Oil: For a more contrarian trade, we recommend going long oil. Our tactical long oil / short gold trade was stopped out at 5% last week. While we expect mean reversion in this relationship, the basis for gold to rally is strong. Therefore we are going long Brent crude spot prices on Russia’s and Saudi Arabia’s political constraints and global stimulus (Chart 15). We will reconsider the oil/gold ratio at a later date.     Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 See Joseph T. Wu et al, "Estimating clinical severity of COVID-19 from the transmission dynamics in Wuhan, China," Nature Medicine, March 19, 2020, and Wei-jie Guan et al, "Clinical Characteristics of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in China," The New England Journal Of Medicine, February 28, 2020. Section II: Appendix : GeoRisk Indicator China Russia UK Germany France Italy Canada Spain Taiwan Korea Turkey Brazil Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

  Feature We are downgrading US President Donald Trump’s odds of winning election. We now consider him an underdog. Since November 2018 we had given Trump a 55% chance of victory – and when former Vice President Joe Biden clinched the nomination in the midst of the virus crisis we argued that the election was “too close to call.” Now, subjectively, we would say Trump has a 35% chance of winning. This is generous relative to history, but seems appropriate to us due to the unpredictable nature of the coronavirus pandemic (which could claim either presidential candidate), the massive US and global stimulus, and the weakness of his opponent. Trump’s approval rating has fallen, albeit slightly, amid the coronavirus pandemic (Chart 1). It is now deviating from the rising approval rating of President Barack Obama at this stage in the 2012 election cycle. Since Trump has been generally less popular than the average president (Chart 2), including Obama, this is a very worrying sign for Trump. Chart 1Virus Knocked Trump Off Track Chart 2Trump Has Zero Buffer For Loss Of Popularity It is also a worrying sign for global risk assets despite their recent collapse. Chart 3To Boost Economy, Trump Must Allow Outbreaks The risk that Trump becomes a “lame duck” president was one of our top two geopolitical risks for the year. The pandemic and recession have laid the groundwork for this risk to materialize (Chart 3).  Trump becomes a liability for the stock market if he concludes that he cannot win reelection. If he seems destined to lose, he has an incentive to use the powers of the presidency in his final months to “turn the tables” and change the narrative, or to cement his legacy by achieving long-term US national interests that have negative economic consequences. For now Trump apparently believes he can still salvage the economy in time to win reelection. He is softening his tone on the need for stringent social distancing policies that are designed to “flatten the curve” of the coronavirus burden on the health system. His administration will review the tough policies on Monday, March 30 before determining whether they should be extended. Individual states have leeway to maintain lockdowns, but a loosening of federal scrutiny would allow more workers to go back to work. While Trump’s desire to restart the economy is self-interested, it is true that too long of a shutdown could create negative feedback loops in the economy. A deeper slump might have worse consequences than the virus outbreak with targeted measures to mitigate the most vulnerable populations (e.g. those over 60, those with heart disease or type-2 diabetes). The problem for Trump is that if he runs on an economic ticket, he is already doomed. Unemployment is bound to rise and laid off workers tend to show up at polls to vote against the party in power. Otherwise Trump’s only option is to run as a “war president” and try to capitalize on the population’s general unwillingness to change leaders in the thick of a crisis. This strategy could work, but then Trump must tighten rather than loosen quarantines, at least over the next month. President George W. Bush benefited from the “war president” effect: his popularity surged after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the invasion of Iraq. It fell beneath 50% over the following three years, but it recovered as the election approached and the country decided not to “change horses in mid-stream.” Franklin Delano Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor is another analogy, albeit less applicable. Richard Nixon in 1972 is only roughly analogous because the recession began the year after his reelection. For President Trump to benefit from a similar dynamic we would need to see two things. First, his approval rating would need to hold steady through the worst of the crisis – from today throughout the spring – and then improve over the summer on the back of perceived progress in handling the outbreak. Second, we would need to see the economy improve from the deep contraction expected to occur in H1, so that by October voters feel the situation is improving and the future is brightening. Loosening vigilance against the virus and causing new outbreaks jeopardizes the first imperative, while maintaining or increasing vigilance jeopardizes the second part.   Few presidents have survived a recession – Trump is asking to do what no president has done since Teddy Roosevelt in 1904. Our quantitative US election model will shift decisively against Trump in April when new data becomes available for state economic indicators (Chart 4). Chart 4Quantitative Election Model Will Show Trump Defeat When Q1 Data Arrive This implies that Trump should double down on the painful isolation measures today to try to secure a victory in the battle against the virus. But then the recession is deeper – and the buck still stops with him for the initial mismanagement of the outbreak. Of course, the virus is not Trump’s fault, but it is a nationwide health crisis, and neither he nor his party can defend their record on health care. True, Biden is a weak opponent. Nevertheless a pandemic and recession would favor any opposition candidate. The burden is on Trump to surprise the world a second time. If the public becomes accustomed to the virus and the 8% of GDP US stimulus package kicks in, Trump might just pull it off, which is why we still give him a 35% chance. The silver lining for financial markets is that the 29% selloff in US equities from their peak earlier this year has already largely discounted any negative implications of a Democratic ascendancy, such as tougher regulation and higher corporate and individual tax rates. The fact that the Democratic candidate is Biden, not democratic socialist Bernie Sanders, is important because the Democrats are highly likely to take the Senate if they take the White House.  Biden would reduce some aspects of Trumpian populism and rehabilitate US alliances (e.g. with Europe). However, as with Trump, trade protectionism and great power competition with China and Russia will intensify.   A major underrated risk to markets this year is that Trump, running as a “war president” and facing a recessionary defeat, could adopt an aggressive foreign policy or trade policy, especially once the coronavirus outbreak subsides and a scapegoat is sought. A clash with China – including proxy battles over North Korea or Taiwan – is not out of the question. Bottom Line: We are downgrading Trump’s chances of winning reelection. However, a Biden presidency is no longer market-negative because the worst is discounted.    Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com