Geopolitics

Highlights The liquidity-driven rally will soon be followed by an acceleration in global growth. The economic recovery will bump up expectations of long-term profit growth. The dollar has downside, but the euro will not benefit much. Overweight stocks relative to bonds and bet on traditional cyclical sectors and commodities. The potential for outperformance of value relative to growth favors European equities. The probability of a tech mania is escalating: how should investors factor an expanding bubble into their portfolios? Feature Chart I-1A Bull Market In Stocks And Volatility? Despite all odds, the nCoV-2019 outbreak is barely denting the S&P 500’s frenetic rally. Plentiful liquidity, thawing Sino-US trade relations and improving economic activity in Asia, all have created ideal conditions for risk assets to appreciate on a cyclical basis. Stocks may look increasingly expensive and are primed to correct, but the bubble will expand further. After lifting asset valuations, monetary policy easing will soon boost worldwide economic activity. Consequently, earnings in the US and Europe will improve. As long as central bankers remain unconcerned about inflation, investors will bid up stocks. Investors should remember we are in the final innings of a bull market. Stocks can deliver outsized returns during this period, but often at the cost of elevated volatility, and the options market is not pricing in this uncertainty (Chart I-1). Moreover, timing the ultimate end of the bubble is extremely difficult. Hence, we prefer to look for assets that can still benefit from easy monetary conditions and rebounding growth, but are not as expensive as equities. Industrial commodities fit that description, especially after their recent selloff. The dollar remains a crucial asset to gauge the path of least resistance for assets. If it refuses to swoon, then it will indicate that global growth is in a weaker state than we foresaw. The good news is that the broad trade-weighted dollar seems to have peaked. Accommodative Monetary Conditions Are Here To Stay Easy liquidity has been the lifeblood of the S&P 500’s rally. The surge in the index coincided with the lagged impact of the rise in our US Financial Liquidity Index (Chart I-2). Low rates have allowed stocks to climb higher, yet earnings expectations remain muted. For example, since November 26, 2018, the forward P/E ratio for the S&P 500 has increased from 15.2 to 18.7, while 10-year Treasury yields have collapsed from 3.1% to 1.6%. Meanwhile, expectations for long-term earnings annual growth extracted from equity multiples using a discounted cash flow model have dropped from 2.4% to 1.2%. Historically, easier monetary policy pushes asset prices higher before it lifts economic activity. Historically, easier monetary policy pushes asset prices higher before it lifts economic activity. Yet, stocks and risk assets normally continue to climb when the economy recovers. Even without any additional monetary easing, as long as policy remains accommodative, risk assets will generate positive returns. Expectations for stronger cash flow growth become the force driving asset prices higher. Policy will likely remain accommodative around the world. Within this framework, peak monetary easing is probably behind us, even though liquidity conditions remain extremely accommodative. Nominal interest rates remain very low, and real bond yields are still falling. Unlike in 2018 and 2019, dropping TIPs yields reflect rising inflation expectations (Chart I-3). Those factors together indicate that policy is reflationary, which is confirmed by the gold rally. Chart I-2A Liquidity Driven Rally Chart I-3Today, Lower TIPS Yields Are Reflationary   Chart I-4Economic Activity To Respond To Liquidity Based on the historical lags between monetary easing and manufacturing activity, the global industrial sector is set to mend (Chart I-4). Moreover, the liquidity-driven surge in stock prices, combined with low yields and compressed credit spreads, has eased financial conditions, which creates the catalyst for an industrial recovery. Where will the growth come from? First, worldwide inventory levels have collapsed after making negative contributions to growth since mid-2018 (Chart I-5). Thus, there is room for an inventory restocking. Secondly, auto sales in Europe and China have rebounded to 18.5% from -23% and to -0.1% from -16.4%, respectively. Thirdly, China’s credit and fiscal impulse has improved. The uptick in Chinese iron ore imports indicates that the pass-through from domestic reflation to global economic activity will materialize soon (Chart I-6). Finally, following the Phase One Sino-US trade deal, global business confidence is bottoming, as exemplified by Belgium’s business confidence, Switzerland KOF LEI, Korea's manufacturing business survey, or US CFO and CEO confidence measures. The increase in EM earnings revisions shows that US capex intentions should soon re-accelerate, which bodes well for investment both in the US and globally (Chart I-7). Chart I-5Room For Inventory Restocking Chart I-6China Points To Stronger Global Growth   Construction activity, a gauge of the monetary stance, is looking up across the advanced economies. In the US, housing starts – a leading indicator of domestic demand – have hit a 13-year high. A pullback in this volatile data series is likely, but it should be limited. Vacancies remain at a paltry 1.4%, household formation is solid and affordability is not demanding (Chart I-8). In Europe, construction activity has been relatively stable through the economic slowdown. Even in Canada and Australia, housing transactions have gathered steam quickly following declines in mortgage rates (Chart I-9). Chart I-7Capex Is Set To Recover Chart I-8US Housing Is Robust Chart I-9Even The Canadian And Australian Housing Markets Are Stabilizing Consumers will remain a source of strength for the global economy. The dichotomy between weak manufacturing PMIs and the stable service sector reflects a healthy consumer spending. December retail sales in Europe and the US corroborate this assessment. The stabilization in US business confidence suggests that household incomes are not in as much jeopardy as three months ago. As household net worth and credit growth improve further, a stable outlook for household income will underwrite greater gains in consumption. Policy will likely remain accommodative around the world. For the time being, US inflationary pressures are muted. The New York Fed’s Underlying Inflation Gauge has rolled over, hourly earnings growth has moved back below 3%, our pipeline inflation indicator derived from the ISM is weak, and core producer prices are flagging (Chart I-10). This trend is not US-specific. In the OECD, core consumer price inflation is set to decelerate due to the lagged impact of the manufacturing slowdown. Central banks are also constrained to remain dovish by their own rhetoric. The Fed's statement this week was a testament to this reality. Central banks are increasingly looking to set symmetrical inflation targets. After a decade of missing their targets, a symmetric target would imply keeping policy easier for longer, even if realized inflation moves back above 2%. A rebound in global growth and weak inflation should create a poisonous environment for the US dollar. Finally, fiscal policy will make a small positive contribution to growth in most major advanced economies in 2020, particularly in Germany and the UK (Table I-1). Chart I-10Limited Inflation Will Allow The Fed To Remain Easy Table I-1Modest Fiscal Easing In 2020   The Dollar And The Sino-US Phase One Deal At first glance, a rebound in global growth and weak inflation should create a poisonous environment for the US dollar (Chart I-11). As we have often argued, the dollar’s defining characteristic is its pronounced counter-cyclicality. Chart I-11A Painful Backdrop For The Greenback Deteriorating dollar fundamentals make this risk particularly relevant. US interest rates are well above those in the rest of the G10, but the gap in short rates has significantly narrowed. Historically, the direction of rates differentials and not their levels has determined the trend in the USD (Chart I-12). Moreover, real differentials at the long end of the curve support the notion that the maximum tailwinds for the dollar are behind us (Chart I-12, bottom panel). Furthermore, now that the US Treasury has replenished its accounts at the Federal Reserve, the Fed’s addition of excess reserves in the system will likely become increasingly negative for the dollar, especially against EM currencies. Likewise, relative money supply trends between the US, Europe, Japan and China already predict a decline in the dollar (Chart I-13). Chart I-12Interest Rate Differentials Do Not Favor The Dollar... Chart I-13...Neither Do Money Supply Trends   Chart I-14The Phase One Deal Is Ambitious The recent Sino-US trade agreement obscures what appears to be a straightforward picture. According to the Phase One deal signed mid-January, China will increase its US imports by $200 billion in the next two years vis-à-vis the high-water mark of $186 billion reached in 2017. This is an extremely ambitious goal (Chart I-14). Politically, it is positive that China has committed to buy manufactured goods and services in addition to commodities. However, the scale of the increase in imports of US manufactured goods is large, at $77 billion. China cannot fulfill this obligation if domestic growth merely stabilizes or picks up just a little, especially now that the domestic economy is in the midst of a spreading illness. It will have to substitute some of its European and Japanese imports with US goods. A consequence of this trade deal is that the euro’s gains will probably lag those recorded in normal business cycle upswings. Historically, European growth outperforms the US when China’s monetary conditions are easing and its marginal propensity to consume is rising (Chart I-15). However, given the potential for China to substitute European goods in favor of US ones, China’s economic reacceleration probably will not benefit Europe as much as it normally does. China may not ultimately follow through with as big of US purchases as it has promised, but it is likely, at least initially, to show good faith in the agreement. The euro’s gains will probably lag those recorded in normal business cycle upswings. While the trade agreement is a headwind for the euro, it is a positive for the Chinese yuan. The US output gap stands at 0.1% of potential GDP and the US labor market is near full employment. The US industrial sector does not possess the required spare capacity to fulfill additional Chinese demand. To equilibrate the market for US goods, prices will have to adjust to become more favorable for Chinese purchasers. The simplest mechanism to achieve this outcome is for the RMB to appreciate. Meanwhile, the euro is trading 16% below its equilibrium, which will allow European producers to fulfill US domestic demand. A widening US trade deficit with Europe would undo improvements in the trade balance with China. The probability that US equities correct further in the short-term is elevated. The implication for the dollar is that the broad trade-weighted USD will likely outperform the Dollar Index (DXY). The euro represents 18.9% of the broad trade-weighted dollar versus 57.6% of the DXY. Asian currencies, EM currencies at large, the AUD and the NZD, all should benefit from their close correlation with the RMB (Chart I-16). Chart I-15Europe Normally Wins When China Recovers Chart I-16EM, Asian, And Antipodean Exchange Rates Love A Strong RMB   Obviously, before the RMB and the assets linked to it can appreciate further, the panic surrounding the coronavirus will have to dissipate. However, the economic damage created by SARS was short lived. This respiratory syndrome resulted in a 2.4% contraction Hong-Kong’s GDP in the second quarter of 2003. The economy of Hong Kong recovered that loss quickly afterward. Investment Forecasts BCA continues to forecast upside in safe-haven yields. Global interest rates remain well below equilibrium and a global economic recovery bodes poorly for bond prices (Chart I-17). However, inflation expectations and not real yields will drive nominal yield changes. The dovish slant of global central banks and the growing likelihood that symmetric inflation targets will become the norm is creating long-term upside risks for inflation. Moreover, if symmetric inflation targets imply lower real short rates in the future, then they also imply lower real long rates today. Investors should begin switching their risk assets into industrial commodity plays, especially after their recent selloff. Easy monetary conditions, decreased real rates and an improvement in economic activity are also consistent with an outperformance of assets with higher yields. High-yield bonds, which offer attractive breakeven spreads, will benefit from this backdrop (Chart I-18). Furthermore, carry trades will likely continue to perform well. In addition to low interest rates across most of the G10, the low currency volatility caused by an extended period of easy policy will continue to encourage carry-seeking strategies. Chart I-17Bonds Are Still Expensive Chart I-18Where Is The Value In Credit?   An environment in which growth is accelerating and monetary policy is accommodative argues in favor of stocks. Our profit growth model for the S&P 500 has finally moved back into positive territory. As earnings improve, investors will likely re-rate depressed long-term growth expectations for cash flows (Chart I-19). The flip side is that equity risk premia are elevated, especially outside the US (Chart I-19). Hence, as long as accelerating growth (but not tighter policy) drives up yields, equities should withstand rising borrowing costs. The use of passive investing and the prevalence of “closet indexers” accentuates the risk that a tech mania could blossom. The 400 point surge in the S&P 500 since early October complicates the picture. The probability that US equities correct further in the short-term is elevated, based on their short-term momentum and sentiment measures, such as the put/call ratio (Chart I-20). Foreign equities will continue to correct along US ones, even if they are cheaper. Chart I-19Elevated Stock Multiples Reflect Low Yields, Not Growth Exuberance Chart I-20Tactical Risks For Stocks   Chart I-21Buy Commodities/Sell Stocks? The coronavirus panic seems to be the catalyst for such a correction. When a market is overextended, any shock can cause a pullback in prices. Moreover, as of writing, medical professionals still have to ascertain the virus’s severity and potential mutations. Therefore, risk assets must embed a significant risk premium for such uncertainty, even if ultimately the infection turns out to be mild. However, that risk premium will likely prove to be short lived. During the SARS crisis in 2003, stocks bottomed when the number of reported new cases peaked. The tech sector has plentiful downside if the correction gathers strength. As indicated in BCA’s US Equity Sector Strategy, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon and Facebook account for 18% of the US market capitalization, which is the highest market concentration since the late 1990s tech bubble. Investors should begin switching their risk assets into industrial commodity plays, especially after their recent selloff. Commodity prices are trading at a large discount to US equities. Moreover, the momentum of natural resource prices relative to stocks has begun to form a positive divergence with the price ratio of these two assets (Chart I-21). Technical divergences such as the one visible in the ratio of commodities to equities are often positive signals. Low real rates, an ample liquidity backdrop, a global economic recovery, a weak broad trade-weighted dollar and a strong RMB, all benefit commodities over equities. Tech stocks underperform commodities when the dollar weakens and growth strengthens. Moreover, our positive stance on the RMB justifies stronger prices for copper, oil and EM equities (Chart I-22). Chart I-22The Winners From A CNY Rebound Our US Equity Strategy Service has also reiterated its preference for industrials and energy stocks, and it recently upgraded materials stocks to neutral.1 All three sectors trade at significant valuation discounts to the broad market and to tech stocks in particular. They are also oversold in relative terms. Finally, their operating metrics are improving, a trend which will be magnified if global growth re-accelerates. Do not make these bets aggressively. A weakening broad trade-weighted dollar would allow for a rotation into foreign equities and an outperformance of value relative to growth stocks. The share of US equities in the MSCI All-Country World Index is a direct function of the broad trade-weighted dollar (Chart I-23). Moreover, since 1971, the dollar and the relative performance of growth stocks versus value stocks have exhibited a positive correlation (Chart I-24). Thus, the dollar’s recent strength has been a key component behind the run enjoyed by tech stocks. Chart I-23Global Stocks Love A Soft Dollar Chart I-24Value Stocks Needs A Weaker Dollar To Outperform Growth Stocks Despite the risks to the euro discussed in the previous section, European equities could still outperform US equities. Such a move would be consistent with value stocks beating growth equities (Chart I-24, bottom panel). This correlation exists because the euro area has a combined 17.7% weighting to tech and healthcare stocks compared with a 37.1% allocation in US benchmarks. Moreover, a cheap euro should allow European industrials and materials to outperform their US counterparts. Finally, the recent uptick in the European credit impulse indicates that an acceleration in European profit growth is imminent, a view that is in line with our preference for European financials (Chart I-25).2 Chart I-25Euro Area Profits Should Improve Bottom Line: The current environment remains favorable for risk assets on a 12-month investment horizon. As such, we expect stocks and bond yields to continue to rise in 2020. Moreover, a pick-up in global growth, along with a fall in the broad trade-weighted dollar, should weigh on tech and growth stocks, and boost the attractiveness of commodity plays, industrial, energy and materials stocks, as well as European and EM equities. Forecast Meets Strategy Liquidity-driven rallies, such as the current one, can carry on regardless of the fundamentals. As Keynes noted 90 years ago: “Markets can remain irrational longer than you can stay solvent.” The gap between forecast and strategy can be great. The use of passive investing and the prevalence of “closet indexers” accentuates the risk that a tech mania could blossom. We assign a substantial 30% probability to the risk of another tech mania. Outflows from equity ETFs and mutual funds have been large. Investors will be tempted to move back into those vehicles if stocks continue to rally on the back of plentiful liquidity and improving global growth (Chart I-26). In the process, the new inflows will prop up the over-represented, over-valued, and over-extended tech behemoths. Chart I-26Depressed Equity Flows Should Pick Up The current tech bubble can easily run a lot further. Based on current valuations, the NASDAQ trades at a P/E ratio of 31 compared with 68 in March 2000 (Chart I-27). Moreover, momentum is becoming increasingly favorable for the NASDAQ and other high-flying tech stocks. The NASDAQ is outperforming high-dividend stocks and after a period of consolidation, its relative performance is breaking out. Momentum often performs very well in liquidity-driven rallies. Chart I-27Where Is The Bubble? Chart I-28Debt Loads Are Already High Everywhere A full-fledged tech mania would make our overweight equities / underweight bonds a profitable call, but it would invalidate our sector and regional recommendations. Moreover, with a few exceptions in China and Taiwan, the major tech bellwethers are listed in the US. A tech bubble would most likely push our bearish dollar stance to the offside. Bubbles are dangerous: participating on the upside is easy, but cashing out is not. Moreover, financial bubbles tend to exacerbate the economic pain that follows the bust. During manic phases, capital is poorly invested and the economy becomes geared to the sectors that benefit from the financial excesses. These assets lose their value when the bubble deflates. Moreover, bubbles often result in growing private-sector indebtedness. Writing off or paying back this debt saps the economy’s vitality. Making matters worse, today overall indebtedness is unprecedented and central banks have little room to reflate the global economy once the bubble bursts (Chart I-28). Finally, US/Iran tensions will create additional risk in the years ahead. Matt Gertken, BCA’s Geopolitical Strategist, warns that the ratcheting down of tensions following Iran’s retaliation to General Soleimani’s assassination is temporary.3 As a result, the oil market remains a source of left-handed tail-risk. Section II discusses other potential black swans lurking in the geopolitical sphere. We continue to recommend that investors overweight industrials and energy, upgrade materials to neutral, Europe to overweight, and curtail their USD exposure as long as US inflation remains well behaved and the US inflation breakeven rate stays below the 2.3% to 2.5% range. However, do not make these bets aggressively. Moreover, some downside protection is merited. Due to our very negative view on bonds, we prefer garnering these hedges via a 15% allocation to gold and the yen. The yen is especially attractive because it is one of the few cheap, safe-haven plays (Chart I-29). Chart I-29The Yen Offers Cheap Portfolio Protection Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst January 30, 2020 Next Report: February 27, 2020   II. Five Black Swans In 2020 Our top five geopolitical “Black Swans” are risks that the market is seriously underpricing. With the “phase one” trade deal signed, Chinese policy could become less accommodative, resulting in a negative economic surprise. The trade deal may fall victim to domestic politics, raising the risk of a US-China military skirmish. A Biden victory at the Democratic National Convention or a Democratic takeover of the White House could trigger social unrest and violence in the US. A pickup in the flow of migrants to Europe would fundamentally undermine political stability there. Russia’s weak economy will add fuel to domestic unrest, risking an escalation beyond the point of containment. Over the past four years, BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy service has started off each year with their top five geopolitical “Black Swans.” These are low-probability events whose market impact would be significant enough to matter for global investors. Unlike the great Byron Wien’s perennial list of market surprises, we do not assign these events a “better than 50% likelihood of happening.” We offer risks that the market is seriously underpricing by assigning them only single-digit probabilities when we think the reality is closer to 10%-15%, a level at which a risk premium ought to be assigned. Some of our risks below are so obscure that it is not clear how exactly to price them. We exclude issues that are fairly probable, such as flare-ups in Indo-Pakistani conflict. The two major risks of the year – discussed in our Geopolitical Strategy’s annual outlook – are that either US President Donald Trump or Chinese President Xi Jinping overreaches in a major way. But what would truly surprise the market would be a policy-induced relapse in Chinese growth or a direct military clash between the two great powers. That is how we begin. Other risks stem from domestic affairs in the US, Europe, and Russia. Black Swan 1: China’s Financial Crisis Begins Chart II-1A Crackdown On Financial Risk Could Cause China's Economy To Derail The risk of Xi Jinping’s concentration of power in his own person is that individuals can easily make mistakes, especially if unchecked by advisors or institutions. Lower officials will fear correcting or admonishing an all-powerful leader. Inconvenient information may not be relayed up the hierarchy. Such behavior was rampant in Chairman Mao Zedong’s time, leading to famine among other ills. Insofar as President Xi’s cult of personality successfully imitates Mao’s, it will be subject to similar errors. If President Xi overreaches and makes a policy mistake this year, it could occur in economic policy or other policies. We begin with economic policy, as we have charted the risks of Xi’s crackdown on the financial system since early 2017 (Chart II-1). This year is supposed to be the third and final year of Xi Jinping’s “three battles” against systemic risk, pollution, and poverty. The first battle actually focuses on financial risk, i.e. China’s money and credit bubble. The regime has compromised on this goal since mid-2018, allowing monetary easing to stabilize the economy amid the trade war. But with a “phase one” trade deal having been signed, there is an underrated risk that economic policy will return to its prior setting, i.e. become less accommodative (Chart II-2). When Xi launched the “deleveraging campaign” in 2017, we posited that the authorities would be willing to tolerate an annual GDP growth rate below 6%. This would not only cull excesses in the economy but also demonstrate that the administration means business when it says that China must prioritize quality rather than quantity of growth. While Chinese authorities are most likely targeting “around 6%” in 2020, it is entirely possible that the authorities will allow an undershoot in the 5.5%-5.9% range. They will argue that the GDP target for 2020 has already been met on a compound growth rate basis (Chart II-3), as astute clients have pointed out. They may see less need for stimulus than the market expects. Chart II-2Easing Of Trade Tensions May Re-Incentivize Tighter Policy Chart II-3Chinese Authorities Might Tolerate A Growth Undershoot In 2020   Similarly, while urban disposable income is ostensibly lagging its target of doubling 2010 levels by 2020, China’s 13th Five Year Plan, which concludes in 2020, conspicuously avoided treating urban and rural income targets separately. If the authorities focus only on general disposable income, then they are on track to meet their target (Chart II-4). This would reduce the impetus for greater economic support. The Xi administration may aim only for stability, not acceleration, in the economy. There are already tentative signs that Chinese authorities are “satisfied” with the amount of stimulus they have injected: some indicators of money and credit have already peaked (Chart II-5). The crackdown on shadow banking has eased, but informal lending is still contracting. The regime is still pushing reforms that shake up state-owned enterprises. Chart II-4Lower Impetus For Economic Support Due To Improvements In National Income? Chart II-5Has China's Stimulus Peaked?   An added headwind for the Chinese economy stems from the currency. The currency should track interest rate differentials. Beijing’s incremental monetary stimulus, in the form of cuts to bank reserve requirement ratios (RRRs), should also push the renminbi down over time (Chart II-6). However, an essential aspect of any trade deal with the Trump administration is the need to demonstrate that China is not competitively devaluing. Hence the CNY-USD could overshoot in the first half of the year. This is positive for global exports to China, but it tightens Chinese financial conditions at home. A stronger than otherwise justified renminbi would add to any negative economic surprises from less accommodative monetary and fiscal policy. Conventional wisdom says China will stimulate the economy ahead of two major political events: the centenary of the Communist Party in 2021 and the twentieth National Party Congress in 2022. The former is a highly symbolic anniversary, as Xi has reasserted the supremacy of the party in all things, while the latter is more significant for policy, as it is a leadership reshuffle that will usher in the sixth generation of China’s political elite. But conventional wisdom may be wrong – the Xi administration may aim only for stability, not acceleration, in the economy. It would make sense to save dry powder for the next US or global recession. The obvious implication is that China’s economic rebound may lose steam as early as H2 – but the black swan risk is that negative surprises could cause a vicious spiral inside of China. This is a country with massive financial and economic imbalances, a declining potential growth profile, and persistent political obstacles to growth both at home and abroad. Corporate defaults have spiked sharply. While the default rate is lower than elsewhere, the market may be sniffing out a bigger problem as it charges a much higher premium for onshore Chinese bonds (Chart II-7). Chart II-6CNY/USD Overshoot Would Tighten Chinese Financial Conditions Chart II-7Is China's Bond Market Sniffing Out A Problem?   Bottom Line: Our view is that China’s authorities will remain accommodative in 2020 in order to ensure that growth bottoms and the labor market continues to improve. But Beijing has compromised its domestic economic discipline since 2018 in order to fight trade war. The risk now, with a “phase one” deal in hand, is that Xi Jinping returns to his three-year battle plan and underestimates the downward pressures on the economy. The result would be a huge negative surprise for the Chinese and global economy in 2020. Black Swan 2: The US And China Go To War In 2013, we predicted that US-China conflict was “more likely than you think.” This was not just an argument for trade conflict or general enmity that raises the temperature in the Asia-Pacific region – we included military conflict. At the time, the notion that a Sino-American armed conflict was the world’s greatest geopolitical threat seemed ludicrous to many of our clients. We published this analysis in October of that year, months after the Islamic State “Soldier’s Harvest” offensive into Iraq. Trying to direct investors to the budding rivalry between American and Chinese naval forces in the South China Sea amidst the Islamic State hysteria was challenging, to say the least. Chart II-8Americans’ Attitudes Toward China Plunged… The suggestion that an accidental skirmish between the US and China could descend into a full-blown conflict involved a stretch of the imagination because China was not yet perceived by the American public as a major threat. In 2014, only 19%of the US public saw China as the “greatest threat to the US in the future.” This came between Russia, at 23%, and Iran, at 16%. Today, China and Russia share the top spot with 24%. Furthermore, the share of Americans with an unfavorable view of China has increased from 52% to 60% in the six intervening years (Chart II-8). The level of enmity expressed by the US public toward China is still lower than that toward the Soviet Union at the onset of the Cold War in the 1950s (Chart II-9). However, the trajectory of distrust is clearly mounting. We expect this trend to continue: anti-China sentiment is one of the few sources of bipartisan agreement remaining in Washington, DC (Chart II-10). Chinese sentiment toward the United States has also darkened dramatically. The geopolitical rivalry is deepening for structural reasons: as China advances in size and sophistication, it seeks to alter the regional status quo in its favor, while the US grows fearful and seeks to contain China. Chart II-9…But Not Yet To War-Inducing Levels Chart II-10Distrust Of China Is Bipartisan   Chart II-11Newfound American Concern For China’s Repression One example of rising enmity is the US public’s newfound concern for China’s domestic policies and human rights, specifically Beijing’s treatment of its Uyghur minority in Xinjiang. A Google Trends analysis of the term “Uyghur” or “Uyghur camps” shows a dramatic rise in mentions since Q2 of 2018, around the same time the trade war ramped up in a major way (Chart II-11). While startling revelations of re-education camps in Xinjiang emerged in recent years, the reality is that Beijing has used heavy-handed tactics against both militant groups and the wider Uyghur minority since at least 2008 – and much earlier than that. As such, the surge of interest by the general American public and legislators – culminating in the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2019 – is a product of the renewed strategic tension between the two countries. The same can be said for Hong Kong: the US did not pass a Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act in 2014, during the first round of mass protests, which prompted Beijing to take heavy-handed legal, legislative, and censorship actions. It passed the bill in 2019, after the climate in Washington had changed. Why does this matter for investors? There are two general risks that come with a greater public engagement in foreign policy. First, the “phase one” trade deal between China and the US could fall victim to domestic politics. This deal envisions a large step up in Sino-American economic cooperation. But if China is to import around $200 billion of additional US goods and services over the next two years – an almost inconceivable figure – the US and China will have to tamp down on public vitriol. This is notably the case if the Democratic Party takes over the White House, given its likely greater focus on liberal concerns such as human rights. And yet the latest bills became law under President Trump and a Republican Senate, and we fully expect a second Trump term to involve a re-escalation of trade tensions to ensure compliance with phase one and to try to gain greater structural concessions in phase two. Second, mounting nationalist sentiment will make it more difficult for US and Chinese policymakers to reduce tensions following a potential future military skirmish, accidental or otherwise. While our scenario of a military conflict in 2013 was cogent, the public backlash in the United States was probably manageable.3 Today we can no longer guarantee that this is the case. The “phase one” trade deal risks falling victim to domestic politics due to greater public engagement in foreign policy. China has greater control over the domestic narrative and public discourse, but the rise of the middle class and the government’s efforts to rebuild support for the single-party regime have combined to create an increase in nationalism. Thus it is also more difficult for Chinese policymakers to contain the popular backlash if conflict erupts. In short, the probability of a quick tamping down of public enmity is actively being reduced as American public vilification of China is closing the gap with China’s burgeoning nationalism at an alarming pace. Another of our black swan risks – Taiwan island – is inextricably bound up in this dangerous US-China dynamic. To be clear, Washington will tread carefully, as a conflict over Taiwan could become a major war. Nevertheless Taiwan’s election, as we expected, has injected new vitality into this already underrated geopolitical risk. It is not only that a high-turnout election (Chart II-12) gave President Tsai Ing-wen a greater mandate (Chart II-13), or that her Democratic Progressive Party retained its legislative majority (Chart II-14). It is not only that the trigger for this resounding victory was the revolt in Hong Kong and the Taiwanese people’s rejection of the “one country, two systems” formula for Taiwan. It is also that Tsai followed up with a repudiation of the mainland by declaring, “We don’t have a need to declare ourselves an independent state. We are an independent country already and we call ourselves the Republic of China, Taiwan.” Chart II-12Tsai Ing-Wen Enjoys A Greater Mandate On Higher Turnout… Chart II-13…Popular Support… Chart II-14…And A Legislative Majority This statement is not a minor rhetorical flourish but will be received as a major provocation in Beijing: the crystallization of a long-brewing clash between Beijing and Taipei. Additional punitive economic measures against Taiwan are now guaranteed. Saber-rattling could easily ignite in the coming year and beyond. Taiwan is the epicenter of the US-China strategic conflict. First, Beijing cannot compromise on its security or its political legitimacy and considers the “one China principle” to be inviolable. Second, the US maintains defense relations with Taiwan (and is in the process of delivering on a relatively large new package of arms). Third, the US’s true willingness to fight a war on Taiwan’s behalf is in doubt, which means that deterrence has eroded and there is greater room for miscalculation. Bottom Line: A US-China military skirmish has been our biggest black swan risk since we began writing the BCA Geopolitical Strategy. The difference between then and now, however, is that the American public is actually paying attention. Political ideology – the question of democracy and human rights – is clearly merging with trade, security, and other differences to provoke Americans of all stripes. This makes any skirmish more than just a temporary risk-off event, as it could lead to a string of incidents or even protracted military conflict. Black Swan 3: Social Unrest Erupts In America There are numerous lessons that one can learn from the ongoing unrest in Hong Kong, but perhaps the most cogent one is that Millennials and Generation Z are not as docile and feckless as their elders think. Images of university students and even teenagers throwing flying kicks and Molotov cocktails while clad in black body armor have shocked the world. Perhaps all those violent video games did have a lasting impact on the youth! What is surprising is that so few commentators have made the cognitive leap from the ultra-first world streets of Hong Kong to other developed economies. Perhaps what is clouding analysts’ minds is the idiosyncratic nature of the dispute in Hong Kong, the “one China” angle. However, Hong Kong youth are confronted with similar socio-economic challenges that their peers in other advanced economies face: overpriced real estate and a bifurcated service-sector labor market with few mid-tier jobs that pay a decent wage. There is a risk of rebellion from Trump’s most ardent supporters if he loses the White House. In the US, Millennials and Gen Z are also facing challenges unique to the US. First, their debt burden is much more toxic than that of the older cohorts, given that it is made up of student loans and credit card debt (Chart II-15). Second, they find themselves at odds – demographically and ideologically – with the older cohorts (Chart II-16). Chart II-15Younger American Cohorts Plagued By Toxic Debt Chart II-16Younger And Older Cohorts At Odds Demographically   Chart II-17Massive Turnout To The 2016 Referendum On Trump The adage that the youth are apolitical and do not turn out to vote may have ended thanks to President Trump. The 2018 midterm election, which the Democratic Party successfully turned into a referendum on the president, saw the youth (18-29) turnout nearly double from 20% to 36% (the 30-44 year-old cohort also saw a jump in turnout from 35.6% to 48.8%). The election saw one of the highest turnouts in recent memory, with a 53.4% figure, just two points off the 2016 general election figure (Chart II-17). Despite the high turnout in 2018, the-most-definitely-not-Millennial Vice President Joe Biden continues to lead the Democratic Party in the polls. His probability of winning the nomination is not overwhelming, but it is the highest of any contender. In recent polls, Biden comes third place in Millennial/Gen-Z vote preferences (Chart II-18). Yet he is hardly out of contention, especially for the 30-44 year-old cohort. The view that “Uncle Joe” does not fit the Democratic Party zeitgeist has become so entrenched in the Democratic Party narrative that it became conventional wisdom last year, pulling oddsmakers and betting markets away from the clear frontrunner (Chart II-19). Chart II-18Biden Unpopular Among Young American Voters Chart II-19Bookies Pulled Down 'Uncle Joe’s' Odds, Capturing Democratic Party Zeitgeist     As such, a Biden victory at the Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin on July 13-16 may come as an affront to the left-wing activists who will surely descend on the convention. This will particularly be the case if Biden wins despite the progressive candidates amassing a majority of overall delegates, which is possible judging by the combined progressive vote share in current polling (Chart II-20). He would arrive in Milwaukee without clearing the 1990 delegate count required to win on the first ballot. On the second ballot, his presidency would then receive a boost from “superdelegates” and those progressives who are unwilling to “rock the boat,” i.e. unify against an establishment candidate with the largest share of votes. This is also how Mayor Michael Bloomberg could pull off a surprise win. Chart II-20Progressives Come Closest To Victory Such a “brokered” – or contested – convention has not occurred since 1952. However, several Democratic Party conventions came close, including 1968, 1972, and 1984. The 1968 one in Chicago was notable for considerable violence and unrest. Even if the Milwaukee Democratic Party convention does not produce unrest, it could sow the seeds for unrest later in the year. First, a breakout Biden performance in the primaries is unlikely. As such, he will likely need to pledge a shift to the left at the convention, including by accepting a progressive vice-presidential candidate. Second, an actual progressive may win the primary. Chart II-21Zealots In Both Parties Perceive Each Other As A National Threat It is likely that either of the two options would be seen as an existential threat to many of Trump’s loyal supporters across the United States. President Trump’s rhetoric often paints the scenario of a Democratic takeover of the White House in apocalyptic terms. And data suggests that the zealots in both parties perceive each other as a “threat to the nation’s wellbeing” (Chart II-21). The American Civil War in the nineteenth century began with the election of a president. This is not just because Abraham Lincoln was a particularly reviled figure in the South, but because the states that ultimately formed the Confederacy saw in his election the demographic writing-on-the-wall. The election was an expression of a general will that, from that point onwards, was irreversible. Given demographic trends in the US today, it is possible that many would see in Trump’s loss a similar fait accompli. If one perceives progressive Democrats as an existential threat to the US constitution, rebellion is the obvious and rational response. Bottom Line: Year 2020 may be a particularly violent one for the US. First, left wing activists may be shocked and angered to learn that Joe Biden (or Bloomberg) is the nominee of the Democratic Party come July. With so much hype behind the progressive candidates throughout the campaign, Biden’s nomination could be seen as an affront to what was supposed to be “the big year” for left-wing candidates. Second, investors have to start thinking about what happens if Biden – or a progressive candidate – goes on to defeat President Trump in the general election. While liberal America took Trump’s election badly, it has demographics – and thus time – on its side. Trump’s most ardent supporters may conclude that his defeat means the end of America as they know it. Black Swan 4: Europe’s Migration Crisis Restarts It is a testament to Europe’s resilience that we do not have a Black Swan scenario based on an election or a political crisis set on the continent in 2020. Support for the common currency and the EU as a whole has rebounded to its highest since 2013. Even early elections in Germany and Italy are unlikely to produce geopolitical risk. The populists in the former are in no danger of outperforming whereas the populists in the latter barely deserve the designation. But what if one of the reasons for the surge in populism – unchecked illegal immigration – were to return in 2020? Chart II-22Decline In Illegal Immigration Dampened European Populism The data suggests that the risk of migrant flows has massively subsided. From its peak of over a million arrivals in 2015, the data shows that only 125,472 migrants crossed into Europe via land and sea routes in the Mediterranean last year (Chart II-22). Why? There are five reasons that we believe have checked the flow of migrants: Supply: The civil wars in Syria, Iraq, and Libya have largely subsided. Heterogenous regions, cities, and neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed and internal boundaries have largely ossified. It is unlikely that any future conflict will produce massive outflows of refugees as the displacement has already taken place. These countries are now largely divided into armed, ethnically homogenous, camps. Enforcement: The EU has stepped up border enforcement since 2015, pouring resources into the land border with Turkey and naval patrols across the Mediterranean. Individual member states – particularly Italy and Hungary – have also stepped up border enforcement policy. While most EU member states have publicly chided both for “draconian” policies, there is no impetus to force Rome and Budapest to change policy. Libyan Imbroglio: Conflict in Libya has flared up in 2019 with military warlord Khalifa Haftar looking to wrest control from the UN-backed Government of National Accord led by Fayez al-Serraj. The Islamic State has regrouped in the country as well. Ironically, the conflict is helping stem the flow of migrants as African migrants from sub-Saharan countries dare not cross into Libya as they did in 2015 when there was a brief lull in fighting. Turkish benevolence: Ankara is quick to point out that it is the only thing standing between Europe and a massive deluge of migrants. Turkey is said to host somewhere between two and four million refugees from various conflicts in the Middle East. Fear of the crossing: If crossing the Mediterranean was easy, Europe would have experienced a massive influx of migrants throughout the twentieth century. Not only is it not easy, it is costly and quite deadly, with thousands lost each year. Furthermore, most migrants are not welcomed when they arrive to Europe, many are held in terrible conditions in holding camps in Italy and Greece. Over time, migrants who made it into Europe have reported these dangers and conditions, reducing the overall demand for illegal migration. We do not foresee these five factors changing, at least not all at once. However, there are several reasons to worry about the flow of migrants in 2020. US-Iran tensions have sparked outright military action, while unrest is flaring up across Iran’s sphere of influence. Going forward, Iran could destabilize Iraq or fuel Shia unrest against US-backed regimes. Second, Afghanistan has been the source of most migrants to Europe via sea and land Mediterranean routes – 19.2%. The conflict in the country continues and may flare up with President Trump’s decision to formally withdraw most US troops from the country in 2020. Third, a break in fighting in Libya may encourage sub-Saharan migrants to revisit routes to Europe. Migrants from Guinea, Cote d’Ivoire, and the Democratic Republic of Congo make up over 10% of migrants to Europe. Finally, Turkish relationship with the West could break up further in 2020, causing Ankara to ship migrants northward. We highly doubt that President Erdogan will risk such a break, given that 50% of Turkish exports go to Europe. A European embargo on Turkish exports – which would be a highly likely response to such an act – would crush the already decimated Turkish economy. Bottom Line: While we do not see a return to the 2015 level of migration in 2020, we flag this risk because it would fundamentally undermine political stability in Europe. Black Swan 5: Russia Faces A “Peasant Revolt” Our fifth and final black swan risk for the year stems from Russia. This risk may seem obvious, since the US election creates a dynamic that revives the inherent conflict in US-Russian relations. Russia could seek to accomplish foreign policy objectives – interfering in US elections, punishing regional adversaries. The Trump administration may be friendly toward Russia but Trump is unlikely to veto any sanctions passed by the House and Senate in an election year, should an occasion for new sanctions arise. Conversely Russia could anticipate greater US pressure if the Democrats win in November. Yet it is Russia’s domestic affairs that represent the real underrated risk. Putin’s fourth term as president has been characterized by increased focus on domestic political control and stability as opposed to foreign adventurism. The creation of a special National Guard in 2016, reporting directly to Putin and responsible for quelling domestic unrest, symbolizes the shift in focus. So too does Russia’s adherence to the OPEC 2.0 regime of production control to keep oil prices above their budget breakeven level. Meanwhile Putin’s courting of Europe for the Nordstream II pipeline, and his slight peacemaking efforts with Ukraine, has suggested a slightly more restrained international posture. Strategically it makes little sense for Russia to court negative attention at a time when the US and Europe are at odds over trade and the Middle East, the US is preoccupied with China and Iran, and Russia itself faces mounting domestic problems. The domestic problems are long in coming. The central bank has maintained a stringent monetary policy for the better part of the decade. Despite cutting interest rates recently, monetary and credit conditions are still tight, hurting domestic demand. Moscow has also imposed fiscal austerity, namely by cutting back on state pensions and hiking the value added tax. Real wage growth is weak (Chart II-23), retail sales are falling, and domestic demand looks to weaken further, as Andrija Vesic of BCA Emerging Markets Strategy observes in a recent Special Report. The effect of Russia’s policy austerity has been a drop in public approval of the administration (Chart II-24). Protests erupted in 2019 but were largely drowned out by the larger and more globally significant protests in Hong Kong. These were met by police suppression that has not removed their underlying cause. Putin’s first major decision of the new year was to reshuffle the government, entailing Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev’s transfer to a new post and the appointment of a new cabinet. This move reveals the need to show some accountability to reduce popular pressure. While Moscow now has room to cut interest rates and ease fiscal policy, it is behind the curve and the weak economy will add fuel to domestic unrest. Chart II-23Sluggish Wage Growth Threatens Russian Stability Chart II-24Austerity Weighed On The Administration's Popularity In Russia   Meanwhile Putin’s efforts to alter the Russian constitution so he can stay in power beyond current term limits, effectively becoming emperor for life, like Xi Jinping, should not be dismissed merely because they are expected. They reflect a need to take advantage of Putin’s popular standing to consolidate domestic political power at a time when the ruling United Russia party and the federal government face discontent. They also ensure that strategic conflict with the United States will take on an ideological dimension. Russia's recent cabinet shakeup is positive from the point of view of economic reform. And the country's monetary and fiscal room provide a basis for remaining overweight equities within EM, as our Emerging Markets Strategy recommends. However, Russian equities have rallied hard and the political risk is understated. Chart II-25Russian Political Risk Is Unsustainably Low Bottom Line: It is never easy predicting Putin’s next international move. Our market-based indicators of Russian political risk have hit multi-year lows, but both the domestic and international context suggest that these lows will not be sustained (Chart II-25). A new bout of risk can emanate from Putin, or from changes in Washington, or from the Russian people themselves. What would take the world by surprise would be domestic unrest on a larger scale than Russia can easily suppress through the police force. Housekeeping We are closing our long European Union / short Chinese equities strategic trade with a 1.61% loss since inception on May 10, 2019. Dhaval Joshi of BCA’s European Investment Strategy downgraded the Eurostoxx 50 to underweight versus the S&P 500 and the Nikkei 225 this week. He makes the point that the Euro Area bond yield 6-month impulse hit 100 bps – a critical technical level – and will be a strong headwind to growth. We will look to reopen this trade at a later date when the euphoria over the “phase one” trade deal subsides, as we still favor European equities and DM bourses over EM. We will reinstitute our long Brent crude H2 2020 versus H2 2021 tactical position, which was stopped out on January 9, 2020. We remain bullish on oil fundamentals and expect Middle East instability to add a political risk premium. China's stimulus and the oil view also give reason for us to reinitiate our long Malaysian equities relative to EM as a tactical position. The Malaysian ringgit will benefit as oil prices move higher, helping Malaysian companies make payments on their large pile of dollar-denominated debt and improving household purchasing power. Higher oil prices also correlate with higher equity prices, while China's stimulus and the US trade ceasefire will push the US dollar lower and help trade revive in the region. Marko Papic Chief Strategist, Clocktower Group Matt Gertken Geopolitical Strategist   III. Indicators And Reference Charts The S&P 500 rally looks increasingly vulnerable from a tactical perspective. The US benchmark is overbought, and the percentage of NYSE stocks above their 30-week and 10-week moving averages is rolling over at elevated levels. Additionally, the number of NYSE new highs minus new lows has moved in a parabolic fashion and has hit levels that in previous years have warned of an imminent correction. The spread of nCoV-2019 is likely to be the catalyst to a pullback that could cause the S&P 500 to retest its October 2019 breakout. An improving outlook for global growth, limited inflationary pressures and global central banks who maintain an accommodative monetary stance bode well for stocks. Therefore, the anticipated equity correction will not morph into a bear market. For now, our Monetary Indicator remains at extremely elevated levels. Furthermore, our Composite Technical Indicator has strengthened. Additionally, our BCA Composite Valuation index suggests that stocks are expensive, but not so much as to cancel out the supportive monetary and technical backdrop. Finally, our Speculation Indicator is elevated, but is not so high as to warn of an imminent market top. This somewhat muted level of speculation is congruent with the expectation of low long-term growth rates for profits embedded in equity prices. In contrast to our Revealed Preference Indicator, our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) is moving in accordance with our constructive cyclical stance for stocks. Indeed, the WTP for the US, Japan and Europe continues to improve. The WTP indicator tracks flows, and thus provides information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. This broad-based improvement therefore bodes well for equities. Meanwhile, net earnings revisions appear to be forming a trough. 10-year Treasury yields remain extremely expensive. Moreover, according to our Composite Technical Indicator, T-Note prices are losing momentum. The fear surrounding the spread of the new coronavirus has cause bonds to rally again, but this is likely to be the last hurrah for the Treasury markets before a major reversal takes hold. The rising risk premia linked to the coronavirus is also helping the dollar right now, but signs that global growth is bottoming, such as the stabilization in the global PMIs, the pick-up in the German ZEW and Belgium’s Business Confidence surveys, or the improvement in Asia’s export growth, point to a worsening outlook for the counter-cyclical US dollar. Moreover, the dollar trades at a large premium of 24.5% relative to its purchasing-power parity equilibrium. Additionally, the negative divergence between the dollar and our Composite Momentum Indicator suggests that the dollar is technically vulnerable. In fact, the very modest pick-up in the dollar in response to the severe fears created by the spreading illness in China argues that dollar buying might have become exhausted. Finally, commodity prices have corrected meaningfully in response to the stronger dollar and the growth fears created by the spread of the coronavirus. However, they have not pulled back below the levels where they traded when they broke out in late 2019. Moreover, the advance/decline line of the Continuous Commodity Index remains at an elevated level, indicating underlying strength in the commodity complex. Natural resources prices will likely become the key beneficiaries of both the eventual pullback in virus-related fears and the weaker dollar.   EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1 Please see US Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Three EPS Scenarios," dated January 13, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com; US Equity Strategy Insight Report "Bombed Out Energy," dated January 8, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com; US Equity Strategy Special Report "Industrials: Start Your Engines," dated January 21, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 2  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report "January 2020," dated December 20, 2019 available at bca.bcaresearch.com; The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report "OUTLOOK 2020: Heading Into The End Game," dated November 22, 2019 available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy "A Reprieve Amid The Bull Market In Iran Tensions," dated January 8, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 Observe how little attention the public paid to US-China saber-rattling around China’s announcement of an Air Defense Identification Zone in the East China Sea that year.

Highlights The coronavirus scare is the catalyst for the recent correction, not the cause. The true cause is that the stock market had reached a point of groupthink-triggered instability and therefore needed the slightest catalyst to correct. Bond yields will stay depressed for (at least) the first half of 2020. Long-term investors should use corrections to overweight equities versus bonds, provided bond yields stay near or below current levels. The pound and UK-exposed investments will come under near-term pressure as UK/EU trade deal tensions ratchet up. But ultimately, UK-exposed investments will enjoy a major leg up later this year if both the UK and EU blink. Feature Chart of the WeekThe Next Up-Leg In The Pound And UK-Exposed Investments Will Occur Later In 2020 Corrections, Catalysts, And Coronavirus Markets have suffered a correction, begging the question: what caused it? The question is a good one, because identifying the cause can help to inform our response. Yet the danger is that the knee-jerk narrative pinpoints the catalyst rather than the true cause. In which case our response will be wrong too. For example, consider the following two narratives: Tree foliage collapses because of 40 mph winds. Tree foliage collapses because it is autumn. The first narrative is exciting, satisfying, and headline grabbing, but it only pinpoints the catalyst for the foliage collapse: the puff of wind. The second explanation is dull and less newsworthy, but it pinpoints the true cause: in autumn, tree foliage is unstable. Likewise, the coronavirus scare is the catalyst for the recent correction. The true cause is that the stock market had reached a point of groupthink-triggered instability and therefore needed the slightest catalyst to correct. The catalyst could have come from anywhere at any time. If it hadn’t been the coronavirus scare, it would have been the next worry… or the one after that. On January 9 in Markets Are Fractally Fragile we warned that usually cautious value investors had become momentum traders – undermining market liquidity and stability. When this happens, there is a two in three chance of a tactical reversal (Chart I-2). Chart I-2When Markets Are Fractally Fragile, There Is A 2 In 3 Chance Of A Tactical Reversal We also warned that the bond yield 6-month impulse – the change in the change – had recently become a severe 100 bps headwind to growth. At this severity of headwind, there is a nine in ten chance that bond yields have reached a near-term peak (Chart I-3). Chart I-3When The Bond Yield 6-Month Impulse Becomes A Severe Headwind, There Is A 9 In 10 Chance Of A Near-Term Peak In Yields In combination, we warned that equities would underperform bonds by about 4 percent on a tactical horizon. Now that this anticipated correction has happened, what next? Long-term investors should use corrections to overweight equities versus bonds.  First, irrespective of coronavirus – or any other catalyst – the recent severe headwind to growth from the bond yield impulse suggests that bond yields will stay depressed for (at least) the first half of 2020. Second, the good news is that the ultra-low bond yields justify and underpin the valuation of equities. Hence, at the current level of bond yields, long-term investors should use corrections to overweight equities versus bonds. Brexit Is “Done”. Or Is It? Rumour has it that Boris Johnson will banish the word Brexit from the UK government lexicon after January 31, because Brexit is now “done”. Good luck with that. When Britain wakes up bleary-eyed on Saturday February 1, what will have changed? Not a lot. The UK will have lost its voice and votes in the EU decision making institutions. Yet in practical terms nothing will have changed, because the UK and EU will enter an 11-month ‘standstill’ transition period in which existing arrangements will continue: the free movement of people, financial contributions, and full access to the single market without tariffs or customs checks. The Conservative government made a manifesto pledge not to extend the 11-month transition, so the more important question is: what will change when the standstill period ends on December 31? The answer depends on what sort of trade deal the UK and EU can negotiate in the limited space of 11 months. Or indeed whether they can negotiate a trade deal at all. Therein lies the problem. A free trade deal with the EU will require a mutual commitment to a ‘level playing field’. If the UK wants to diverge on food standards, environmental protection, labour rights, and state aid – as the Brexit purists yearn – then there is zero chance that the EU will agree to a free trade deal.  This leaves two options, neither of which is appealing. The first is for the UK to end the 11-month standstill period without a trade deal. Technically, this would not be ‘no deal’ because the withdrawal agreement would still bind both sides on citizens’ rights, financial contributions, and arrangements for Northern Ireland. A free trade deal with the EU will require a mutual commitment to a ‘level playing field’.  However, for UK companies, the option of ending the standstill period without a trade deal would constitute a painful dislocation from the single market involving tariffs and customs checks. It would also hurt the EU economies most exposed to the UK, notably Ireland and the Netherlands. Moreover, a full customs and tariff border in the Irish Sea would endanger the very existence of a ‘United’ Kingdom which included Northern Ireland.   The second option is for the UK to accept a trade deal on EU terms, recognising that the EU is the larger and more economically powerful party in the negotiation. The EU will offer the UK a tariff-free and quota-free trade deal conditional on strict level playing field conditions where the UK chooses to diverge from EU standards, combined with a mechanism to adjudicate on any level playing field disputes. Though economically better than no trade deal at all, the Brexit purists would claim it isn’t Brexit. Meanwhile, even without tariffs and quotas, UK companies whose just-in-time supply chains depended on the EU would still suffer disruption, as the level playing field was policed at every border crossing. So this option would satisfy nobody in the UK. The bigger practical problem is a lack of time to leave the EU regulatory orbit smoothly. Nobody believes that eleven months is enough time to implement a system in Northern Ireland that prevent a hard border in the Irish Sea; or indeed to implement a new UK immigration system if free movement were to end at the end of 2020. So what’s the resolution? The answer is the same as it has always been for Brexit – a gradual ratcheting up of tension ahead of a hard deadline to focus minds and force progress. Followed by a ‘fudged resolution’ at the eleventh hour in which both sides blink – because neither side is prepared to go over the cliff-edge. Recall that to get the withdrawal agreement over the line, the UK blinked by allowing Northern Ireland to be treated differently; but the EU also blinked by allowing the withdrawal agreement to be reopened. And once this happened, the pound and UK-exposed investments enjoyed a major leg up (Chart I-1 and Chart I-4-Chart I-7). Chart I-4The FTSE 250 Is A UK-Exposed ##br##Investment Chart I-5The FTSE 100 Is Not A UK-Exposed Investment Chart I-6UK General Retail Is A UK-Exposed Investment Chart I-7UK Clothing And Accessories Is Not A ##br##UK-Exposed Investment In the next fudged resolution, the UK could blink by retaining full regulatory alignment with the EU in most areas for a little while longer, and where it doesn’t the EU could blink by becoming flexible in its interpretation of ‘level playing field’. Obviously, nobody would call this an extension to the transition, but the UK would, in most practical terms, still be in the single market on January 1 2021. UK-exposed investments will enjoy their next major leg up later this year In this playbook, the pound and UK-exposed investments will come under near-term pressure, as UK/EU trade deal tensions ratchet up. But ultimately, UK-exposed investments will enjoy their next major leg up later this year if both the UK and the EU blink (Chart I-8). Chart I-8The Pound Still Has A Brexit Discount Fractal Trading System* There are no new trades this week. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 62 percent. Chart I-9EUR/GBP 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 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 The US election cycle is an understated risk to US equities – and the risk of a left-wing populist outperforming in the Democratic primary election is frontloaded in February. The US-Iran conflict is unresolved and remains market-relevant. Iraq is at the center of the conflict and oil supply disruption there or elsewhere in the region is a substantial risk. Even if war does not erupt, Iran has the potential to give President Trump’s foreign policy a black eye and thus could marginally impact the election dynamic. Feature Stocks have rallied mightily since our August report on Trump’s “tactical trade retreat,” but new headwinds face the market. In this report we call attention to four hurdles arising from US election uncertainty. Then we focus on the status of Iran and Iraq in the wake of this month’s hostilities, which brought the US and Iran to the brink of outright war. We maintain that the Iran risk is unresolved and will remain market-relevant in advance of the US election. Primarily due to the US Democratic primary election, we urge caution on US equities in the near term, along with our Global Investment Strategy, despite our cyclically bullish House View. Four Hurdles In The US Election Cycle The US election cycle is the chief political risk to the bull market this year – and geopolitical risks largely radiate from it. There are four immediate hurdles that financial markets are underestimating: Risks to Trump's re-election: Global investors have come around to our view since 2018 that Trump is slightly favored to win re-election (Chart 1). Bets on the related question of which party will hold the White House have flipped from Democratic to Republican (Chart 2). Everyone now recognizes that Trump will not be removed from office through impeachment. Chart 1Trump Re-election Odds Add To Risk-On Chart 2Republicans Now Favored For White House Yet, anecdotally, investors may be becoming complacent about Trump’s chances. He is not a shoo-in. Subjectively we have argued that his odds of victory are 55%. Our quantitative election model shows that Wisconsin has shifted to the Republican camp since November, but it places the odds of winning that state (and Pennsylvania) at less than 52% (Chart 3). This gives Trump 289 electoral votes, only 19 more than necessary. If both of these states tipped in the opposite direction then investors would be facing a major policy reversal in the United States. Chart 3Our US 2020 Election Model Shows Trump Win With 289 Electoral College Votes Chart 4The US Economy Is Still A Risk To Trump Trump’s low approval rating remains a liability – and in this sense impeachment is still relevant, in that it can either help or hurt his approval, or prompt him to seek distractions abroad that could deliver negative surprises. Moreover the US manufacturing sector and labor market are not out of the woods yet (Chart 4). In short, the election is still ten months away and a lot can happen between now and then. We see Trump as only slightly favored. Moreover other hurdles are more immediate than the benefits of policy continuity upon a Trump win. 2. Risks to Biden's nomination: Throughout last year we maintained that former Vice President Joe Biden was the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, albeit with very low conviction. In particular, after Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders’s poor showing in the third debate and subsequent heart attack, we expected Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren to consolidate the progressive vote and trigger a policy-induced selloff in US equities. This never occurred because Biden held firm, Sanders recovered, and Warren fell. The risk to equities from a left-wing populist Democratic nominee is frontloaded in February and March. Now, however, the risk to equities is back. The Democratic Party faces a last-ditch effort from its left or “progressive” wing and anti-establishment voters to oppose Biden. With the primary election now upon us – the Iowa Caucus is February 3 – national opinion polls show that Sanders is pushing up against Biden (Chart 5). It is less clear if Sanders is breaking through in the primary polling state-by-state, where multiple candidates remain competitive (Chart 6). But online gamblers are reasserting Biden over Sanders at just the moment when progressives are set to launch their biggest push (Chart 7). Meanwhile New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is finally gaining some traction – and he eats away at Biden’s support from centrist voters. Everything is in flux, which warrants caution. Chart 5Biden Is The Frontrunner, But Sanders Is Challenger Chart 6Biden Not A Shoo-In For Early Democratic Primary States Biden is still favored to win the nomination, but he has not clinched it. The market faces volatility during the period when Democrats get “cold feet” about nominating another establishment candidate. Moreover the fundamental knock against Sanders – that he is not as “electable” as Biden – is debatable, judging by head-to-head polls against Trump (Chart 8). This means that a shift in momentum – for instance, if Biden lurches from disappointments in early states to underperformance in his bulwark of South Carolina – would have legs. Ultimately a “contested convention” is not impossible. This would be a negative surprise to market participants currently assuming that the world faces the relatively benign choice of two known quantities: an establishment Democrat or a continuation of Trump policies. Chart 7Betting Markets Overlooking Party 'Cold Feet' Over Biden Chart 8Electability Fears May Not Stop Sanders Rally Risks to the Republican Senate: Assuming Biden clinches the nomination, he has a 45% chance of winning the election – and in that case, his chance of bringing the Senate over to the Democrats is higher than investors realize. This is another risk that the market will awaken to later this year. Chart 9Democrats Underestimated In Senate The consensus holds that Republicans will hold the Senate, particularly with Republican senators in Maine and Iowa leading their Democratic challengers in polling. The problem is that for Democrats to unseat an incumbent president they will necessarily have generated strong turnout from key demographic groups: young people, suburbanites, women, and minorities. If that is the case, then the election will not be as tight as expected and Republicans will be less likely to hold the Senate. This would require rising unemployment or some other blow that fundamentally damages the Trump administration’s popular support in key swing states. At least until it becomes clear that the manufacturing sector is out of the woods, the Democrats should be seen as far more likely to take the Senate than the Republicans are to retake the House of Representatives – yet this goes against the consensus (Chart 9). Rising odds of a Senate victory would mean that even a “centrist” Democrat like Biden would have fewer political constraints in office – he would pose a greater threat of increasing taxes, minimum wages, and passing legislative regulation than the market currently expects. In short, Biden would be pulled to the left of the political spectrum by his party and expectations of an establishment Democrat posing a minimal threat to corporate profits would be greatly disappointed. Risks of Trump's second term: Finally, assuming the manufacturing sector rebounds and that Trump’s odds of re-election rise above 55%, market complacency becomes an even bigger concern for a long-term investor. For in his second term Trump would become virtually unshackled with regard to economic and financial constraints, since he cannot run for office again. He would still face the senate, the Supreme Court, and other constraints, but these would certainly not preclude a doubling down on trade war (or confrontations with nuclear-aspirants like Iran or North Korea). We have argued that Trump will not instigate a trade war with Europe, at least until the economy has clearly rebounded, and most likely not until his second term. But we fully expect chapter two of the trade war to begin in 2021 – and this could mean China, Europe, or even a two-front war. Re-election could go to Trump’s head and prompt him to overreach on the global stage. Hence we expect the relief rally on Trump’s re-election to be short-lived and would be looking to sell the news. But the S&P 500 faces more immediate hurdles anyway, and that is why we urge caution in the very near term. Iran is still a major geopolitical risk this year. Bottom Line: None of these hurdles are insurmountable, but the US election cycle is now an understated risk to the equity bull market. We agree with our Global Investment Strategy that it is prudent to shift to a neutral position tactically on US equities, especially for the February and March period when uncertainty rises over the Democratic Party primary. This does not change our view that the underlying global economy is improving, largely on China’s rebound, and that the cyclical outlook is positive. Don’t Bet On Regime Collapse In Iran (Yet) The January 8 Iranian attack on US bases in Iraq was intended to serve as a breather for Iranian leaders. It was meant to put on pause the rapid escalation in US-Iran tensions – allowing Iranian leaders to recover from the assassination of top military commander Qassem Suleimani – all the while appeasing the public through a public show of revenge. As fate would have it, however, the Iranian regime was granted no such respite. Days later, domestic unrest descended on the Islamic Republic as protesters returned to the streets across the country, criticizing the regime’s downing of a civilian airliner and re-stating their long-running complaints against the regime. Civil strife is not uncommon in Iran (Table 1). Economic inefficiencies, corruption, and discriminatory policies which serve to reward regime loyalists while suppressing the private sector are only some of the grievances faced by Iranians.1 Table 1Civil Strife Ongoing Problem In Iran Today’s strife is relevant, however, because it is fueled by US-imposed “maximum pressure” sanctions that have created an even bleaker economic reality. Iranian exports were down 37% in 2019 following an 18% decline the previous year. Oil exports fell to 129 thousand barrels per day in December 2019, down from an average 2.1 million barrels per day in 2017 (Chart 10). Households are facing the brunt, experiencing a 17% unemployment rate and a whopping 36% inflation rate (Chart 11). Chart 10US 'Maximum Pressure' Sanctions On Iranian Oil Exports Chart 11Iranian Households Bear Brunt Of Economic Shock The 2020-21 budget, released in December and described as a weapon of “resistance against US sanctions,” intends to plug the deficit using state bonds and state property sales (Chart 12). However Iran’s fiscal condition is shaky. The International Monetary Fund estimates a fiscal breakeven oil price of $194.6 per barrel for Iran, more than 3 times higher than current oil prices. Chart 12Iran’s Fiscal Condition Is Shaky Chart 13Iran Avoiding Devaluation Under Trump Chart 14Iranians Also Blame Their Government For Malaise The solution of former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the populist hawk who led the government during the US’s previous round of sanctions, was to devalue the official exchange rate. The weaker rial raised local currency revenues for each barrel of exported oil and encouraged import substitution in other industries. However devaluation came at a steep political cost and sparked riots and protests. So far President Hassan Rouhani has eschewed this strategy, instead maintaining a stable official exchange rate, used as the reference for subsidized basic goods and medicine (Chart 13). Nevertheless, the unofficial market rate has weakened 68% since the beginning of 2018. It is no surprise then that Iranians all over the country are taking to the streets. The latest bout of unrest is significant in size, geographic reach, and in that protesters are calling on Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to step down as supreme leader. Despite US sanctions, Iranian protesters are partially blaming Khamenei and the government for the country’s malaise (Chart 14). Even prior to the US withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal, Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA), Iranians were angry about economic mismanagement. Nevertheless, according to our checklist for an Iranian revolution, the regime is not yet at risk of collapse (Table 2). Although the street movement is picking up pace, it is not organized or unified. There is no alternative being offered against the all-powerful supreme leader, and the political elite are mostly united in preserving the current system. Table 2Iran Regime Stability Checklist The regime has two main options going forward: seek immediate economic relief through negotiations with the United States, or hunker down and wait to see whether President Trump is reelected and able to sustain his campaign of maximum pressure, and go from there. We fully expect the latter. Domestic dissent can still be suppressed for the time being. The parliamentary – or Majlis – elections scheduled for February 21 could in theory offer Iranians an opportunity to voice their discontent through the ballot box. However this democratic exercise conceals the known political reality that the supreme leader holds supreme authority, even in the selection of parliament or the president (Diagram 1). Thus the election result will not drive major policy change. Diagram 1Supreme Leader Controls Iran A case in point was the regime’s 2016 strategy in the parliamentary election. At that time, the conservative-dominated Guardian Council, responsible for screening potential candidates, rejected well-known reformist applicants (Chart 15). As a result, the reformists who were able to win seats were either lesser-known figures or unaligned with liberals in the reformist movement. Thus while the reformist presence in parliament nominally surged, these lawmakers were ineffective, reneging on campaign promises or collaborating with the conservative faction. The 2016 election serves as a blueprint for what to expect in the upcoming elections in February. The Guardian Council ruled that out of around 15,000 candidates, only 60 (relatively unknown) reformist candidates were qualified to run for the election.2 The elections will not change anything, but this means the grievances of the population will fester in the coming years, especially if the US does not change policies. This is where the medium-term risk to regime stability – namely through elite divisions – becomes apparent. The impending leadership succession is a major source of uncertainty. Supreme Leader Khamenei is the main barrier to political change. At 80 years old and reportedly suffering from poor health, a change in leadership is imminent. However, no one has been officially endorsed as his successor. This is an immense source of uncertainty in the coming years. There are several possibilities for the succession.3 A successor is appointed by the Assembly of Experts. Because we exclude Rouhani as a candidate for supreme leader, the potential candidates for Iran’s top position listed below ascribe to Khamanei’s hardline ideology: Hojjat ol-Eslam Ebrahim Raisi, head of judiciary and of the Imam Reza shrine since March 2019. Raisi is reportedly Khamenei’s favorite for succession. He is a hardliner who lost the May 2017 presidential election to Rouhani.4 Ayatollah Sadeq Larijani, the conservative former head of the judiciary and current chairman of the Expediency Discernment Council, which is responsible for resolving disputes among government branches. Larijani is also a member of the Guardian Council.5 Ayatollah Ahmad Khatemi, hardline Tehran Friday prayer leader and senior member of the Assembly of Experts. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) – a military force with immense influence in the regime – may choose to rule itself. We assign a low likelihood of this occurring. The IRGC is more likely to ensure that Khamenei’s successor is someone who supports its hardline ideology and vision for Iran. Some moderate clerics are advocating a change in structure, whereby the position of supreme leader is abolished. This school of thought argues that political leaders should be selected based on popular election rather than appointment.6 We do not assign high odds to this scenario. Until the Assembly of Experts selects the successor, a three-member council made up of the Iranian president, the head of judiciary, and a theologian of the Guardian Council, will assume the functions of supreme leader. Such a “triumvirate” could last longer than expected, or could even be formally decided as an alternative to a new supreme leader. In the context of such extreme uncertainty for the regime’s leadership in the coming decade, it is highly unlikely that the current political leaders will engage in negotiations with President Trump until they are sure of his staying power (Chart 16). First, the Iranians will continue to refuse talks prior to the US election. They will seek to undermine the Trump administration, yet without crossing red lines on the nuclear program (one year till nuclear breakout) or militant activities (killing American citizens). Chart 15Iran’s Guardians Vet Election Candidates Second, if Trump wins, then the shift to negotiations may or may not come, but the subsequent diplomatic process will be prolonged. Trump will have to gain the full cooperation of Europe, Russia, and China – and any new US-Iran deal is an open question and will involve tensions flaring up more than once. Chart 16Iranians Opposed To Talks With Trump Third, even if the Democrats win, the regime will play “hard to get” and will not immediately return to status quo ante Trump, although eventually there could be a restoration of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or something like it. This process could also involve saber-rattling despite the Democrats’ more dovish disposition toward Iran. Bottom Line: The US maximum pressure campaign is not aimed at regime change in Iran, but if it brings any political change it will be a shift in a more hawkish direction as the regime faces immense internal and external pressures and an uncertain succession in the coming years. Iran’s leaders will continue to suppress unrest and can probably succeed in the near term. The confrontation with the US discredits any political actors who advocate negotiations. The path toward reform and improved relations with the West is closed until after the US election at minimum. Since Iran will seek to undermine both President Trump and the US presence in the Middle East in the meantime, US-Iran tensions remain a market-relevant source of risk in 2020. Iraq Still Poses An Oil Supply Risk Chart 17Iraqis Suffering From Poor Governance Iraq is ground zero for the US-Iran showdown, since the two powers have eschewed direct military confrontation. Iraqis have also been suffering the consequences of an ill-functioning political system (Chart 17). Corruption has prevented the trickle down of oil revenues, resulting in endemic poverty and inequality (Chart 18). Yet unlike its neighbor, Iraq is not ruled by a supreme leader who controls a powerful armed forces to which anger can be directed. Instead, protesters have been blaming the deep seated influence of the Iranian regime, which often results in what Iraqis’ argue to be a prioritization of foreign – i.e. Iranian – objectives over national ones. The demonstrations were successful in forcing the resignation of Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi and the passing of a new electoral law. However Iraq remains in a state of chaos as Iraqis have vowed to remain on the street until all their conditions are met, including the appointment of an acceptable prime minister and early elections. Chart 18Poverty, Inequality, Corruption Plague Iraq This batch of reforms has been challenging for politicians to execute. For one, there is a lack of clarity as to which political group holds the majority of seats in Iraq’s Council of Representatives. Both the Iran-backed al-Binaa bloc as well as the al-Islah coalition led by Muqtada al-Sadr claim this position (Chart 19). A list of candidates for the temporary position of prime minister until early elections are held, proposed by Binaa in December, was rejected by President Barham Salih on grounds that it did not include anyone who would possess the support of the demonstrators. Chart 19Iraqi Parliamentary Control Up For Grabs Iraqi protesters have consistently reiterated their desire for a sovereign state, free from both American and Iranian interference. However, this nationalistic call has been disrupted and overshadowed by the US-Iran conflict. Importantly, the protest movement has now lost its most influential backer within the Iraqi political system: Sadr of the Islah bloc. This year’s Iran tensions and the parliamentary resolution to eject US troops from Iraq have unified the warring Shia political blocs. Sadr has called on the Mahdi army – a notoriously anti-American force also known as the Peace Brigades – to re-assemble. On January 13, in what can only be interpreted as a rapprochement among the main Shia political factions, Sadr met with paramilitary leaders making up the Popular Mobilization Forces in the Iranian city of Qom. They discussed the creation of a “united resistance” and the need jointly to expel foreign troops. Sadr also called for a “million-man march” against US troops in Iraq.7 Sadr’s pivot to Iran has not gone down well in Iraq’s streets, where protesters are accusing him of putting aside national goals for his own personal aspirations. While the protest movement will keep going, it is now largely headless and competing with the unified priorities of the Shia parties. This state of affairs weakens the odds of a sovereign Iraq that curbs Iranian regional influence. The political class is more likely to turn a blind eye to the repression of protesters, which is likely to increase as the system notches up its crackdown on dissent. A return to the status quo ante in Iraq is also now more likely. A new government may be elected. It may include more technocratic politicians in a nod to the protestors, but the pro-Iranian faction has fortified its position as kingmaker. Meanwhile, Sadr has decided that reform should be postponed for a later day. Iraqis who have been camping out on the streets for nearly four months, risking their lives, are unlikely to be easily put down. Instead their frustrations will manifest in more aggressive forms, such as through violence and the sabotage of infrastructure. Saudi Arabia may or may not seek to interfere in Iraq to maintain the pressure on Iranian interests. If it does so, it risks escalating the situation and provoking retaliation from Iran. Iraqi efforts to force a US troop withdrawal will clash with US interests. President Trump wants to reduce commitments but does not want to risk anything remotely resembling a Saigon-style evacuation during an election year. As such, some form of sanctions against Iraq is possible. The US administration may pass up imposing sanctions on oil sales and instead target USD flows to Iraq’s central bank. Blocking or reducing access to Iraqi accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank in New York – to which all revenues from Iraqi oil sales are directed – would debilitate the economy and amplify the risk to stability and hence oil flows. Washington’s decision whether to renew waivers allowing Iraq to import Iranian gas – set to expire mid-February – will signal whether the events earlier this year changed the US’s calculus. Iraq is extremely dependent on Iranian gas to generate power. A decision not to extend the waivers would cause greater friction between the Iraqi street and the ruling elite.8 Bottom Line: Baghdad is getting dragged deeper into chaos. Alignment with Iran, and delays in government formation and economic reform, will aggravate tensions between the street and the political class. Dissent may take on more violent forms going forward. Middle Eastern oil supply will remain vulnerable to instability and sabotage in Iraq and the broader Persian Gulf. Investment Conclusions In the very near term we expect US equities to encounter headwinds due to the over extension of the rally and immediate risks from the US election cycle. We also see global risk appetite suffering due to US uncertainty, as well as to fears about the new coronavirus. These may reach a crescendo in the wake of Chinese New Year travel season. However, China’s stimulative policy trajectory will ultimately be reinforced due to the economic threat from the outbreak. And China’s economy is showing signs of rebounding. This reinforces our constructive view on the global business cycle overall, on commodities, and on select emerging markets that produce oil or are undertaking structural reforms. The US-Iran conflict is ongoing and we expect it to continue injecting a risk premium into oil markets. The two sides are effectively playing Russian roulette.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Roukaya Ibrahim Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The IRGC and bonyads – para-governmental organizations that provide funding for groups supporting the Islamic Republic – have access to subsidies, favorable contracts, and cheap loans. Together they run a considerable part of the economy. 2 Questions Loom In Iran As Reformist Factions Lose Hope In Elections," dated January 23, 2020, available at en.radiofarda.com. 3 In an interview with Fars news agency in June 2019, Ayatollah Mohsen Araki, a prominent member of the Assembly of Experts, mentioned that a committee of three members from the Assembly of Experts were working on a list of prospective supreme leaders, which they will present to the full AE when necessary. Please see "Is Iran’s Next Supreme Leader Already Chosen?," dated June 18, 2019, available at en.radiofarda.com. 4 Please see "Ebrahim Raisi: The Cleric Who Could End Iranian Hopes For Change," dated January 5, 2019, available at aljazeera.com. 5 Please see “A Right-Wing Loyalist, Sadeq Larijani, Gains More Power in Iran,” dated January 8, 2019, available at atlanticcouncil.org. 6 Mohsen Kadivar, an unorthodox cleric who was forced to flee Iran due to his political views, and is now an instructor at Duke University is a critic of the system of Velayet-e Faqih, or clerical rule. He claims that since the death of Khomeini, a majority of Iran’s religious scholars hold a “secretive belief” that supreme clerical rule should be abolished as it only leads to despotism. 7 In response to Sadr’s call for a “million man march”, Ayatollah al-Sistani repeated his warning against “those who seek to exploit the protests that call for reforms to achieve certain goals that will hurt the primary interests of the Iraqi people and are not in line with their true values.” 8 The last time Iran reduced electricity exports to Iraq resulted in mass protests in Iraq in July 2018. Thus if the sanction waivers are not renewed the cutoff of gas risks a greater clash between the Iraqi street and government, especially during the hot summer months.

Special Report

Highlights Strikes result from divergent perceptions of bargaining power: A strike reflects a negotiating failure, and negotiations fail when parties cannot agree on which side has the stronger position, typically because at least one of them overestimates its leverage. Once a strike starts, broad macro factors influence the outcome: Labor market slack, economic concentration, trends in labor relations law and regulations, and the gap between labor’s and management’s fortunes (if extreme) are the key macro determinants of negotiating leverage. Key factors that have bolstered management for decades are poised to reverse: Legal and regulatory trends have little room to improve from management’s perspective, and the gap between management’s and labor’s share of rewards is ripe for narrowing. A union resurgence is a low-probability, high-impact event: We view the potential for labor to gain the upper hand over management as a low-probability event that would have a significant impact on markets if it did come to pass, so it merits a close look. Feature We concluded Part 1 by highlighting two consistent themes from the modern history of the US labor movement: successful strikes beget strikes, and employees are unlikely to make gains if judges and government officials are disposed to favor management. In this installment, we will focus on the factors that encourage strikes and the non-government determinants of their success. Part 3 will focus on public opinion, elected officials and the judiciary. Our ultimate goal is to evaluate relative bargaining power, and the potential for organized labor to push wages significantly higher, upending the risk-friendly status quo. The Origin Of Strikes Strikes (and lockouts) occur when labor and management cannot reach a mutually acceptable settlement, often because at least one side overestimates its bargaining power. It is easy to agree when labor and management hold similar views about each side’s relative power, as when both perceive that one of them is considerably stronger. In that case, a settlement favoring the stronger side can be reached fairly quickly, especially if the stronger side exercises some restraint and does not seek to impose terms that the weaker side can scarcely abide. Restraint is rational in repeated games like employer-employee bargaining, and when both parties recognize that relative bargaining positions are fluid, they are likely to exercise it. History shows that the pendulum between labor and management swings, albeit slowly, as societal views evolve1 and the business cycle fluctuates. As a general rule, management will have the upper hand during recessions, when the supply of workers exceeds demand, and labor will have the advantage when expansions are well advanced, and capacity tightens. A high unemployment rate broadly favors employers, and a low unemployment rate favors employees. Neither the number of work stoppages (Chart 1, top panel), nor the number of workers involved (Chart 1, middle panel) correlates very well with the unemployment gap (Chart 1, bottom panel), in the Reagan-Thatcher era, however, as work stoppages have dwindled almost to zero. Chart 1Swamped By The Legal And Regulatory Tide Game theory is better equipped than simple regression models to offer insight into the origin of strikes. We posit a simple framework in which each side can hold any of five perceptions of its own bargaining power, resulting in a total of 25 possible joint perceptions. Management (M) can believe it is way stronger than Labor (L), M >> L; stronger than Labor, M > L; roughly equal, M ≈ L; weaker than Labor, L > M; or way weaker than Labor, L >> M. Labor also holds one of these five perceptions, and the interaction of the two sides’ perceptions establishes the path negotiations will follow. The fur flies when each party thinks the other should make the bulk of the concessions: labor negotiations over the next couple of years could be interesting. Limiting our focus to today’s prevailing conditions, Figure 1 displays only the outcomes consistent with management’s belief that it has the upper hand. For completeness, the exhibit lists all of labor’s potential perceptions, but we deem the two in which labor is feeling its oats (circled) to be most likely, given the success of recent high-profile strikes.2 Management’s confidence follows logically from four decades of victories, but may prove to be unfounded if its power has already peaked. Figure 1The Eye Of The Beholder Strike outcomes turn on which side has overestimated its leverage. The broad factors we use to assess leverage are overall labor market slack; economic concentration; regulatory and legal trends; and the sustainability of either side’s accumulated advantage, which we describe as the labor-management rubber band. Other factors that matter on a case-by-case basis, but are beyond the scope of our analysis, include industry-level slack, a labor input’s susceptibility to automation, and the degree of labor specialization/skill involved in that input. For these micro-level factors, a given group of workers’ leverage is inversely related to the availability of substitutes for their input. Labor Market Slack Chart 2Surprise Wage Retracements Despite muted wage growth (Chart 2), the labor market is demonstrably tight. The unemployment rate is at a 50-year low, the broader definition of unemployment is at the lowest level in its 26-year history, and the prime-age employment-to-population ratio is back to its 2001 levels, having surpassed the previous cycle’s peak (Chart 3). The job openings rate is high, indicating that demand for workers is robust, and so is the quits rate, indicating that employers are competing vigorously to meet it. The NFIB survey’s job openings and hiring plans series (Chart 4) echo the JOLTS findings. Chart 3Prime-Age Employment Is At An 18-Year High ... Chart 4... But There Are Still Lots Of Help Wanted Signs The lack of labor market slack decisively favors workers’ negotiating position. It is a sellers’ market when demand outstrips supply, and labor victories tend to be self-reinforcing. Successful strikes beget strikes, and management volunteers concessions as labor peace becomes a competitive advantage during strike waves. Given that the crisis-driven damage to the labor force participation rate has healed as the gap between the actual part rate (Chart 5, solid line) and its demographically-determined structural proxy has closed (Chart 5, dashed line), the burden of proof rests squarely with those who argue that there is an ample supply of workers waiting to come off the sidelines. Chart 5The Labor Force Participation Gap Has Closed Economic Concentration Chart 6Less Competition = More Power The trend toward economic concentration (Chart 6) has endowed the largest companies with greater market power, as evidenced by surging corporate profit margins. The greater the concentration of employment opportunities in local labor markets, the more closely they resemble monopsonies.3 Unfortunately for labor, monopsonies restrain prices just as monopolies inflate them. As our Bank Credit Analyst colleagues have shown,4 there is a robust inverse relationship between employment concentration and real wages (Chart 7). Chart 7One Huge Buyer + Plus Multiple Small Sellers = Low Prices Economic concentration has been a major driver of management’s Reagan-Thatcher era dominance. Sleepy to indifferent antitrust enforcement has helped businesses capture market power, and it will continue to prevail through 2024 unless the Democrats take the White House in November. The silver lining for workers is that concentration could have the effect of promoting labor organization in services, where unions have heretofore made limited progress. The only way for employees to combat employers’ monopsony power is to organize their way to becoming a monopoly supplier of labor. Regulatory And Legal Trends Over the last four decades, unions have endured a near-constant drubbing from state capitols, federal agencies and the courts, as union and labor protections have been under siege from all sides. Since the air traffic controllers’ disastrous strike, labor’s regulatory and legal fortunes have most closely resembled the competitive fortunes of the Harlem Globetrotters’ beleaguered opposition. But the regulatory and legal tide has been such a huge benefit for management since the beginning of the Reagan administration that it cannot continue to maintain its pace. Employees and employers need each other, and their tether can only be stretched so far before it starts pulling them back together. Investors seem to assume that it will, however, to the extent that they think about it at all. It stands to reason that employers may be similarly complacent. We will look more closely at the presidential election and its potential consequences in Part 3, but labor concerns and inequality are capturing more attention, even among Republicans. With Republicans’ inclination to side with business only able to go in one direction, the chances are good that it has peaked. The Labor-Management Rubber Band For all of the romantic allure of labor’s battles with management in the Colosseum era, employees and employers have a deeply symbiotic relationship. One can’t exist without the other, and pursuing total victory in negotiations is folly. Even too many incremental wins can prove ruinous, as the UAW discovered to its chagrin in 2008. A half-century of generous compensation and stultifying work rules saddled Detroit automakers with a burden that would have put them out of business had the federal government not intervened. Table 1Average Salaries Of Public School Teachers By State We think of labor and management as being linked by a tether with a finite range. Since neither side can thrive for long if the other side is suffering, the tether pulls the two sides closer together when the gap between them threatens to become too wide. When labor does too well for too long at management’s expense, profit margins shrink and the company’s viability as a going concern is threatened. When management does too well, deteriorating living standards drive the best employees away, undermining productivity and profitability. Before the low-paying entity’s work force becomes a listless dumping ground for other firms’ castoffs, it may rise up and strike out of desperation. Teachers’ unions might have appeared to be setting themselves up for a fall in 2018 by illegally striking in staunchly conservative West Virginia, Oklahoma and Arizona, but desperate times call for desperate measures. Per the National Education Association’s data for the 2017-18 academic year, average public school teacher pay in West Virginia ranked 50th among the 50 states and the District of Columbia, Oklahoma ranked 49th and Arizona ranked 45th (Table 1). Adjusting the nominal salaries for cost disparities across states, West Virginia placed 41st, Oklahoma 44th and Arizona 48th. Given that real teacher salaries had declined by 8% and 9% since 2009-10 in West Virginia and Arizona, respectively, the labor-management rubber band had stretched nearly to the breaking point. Consolidating The Macro Message Parties to negotiations derive leverage from the availability of substitutes. When alternative employment opportunities are prevalent, workers have a lot of leverage, because they can credibly threaten to avail themselves of them. Teaching is a skill that transfers easily, and every state has a public school system, so teachers in low-salary states have a wealth of ready alternatives. The converse is true for low-salary states; despite much warmer temperatures, it is unlikely that teachers from top-quintile states will be willing to take a 25-33% cost-of-living-adjusted pay cut to decamp to Arizona (Table 2). Table 2Cost Of Living-Adjusted Public School Teacher Salaries By State It is easy to see from Figure 2 why management has had the upper hand. Economic concentration and the legal and regulatory climate have increasingly favored it for decades. The immediate future seems poised to favor labor, however, as the legal and regulatory climate cannot get materially better for employers, and the labor-management rubber band has become so stretched that some sort of mean reversion is inevitable. We have high conviction that labor’s one current advantage, a tight labor market, will remain in its column over the next year or two. On a forward-looking basis, the macro factors as a whole are poised to support labor. Figure 2Macro Drivers Of Negotiating Leverage​​​​​​​ Takeaways After discussing this Special Report series with clients, we realized our views could easily be misinterpreted. We are not calling for an imminent union revival that drives wages higher across industries. To be clear, we think it is more likely than not that the labor movement in the United States will remain weak relative to its 1950s to 1970s heyday. We do think, however, that the probability that unions could rise up to exert the leverage that accrues to workers in a tight labor market is considerably larger than the great majority of investors perceive. Alpha – market-beating return – arises from surprises. An investor captures excess returns when s/he successfully anticipates something that the consensus does not. If the disparity involves a trivial outcome, then any excess return is likely to be trivial, but if the outcome is significant, the investor who zigged when the rest of the market zagged stands to separate him/herself from the pack. Management has been in the driver's seat, but the factors that have kept it there have a high risk of reversing. We think the outcome of a shift in leverage from employers to employees would be very large indeed. We would expect that aggregate wage gains of 4% or higher would quickly drive the Fed to impose restrictive monetary policy settings, eventually inducing the next recession and the end of the bull markets in equities, credit and property. A union revival may be a low-probability event, but it would have considerable impact on markets and the economy. Given our conviction that the probability, albeit low, is much greater than investors expect, we think the subject is well worth sustained attention. We will examine public opinion and its effect on elected officials and the courts in Part 3, which will conclude our examination of labor-management dynamics. We will publish that installment on February 3rd; next week we will publish a joint US Investment Strategy – US Bond Strategy Special Report on commercial real estate, lead-authored by Jennifer Lacombe.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 We will discuss public opinion, and its impact on elected officials and courts, in Part 3. 2 Please see the January 13, 2020 US Investment Strategy Special Report, “Labor Strikes Back, Part 1: An Investor’s Guide To US Labor History,” available at www.bcaresearch.com. 3 A monopsony is a market with a single buyer, akin to a monopoly, which is a market with only one seller. 4 Please see the July 2019 Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, “The Productivity Puzzle: Competition Is The Missing Ingredient,” available at bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Our top five geopolitical “Black Swans” are risks that the market is seriously underpricing. With the “phase one” trade deal signed, Chinese policy could become less accommodative, resulting in a negative economic surprise. The trade deal may fall victim to domestic politics, raising the risk of a US-China military skirmish. A Biden victory at the Democratic National Convention or a Democratic takeover of the White House could trigger social unrest and violence in the US. A pickup in the flow of migrants to Europe would fundamentally undermine political stability there. Russia’s weak economy will add fuel to domestic unrest, risking an escalation beyond the point of containment. Feature Over the past four years, we have started off the year with our top five geopolitical “Black Swans.” These are low-probability events whose market impact would be significant enough to matter for global investors. Unlike the great Byron Wien’s perennial list of market surprises, we do not assign these events a “better than 50% likelihood of happening.” We offer risks that the market is seriously underpricing by assigning them only single-digit probabilities when we think the reality is closer to 10%-15%, a level at which a risk premium ought to be assigned. Some of our risks below are so obscure that it is not clear how exactly to price them. We exclude issues that are fairly probable, such as flare-ups in Indo-Pakistani conflict. The two major risks of the year – discussed in our annual outlook – are that either US President Donald Trump or Chinese President Xi Jinping overreaches in a major way. But what would truly surprise the market would be a policy-induced relapse in Chinese growth or a direct military clash between the two great powers. That is how we begin. Other risks stem from domestic affairs in the US, Europe, and Russia. Black Swan 1: China’s Financial Crisis Begins The risk of Xi Jinping’s concentration of power in his own person is that individuals can easily make mistakes, especially if unchecked by advisors or institutions. Lower officials will fear correcting or admonishing an all-powerful leader. Inconvenient information may not be relayed up the hierarchy. Such behavior was rampant in Chairman Mao Zedong’s time, leading to famine among other ills. Insofar as President Xi’s cult of personality successfully imitates Mao’s, it will be subject to similar errors. If President Xi overreaches and makes a policy mistake this year, it could occur in economic policy or other policies. We begin with economic policy, as we have charted the risks of Xi’s crackdown on the financial system since early 2017 (Chart 1). Chart 1A Crackdown On Financial Risk Could Cause China's Economy To Derail Chart 2Easing Of Trade Tensions May Re-Incentivize Tighter Policy This year is supposed to be the third and final year of Xi Jinping’s “three battles” against systemic risk, pollution, and poverty. The first battle actually focuses on financial risk, i.e. China’s money and credit bubble. The regime has compromised on this goal since mid-2018, allowing monetary easing to stabilize the economy amid the trade war. But with a “phase one” trade deal having been signed, there is an underrated risk that economic policy will return to its prior setting, i.e. become less accommodative (Chart 2). When Xi launched the “deleveraging campaign” in 2017, we posited that the authorities would be willing to tolerate an annual GDP growth rate below 6%. This would not only cull excesses in the economy but also demonstrate that the administration means business when it says that China must prioritize quality rather than quantity of growth. While Chinese authorities are most likely targeting “around 6%” in 2020, it is entirely possible that the authorities will allow an undershoot in the 5.5%-5.9% range. They will argue that the GDP target for 2020 has already been met on a compound growth rate basis (Chart 3), as astute clients have pointed out. They may see less need for stimulus than the market expects. Chart 3Chinese Authorities Might Tolerate A Growth Undershoot In 2020 Similarly, while urban disposable income is ostensibly lagging its target of doubling 2010 levels by 2020, China’s 13th Five Year Plan, which concludes in 2020, conspicuously avoided treating urban and rural income targets separately. Chart 4Lower Impetus For Economic Support Due To Improvements In National Income? Chart 5Has China's Stimulus Peaked? If the authorities focus only on general disposable income, then they are on track to meet their target (Chart 4). This would reduce the impetus for greater economic support. There are already tentative signs that Chinese authorities are “satisfied” with the amount of stimulus they have injected: some indicators of money and credit have already peaked (Chart 5). The crackdown on shadow banking has eased, but informal lending is still contracting. The regime is still pushing reforms that shake up state-owned enterprises. The Xi administration may aim only for stability, not acceleration, in the economy. An added headwind for the Chinese economy stems from the currency. The currency should track interest rate differentials. Beijing’s incremental monetary stimulus, in the form of cuts to bank reserve requirement ratios (RRRs), should also push the renminbi down over time (Chart 6). However, an essential aspect of any trade deal with the Trump administration is the need to demonstrate that China is not competitively devaluing. Hence the CNY-USD could overshoot in the first half of the year. This is positive for global exports to China, but it tightens Chinese financial conditions at home. A stronger than otherwise justified renminbi would add to any negative economic surprises from less accommodative monetary and fiscal policy. Conventional wisdom says China will stimulate the economy ahead of two major political events: the centenary of the Communist Party in 2021 and the twentieth National Party Congress in 2022. The former is a highly symbolic anniversary, as Xi has reasserted the supremacy of the party in all things, while the latter is more significant for policy, as it is a leadership reshuffle that will usher in the sixth generation of China’s political elite. But conventional wisdom may be wrong – the Xi administration may aim only for stability, not acceleration, in the economy. It would make sense to save dry powder for the next US or global recession. The obvious implication is that China’s economic rebound may lose steam as early as H2 – but the black swan risk is that negative surprises could cause a vicious spiral inside of China. This is a country with massive financial and economic imbalances, a declining potential growth profile, and persistent political obstacles to growth both at home and abroad. Corporate defaults have spiked sharply. While the default rate is lower than elsewhere, the market may be sniffing out a bigger problem as it charges a much higher premium for onshore Chinese bonds (Chart 7). Chart 6CNY-USD Overshoot Would Tighten Chinese Financial Conditions Chart 7Is China's Bond Market Sniffing Out A Problem? Bottom Line: Our view is that China’s authorities will remain accommodative in 2020 in order to ensure that growth bottoms and the labor market continues to improve. But Beijing has compromised its domestic economic discipline since 2018 in order to fight trade war. The risk now, with a “phase one” deal in hand, is that Xi Jinping returns to his three-year battle plan and underestimates the downward pressures on the economy. The result would be a huge negative surprise for the Chinese and global economy in 2020. Black Swan 2: The US And China Go To War In 2013, we predicted that US-China conflict was “more likely than you think.” This was not just an argument for trade conflict or general enmity that raises the temperature in the Asia-Pacific region – we included military conflict. Chart 8Americans' Attitudes Toward China Plunged … At the time, the notion that a Sino-American armed conflict was the world’s greatest geopolitical threat seemed ludicrous to many of our clients. We published this analysis in October of that year, months after the Islamic State “Soldier’s Harvest” offensive into Iraq. Trying to direct investors to the budding rivalry between American and Chinese naval forces in the South China Sea amidst the Islamic State hysteria was challenging, to say the least. The suggestion that an accidental skirmish between the US and China could descend into a full-blown conflict involved a stretch of the imagination because China was not yet perceived by the American public as a major threat. In 2014, only 19%of the US public saw China as the “greatest threat to the US in the future.” This came between Russia, at 23%, and Iran, at 16%. Today, China and Russia share the top spot with 24%. Furthermore, the share of Americans with an unfavorable view of China has increased from 52% to 60% in the six intervening years (Chart 8). The level of enmity expressed by the US public toward China is still lower than that toward the Soviet Union at the onset of the Cold War in the 1950s (Chart 9). However, the trajectory of distrust is clearly mounting. We expect this trend to continue: anti-China sentiment is one of the few sources of bipartisan agreement remaining in Washington, DC (Chart 10). Chinese sentiment toward the United States has also darkened dramatically. The geopolitical rivalry is deepening for structural reasons: as China advances in size and sophistication, it seeks to alter the regional status quo in its favor, while the US grows fearful and seeks to contain China. Chart 9… But Not Yet To War-Inducing Levels Chart 10Distrust Of China Is Bipartisan Chart 11Newfound American Concern For China’s Repression One example of rising enmity is the US public’s newfound concern for China’s domestic policies and human rights, specifically Beijing’s treatment of its Uyghur minority in Xinjiang. A Google Trends analysis of the term “Uyghur” or “Uyghur camps” shows a dramatic rise in mentions since Q2 of 2018, around the same time the trade war ramped up in a major way (Chart 11). While startling revelations of re-education camps in Xinjiang emerged in recent years, the reality is that Beijing has used heavy-handed tactics against both militant groups and the wider Uyghur minority since at least 2008 – and much earlier than that. As such, the surge of interest by the general American public and legislators – culminating in the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2019 – is a product of the renewed strategic tension between the two countries. The “phase one” trade deal risks falling victim to domestic politics due to greater public engagement in foreign policy. The same can be said for Hong Kong: the US did not pass a Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act in 2014, during the first round of mass protests, which prompted Beijing to take heavy-handed legal, legislative, and censorship actions. It passed the bill in 2019, after the climate in Washington had changed. Why does this matter for investors? There are two general risks that come with a greater public engagement in foreign policy. First, the “phase one” trade deal between China and the US could fall victim to domestic politics. This deal envisions a large step up in Sino-American economic cooperation. But if China is to import around $200 billion of additional US goods and services over the next two years – an almost inconceivable figure – the US and China will have to tamp down on public vitriol. This is notably the case if the Democratic Party takes over the White House, given its likely greater focus on liberal concerns such as human rights. And yet the latest bills became law under President Trump and a Republican Senate, and we fully expect a second Trump term to involve a re-escalation of trade tensions to ensure compliance with phase one and to try to gain greater structural concessions in phase two. Second, mounting nationalist sentiment will make it more difficult for US and Chinese policymakers to reduce tensions following a potential future military skirmish, accidental or otherwise. While our scenario of a military conflict in 2013 was cogent, the public backlash in the United States was probably manageable.1 Today we can no longer guarantee that this is the case. China has greater control over the domestic narrative and public discourse, but the rise of the middle class and the government’s efforts to rebuild support for the single-party regime have combined to create an increase in nationalism. Thus it is also more difficult for Chinese policymakers to contain the popular backlash if conflict erupts. In short, the probability of a quick tamping down of public enmity is actively being reduced as American public vilification of China is closing the gap with China’s burgeoning nationalism at an alarming pace. Chart 12Tsai Ing-Wen Enjoys A Greater Mandate On Higher Turnout … Another of our black swan risks – Taiwan island – is inextricably bound up in this dangerous US-China dynamic. To be clear, Washington will tread carefully, as a conflict over Taiwan could become a major war. Nevertheless Taiwan’s election, as we expected, has injected new vitality into this already underrated geopolitical risk. It is not only that a high-turnout election (Chart 12) gave President Tsai Ing-wen a greater mandate (Chart 13), or that her Democratic Progressive Party retained its legislative majority (Chart 14). It is not only that the trigger for this resounding victory was the revolt in Hong Kong and the Taiwanese people’s rejection of the “one country, two systems” formula for Taiwan. It is also that Tsai followed up with a repudiation of the mainland by declaring, “We don’t have a need to declare ourselves an independent state. We are an independent country already and we call ourselves the Republic of China, Taiwan.” Chart 13… Popular Support … Chart 14… And A Legislative Majority This statement is not a minor rhetorical flourish but will be received as a major provocation in Beijing: the crystallization of a long-brewing clash between Beijing and Taipei. Additional punitive economic measures against Taiwan are now guaranteed. Saber-rattling could easily ignite in the coming year and beyond. Taiwan is the epicenter of the US-China strategic conflict. First, Beijing cannot compromise on its security or its political legitimacy and considers the “one China principle” to be inviolable. Second, the US maintains defense relations with Taiwan (and is in the process of delivering on a relatively large new package of arms). Third, the US’s true willingness to fight a war on Taiwan’s behalf is in doubt, which means that deterrence has eroded and there is greater room for miscalculation. Bottom Line: A US-China military skirmish has been our biggest black swan risk since we began writing the BCA Geopolitical Strategy. The difference between then and now, however, is that the American public is actually paying attention. Political ideology – the question of democracy and human rights – is clearly merging with trade, security, and other differences to provoke Americans of all stripes. This makes any skirmish more than just a temporary risk-off event, as it could lead to a string of incidents or even protracted military conflict. Black Swan 3: Social Unrest Erupts In America There are numerous lessons that one can learn from the ongoing unrest in Hong Kong, but perhaps the most cogent one is that Millennials and Generation Z are not as docile and feckless as their elders think. Images of university students and even teenagers throwing flying kicks and Molotov cocktails while clad in black body armor have shocked the world. Perhaps all those violent video games did have a lasting impact on the youth! What is surprising is that so few commentators have made the cognitive leap from the ultra-first world streets of Hong Kong to other developed economies. Perhaps what is clouding analysts’ minds is the idiosyncratic nature of the dispute in Hong Kong, the “one China” angle. However, Hong Kong youth are confronted with similar socio-economic challenges that their peers in other advanced economies face: overpriced real estate and a bifurcated service-sector labor market with few mid-tier jobs that pay a decent wage. In the US, Millennials and Gen Z are also facing challenges unique to the US. First, their debt burden is much more toxic than that of the older cohorts, given that it is made up of student loans and credit card debt (Chart 15). Second, they find themselves at odds – demographically and ideologically – with the older cohorts (Chart 16). Chart 15Younger American Cohorts Plagued By Toxic Debt Chart 16Younger And Older Cohorts At Odds Demographically The adage that the youth are apolitical and do not turn out to vote may have ended thanks to President Trump. The 2018 midterm election, which the Democratic Party successfully turned into a referendum on the president, saw the youth (18-29) turnout nearly double from 20% to 36% (the 30-44 year-old cohort also saw a jump in turnout from 35.6% to 48.8%). The election saw one of the highest turnouts in recent memory, with a 53.4% figure, just two points off the 2016 general election figure (Chart 17). Chart 17Massive Turnout To The 2016 Referendum On Trump Despite the high turnout in 2018, the-most-definitely-not-Millennial Vice President Joe Biden continues to lead the Democratic Party in the polls. Chart 18Biden Unpopular Among Young American Voters Chart 19Bookies Pulled Down "Uncle Joe's" Odds, Capturing Democratic Party Zeitgeist His probability of winning the nomination is not overwhelming, but it is the highest of any contender. In recent polls, Biden comes third place in Millennial/Gen-Z vote preferences (Chart 18). Yet he is hardly out of contention, especially for the 30-44 year-old cohort. The view that “Uncle Joe” does not fit the Democratic Party zeitgeist has become so entrenched in the Democratic Party narrative that it became conventional wisdom last year, pulling oddsmakers and betting markets away from the clear frontrunner (Chart 19). As such, a Biden victory at the Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin on July 13-16 may come as an affront to the left-wing activists who will surely descend on the convention. This will particularly be the case if Biden wins despite the progressive candidates amassing a majority of overall delegates, which is possible judging by the combined progressive vote share in current polling (Chart 20). He would arrive in Milwaukee without clearing the 1990 delegate count required to win on the first ballot. On the second ballot, his presidency would then receive a boost from “superdelegates” and those progressives who are unwilling to “rock the boat,” i.e. unify against an establishment candidate with the largest share of votes. This is also how Mayor Michael Bloomberg could pull off a surprise win. Chart 20Progressives Come Closest To Victory Such a “brokered” – or contested – convention has not occurred since 1952. However, several Democratic Party conventions came close, including 1968, 1972, and 1984. The 1968 one in Chicago was notable for considerable violence and unrest. Even if the Milwaukee Democratic Party convention does not produce unrest, it could sow the seeds for unrest later in the year. First, a breakout Biden performance in the primaries is unlikely. As such, he will likely need to pledge a shift to the left at the convention, including by accepting a progressive vice-presidential candidate. Second, an actual progressive may win the primary. Chart 21Zealots In Both Parties Perceive Each Other As A National Threat It is likely that either of the two options would be seen as an existential threat to many of Trump’s loyal supporters across the United States. President Trump’s rhetoric often paints the scenario of a Democratic takeover of the White House in apocalyptic terms. And data suggests that the zealots in both parties perceive each other as a “threat to the nation’s wellbeing” (Chart 21). The American Civil War in the nineteenth century began with the election of a president. This is not just because Abraham Lincoln was a particularly reviled figure in the South, but because the states that ultimately formed the Confederacy saw in his election the demographic writing-on-the-wall. The election was an expression of a general will that, from that point onwards, was irreversible. Given demographic trends in the US today, it is possible that many would see in Trump’s loss a similar fait accompli. If one perceives progressive Democrats as an existential threat to the US constitution, rebellion is the obvious and rational response. There is a risk of rebellion from Trump’s most ardent supporters if he loses the White House. Bottom Line: Year 2020 may be a particularly violent one for the US. First, left wing activists may be shocked and angered to learn that Joe Biden (or Bloomberg) is the nominee of the Democratic Party come July. With so much hype behind the progressive candidates throughout the campaign, Biden’s nomination could be seen as an affront to what was supposed to be “the big year” for left-wing candidates. Second, investors have to start thinking about what happens if Biden – or a progressive candidate – goes on to defeat President Trump in the general election. While liberal America took Trump’s election badly, it has demographics – and thus time – on its side. Trump’s most ardent supporters may conclude that his defeat means the end of America as they know it. Black Swan 4: Europe’s Migration Crisis Restarts Chart 22Decline In Illegal Immigration Dampened European Populism It is a testament to Europe’s resilience that we do not have a Black Swan scenario based on an election or a political crisis set on the continent in 2020. Support for the common currency and the EU as a whole has rebounded to its highest since 2013. Even early elections in Germany and Italy are unlikely to produce geopolitical risk. The populists in the former are in no danger of outperforming whereas the populists in the latter barely deserve the designation. But what if one of the reasons for the surge in populism – unchecked illegal immigration – were to return in 2020? The data suggests that the risk of migrant flows has massively subsided. From its peak of over a million arrivals in 2015, the data shows that only 125,472 migrants crossed into Europe via land and sea routes in the Mediterranean last year (Chart 22). Why? There are five reasons that we believe have checked the flow of migrants: Supply: The civil wars in Syria, Iraq, and Libya have largely subsided. Heterogenous regions, cities, and neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed and internal boundaries have largely ossified. It is unlikely that any future conflict will produce massive outflows of refugees as the displacement has already taken place. These countries are now largely divided into armed, ethnically homogenous, camps. Enforcement: The EU has stepped up border enforcement since 2015, pouring resources into the land border with Turkey and naval patrols across the Mediterranean. Individual member states – particularly Italy and Hungary – have also stepped up border enforcement policy. While most EU member states have publicly chided both for “draconian” policies, there is no impetus to force Rome and Budapest to change policy. Libyan Imbroglio: Conflict in Libya has flared up in 2019 with military warlord Khalifa Haftar looking to wrest control from the UN-backed Government of National Accord led by Fayez al-Serraj. The Islamic State has regrouped in the country as well. Ironically, the conflict is helping stem the flow of migrants as African migrants from sub-Saharan countries dare not cross into Libya as they did in 2015 when there was a brief lull in fighting. Turkish benevolence: Ankara is quick to point out that it is the only thing standing between Europe and a massive deluge of migrants. Turkey is said to host somewhere between two and four million refugees from various conflicts in the Middle East. Fear of the crossing: If crossing the Mediterranean was easy, Europe would have experienced a massive influx of migrants throughout the twentieth century. Not only is it not easy, it is costly and quite deadly, with thousands lost each year. Furthermore, most migrants are not welcomed when they arrive to Europe, many are held in terrible conditions in holding camps in Italy and Greece. Over time, migrants who made it into Europe have reported these dangers and conditions, reducing the overall demand for illegal migration. We do not foresee these five factors changing, at least not all at once. However, there are several reasons to worry about the flow of migrants in 2020. US-Iran tensions have sparked outright military action, while unrest is flaring up across Iran’s sphere of influence. Going forward, Iran could destabilize Iraq or fuel Shia unrest against US-backed regimes. Second, Afghanistan has been the source of most migrants to Europe via sea and land Mediterranean routes – 19.2%. The conflict in the country continues and may flare up with President Trump’s decision to formally withdraw most US troops from the country in 2020. Third, a break in fighting in Libya may encourage sub-Saharan migrants to revisit routes to Europe. Migrants from Guinea, Cote d’Ivoire, and the Democratic Republic of Congo make up over 10% of migrants to Europe. Finally, Turkish relationship with the West could break up further in 2020, causing Ankara to ship migrants northward. We highly doubt that President Erdogan will risk such a break, given that 50% of Turkish exports go to Europe. A European embargo on Turkish exports – which would be a highly likely response to such an act – would crush the already decimated Turkish economy. Bottom Line: While we do not see a return to the 2015 level of migration in 2020, we flag this risk because it would fundamentally undermine political stability in Europe. Black Swan 5: Russia Faces A “Peasant Revolt” Our fifth and final black swan risk for the year stems from Russia. This risk may seem obvious, since the US election creates a dynamic that revives the inherent conflict in US-Russian relations. Russia could seek to accomplish foreign policy objectives – interfering in US elections, punishing regional adversaries. The Trump administration may be friendly toward Russia but Trump is unlikely to veto any sanctions passed by the House and Senate in an election year, should an occasion for new sanctions arise. Conversely Russia could anticipate greater US pressure if the Democrats win in November. Yet it is Russia’s domestic affairs that represent the real underrated risk. Putin’s fourth term as president has been characterized by increased focus on domestic political control and stability as opposed to foreign adventurism. The creation of a special National Guard in 2016, reporting directly to Putin and responsible for quelling domestic unrest, symbolizes the shift in focus. So too does Russia’s adherence to the OPEC 2.0 regime of production control to keep oil prices above their budget breakeven level. Meanwhile Putin’s courting of Europe for the Nordstream II pipeline, and his slight peacemaking efforts with Ukraine, has suggested a slightly more restrained international posture. Chart 23Sluggish Wage Growth Threatens Russian Stability Strategically it makes little sense for Russia to court negative attention at a time when the US and Europe are at odds over trade and the Middle East, the US is preoccupied with China and Iran, and Russia itself faces mounting domestic problems. The domestic problems are long in coming. The central bank has maintained a stringent monetary policy for the better part of the decade. Despite cutting interest rates recently, monetary and credit conditions are still tight, hurting domestic demand. Moscow has also imposed fiscal austerity, namely by cutting back on state pensions and hiking the value added tax. Real wage growth is weak (Chart 23), retail sales are falling, and domestic demand looks to weaken further, as Andrija Vesic of BCA Emerging Markets Strategy observes in a recent Special Report. The effect of Russia’s policy austerity has been a drop in public approval of the administration (Chart 24). Protests erupted in 2019 but were largely drowned out by the larger and more globally significant protests in Hong Kong. These were met by police suppression that has not removed their underlying cause. Putin’s first major decision of the new year was to reshuffle the government, entailing Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev’s transfer to a new post and the appointment of a new cabinet. This move reveals the need to show some accountability to reduce popular pressure. While Moscow now has room to cut interest rates and ease fiscal policy, it is behind the curve and the weak economy will add fuel to domestic unrest. Meanwhile Putin’s efforts to alter the Russian constitution so he can stay in power beyond current term limits, effectively becoming emperor for life, like Xi Jinping, should not be dismissed merely because they are expected. They reflect a need to take advantage of Putin’s popular standing to consolidate domestic political power at a time when the ruling United Russia party and the federal government face discontent. They also ensure that strategic conflict with the United States will take on an ideological dimension. Chart 24Austerity Weighed On The Administration's Popularity In Russia Chart 25Russian Political Risk Is Unsustainably Low Russia's recent cabinet shakeup is positive from the point of view of economic reform. And the country's monetary and fiscal room provide a basis for remaining overweight equities within EM, as our Emerging Markets Strategy recommends. However, Russian equities have rallied hard and the political risk is understated. Bottom Line: It is never easy predicting Putin’s next international move. Our market-based indicators of Russian political risk have hit multi-year lows, but both the domestic and international context suggest that these lows will not be sustained (Chart 25). A new bout of risk can emanate from Putin, or from changes in Washington, or from the Russian people themselves. What would take the world by surprise would be domestic unrest on a larger scale than Russia can easily suppress through the police force. Housekeeping We are closing our long European Union / short Chinese equities strategic trade with a 1.61% loss since inception on May 10, 2019. Dhaval Joshi of BCA’s European Investment Strategy downgraded the Eurostoxx 50 to underweight versus the S&P 500 and the Nikkei 225 this week. He makes the point that the Euro Area bond yield 6-month impulse hit 100 bps – a critical technical level – and will be a strong headwind to growth. We will look to reopen this trade at a later date when the euphoria over the “phase one” trade deal subsides, as we still favor European equities and DM bourses over EM. We will reinstitute our long Brent crude H2 2020 versus H2 2021 tactical position, which was stopped out on January 9, 2020. We remain bullish on oil fundamentals and expect Middle East instability to add a political risk premium. China's stimulus and the oil view also give reason for us to reinitiate our long Malaysian equities relative to EM as a tactical position. The Malaysian ringgit will benefit as oil prices move higher, helping Malaysian companies make payments on their large pile of dollar-denominated debt and improving household purchasing power. Higher oil prices also correlate with higher equity prices, while China's stimulus and the US trade ceasefire will push the US dollar lower and help trade revive in the region. Marko Papic Consulting Editor marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Observe how little attention the public paid to US-China saber-rattling around China’s announcement of an Air Defense Identification Zone in the East China Sea that year.

Highlights Duration: Despite recent setbacks, global growth looks set to improve and policy uncertainty set to ease during the next couple of months. Both will conspire to push bond yields higher. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. US political risks could flare again around mid-year, sending yields lower. TIPS: We recommend that investors enter TIPS breakeven curve flatteners, both because short-term inflation expectations will respond more quickly than long-term expectations to stronger realized inflation data and to hedge against the risk of an oil supply shock. High-Yield: Investors should add (or increase) exposure to the high-yield energy sector, within an overweight allocation to junk bonds. Junk energy spreads are attractive, and exposure to the sector will mitigate the impact of a potential oil supply shock. Feature Only a month ago, investors were becoming more optimistic about a global growth rebound and the US/China phase 1 trade deal was pushing political risk into the background. Both of those factors caused the 10-year Treasury yield to rise throughout December, hitting an intra-day Christmas Eve peak of 1.95% (Chart 1). But since then, softer global PMI data and the US/Iranian military conflict brought global growth concerns and political risk back to the fore, breaking the uptrend in yields. Chart 1Bond Bear On Pause Global growth and political uncertainty are two of the five macro factors that we identify as important for US bond yields.1 And despite the recent setback, we think both factors will push yields higher in the coming months. Global Growth We have found that the Global Manufacturing PMI, the US ISM Manufacturing PMI and the CRB Raw Industrials index are the three global growth indicators that correlate most strongly with US bond yields. One reason for the recent pullback in yields is the disappointing December data from the Global and US Manufacturing PMIs. The ISM Manufacturing PMI moved deeper into recessionary territory. The Global Manufacturing PMI had been in a clear uptrend since mid-2019, but fell back to 50.1 in December, from 50.3 the month before (Chart 2). The US and Chinese PMIs also declined in December, though they remain well above the 50 boom/bust line (Chart 2, panels 3 & 4). The Eurozone and Japanese PMIs, meanwhile, are still in the doldrums (Chart 2, panels 2 & 5). More worrying than the small tick down in Global PMI is the US ISM Manufacturing PMI moving deeper into recessionary territory, from 48.1 to 47.2. However, we have good reason to think that stronger data are just around the corner (Chart 3). Chart 2Global PMI Ticks Down Chart 3ISM Manufacturing Index Will Rebound First, the difference between the new orders and inventories components of the ISM index often leads the overall index at turning points, 2016 being a prime example (Chart 3, top panel). Much like in 2016, a gap is opening up between new orders-less-inventories and the overall ISM. Second, the non-manufacturing ISM index remains strong despite the weakness in manufacturing (Chart 3, panel 2). With no contagion to the service sector of the economy, we’d expect manufacturing to pick back up. Third, the ISM Manufacturing index has diverged sharply from the Markit Manufacturing PMI, with the Markit index printing well above the ISM (Chart 3, panel 3).2 The ISM index has been more volatile than the Markit index in recent years, and should trend toward the Markit index over time. Fourth, regional Fed manufacturing surveys have generally been stronger than the ISM during the past few months. A simple regression model of the ISM index based on data from regional Fed surveys suggests that the ISM index should be at 49.7 today, instead of 47.2 (Chart 3, bottom panel). Finally, unlike the PMI surveys, the CRB Raw Industrials index has increased quite sharply in recent weeks (Chart 4). We should note that it is not the CRB index itself but rather the ratio between the CRB index and gold that tracks bond yields most closely, and this ratio has actually declined lately due to the strength in gold. Nonetheless, a sustained turnaround in the CRB index would mark a big change from 2019 and would send a strong bond-bearish signal. Chart 4CRB Sends A Bond-Bearish Signal Political Uncertainty The second factor that sent bond yields lower during the past few weeks was the military conflict between the US and Iran. Tensions appear to have de-escalated for now, and we would expect any flight-to-quality flows to unwind during the next few weeks.3 But while we see policy uncertainty easing in the near-term, sending bond yields higher, we reiterate our view that US political uncertainty is the number one risk factor that could derail the 2020 bear market in bonds.4 Specifically, we see two looming US political risks. The first relates to President Trump’s re-election odds. For now, Trump’s approval rating is in line with past incumbent presidents that have won re-election (Chart 5). But if his approval doesn’t keep pace in the coming months, he will try to do something to change his fortunes. That could mean re-igniting the trade war with China, or once again ramping up tensions with Iran. A Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren victory would send a flight-to-quality into bonds. The second risk is that one of the progressive candidates – Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren – secures the Democratic nomination for president. Right now, both trail Joe Biden in the polls and betting markets (Chart 6), but things could change rapidly as the primary results come in during the next few months. The stock market would certainly sell off if an Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders presidency seems likely, sending a flight to quality into bonds.5 Chart 5Trump’s Approval Rating Must Rise Chart 6Democratic Nomination Betting Odds Bottom Line: Despite recent setbacks, global growth looks set to improve and policy uncertainty set to ease during the next couple of months. Both will conspire to push bond yields higher. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. US political risks could flare again around mid-year, sending yields lower. Playing An Oil Supply Shock In US Bond Markets US/Iranian military tensions are easing for now, but could flare again in the future. For that reason, it’s worth considering how US bond markets would respond in the event of a conflict between the US and Iran that removed a significant amount of the world’s oil supply from the market, causing the oil price to spike. The first implication is that US bond yields would fall. Even though it’s tempting to say that the inflationary impact of higher oil prices would push yields up, this effect would not dominate the flight-to-quality into US bonds that would result from the increase in political uncertainty. Case in point, Chart 1 shows that, while the inflation component of yields was stable as tensions flared during the past few weeks, it didn’t come close to offsetting the drop in the 10-year real yield. Beyond the impact on Treasury yields, there are two other segments of the US bond market that would be materially impacted by an oil supply shock: the TIPS breakeven inflation curve and corporate bond spreads. Buy TIPS Breakeven Curve Flatteners Table 1CPI Swap Curve Sensitivity To Oil When considering the impact of an oil supply shock on TIPS breakeven inflation rates, we first look at how the cost of inflation protection is influenced by changes in the oil price. Table 1 shows the sensitivity of weekly changes in different CPI swap rates to a $1 increase in the price of Brent crude oil. We use CPI swap rates instead of TIPS breakeven inflation rates because data are available for a wider maturity spectrum. Our analysis applies equally to the TIPS breakeven inflation curve. Two conclusions are apparent from Table 1. First, the entire CPI swap curve is positively correlated with the oil price, a higher oil price moves CPI swap rates higher and vice-versa. Second, the sensitivity of CPI swap rates to the oil price is greater at the short-end of the curve than at the long-end. This is fairly intuitive given that higher oil prices are inflationary in the short-term but could be deflationary in the long-run if they hamper economic growth. Chart 7Coefficients Stable Over Time Chart 7 shows that our two main conclusions are not dependent on the chosen time horizon. The 2-year CPI swap rate is positively correlated with the oil price for our entire sample period, as is the 10-year rate except for a brief window in 2014. The 2-year rate’s sensitivity is also consistently higher than the 10-year’s. Based on this analysis, we can suggest two good ways to hedge against the risk of an oil supply shock that sends prices higher: Buy inflation protection, either in the CPI swaps market or by going long TIPS versus duration-equivalent nominal Treasuries. Buy CPI swap curve (or TIPS breakeven inflation curve) flatteners.6 But we can introduce one more wrinkle to our analysis. Oil prices can rise because of stronger demand or because a shock suddenly removes supply from the market. It’s possible that the cost of inflation protection behaves differently in each case. Fortunately, the New York Fed has made an attempt to distinguish between those two scenarios. In its weekly Oil Price Dynamics Report, the Fed decomposes Brent oil price changes into demand-driven changes and supply-driven changes.7 It does this by looking at how other financial assets respond to oil price changes each week. Chart 8 shows the cumulative change in the Brent oil price since 2010, along with the New York Fed’s supply and demand factors. According to the Fed, demand has pressured the oil price higher since 2010, but this has been more than offset by greater supply. Chart 8Supply & Demand Oil Price Decomposition Using the New York Fed’s supply and demand series, we look at how CPI swap rates respond to higher oil prices in three different scenarios. First, we identify 252 weeks when demand and supply both contributed to higher oil prices. Second, we identify 95 weeks when higher oil prices were driven solely by demand. Finally, and most pertinently, we identify 92 weeks when higher oil prices were driven only by supply (Table 2). Table 2Weekly Change In CPI Swap Rate When Brent Oil Price Increases Results for the ‘Demand & Supply Driven’ and ‘Demand Driven’ scenarios are consistent with our results from Table 1. CPI swap rates across the entire curve move higher more than half the time, with greater increases at the short-end of the curve. However, the scenario we are most interested in is the ‘Supply Driven’ scenario. Presumably, a military conflict with Iran that took oil supply off the market would lead to less supply and also a decrease in global demand. Results for this scenario are more mixed. The 1-year CPI swap rate still rises 60% of the time, but rates further out the curve are somewhat more likely to fall. With this in mind, CPI swap curve or TIPS breakeven curve flatteners look like the best way to hedge against an oil supply shock, better than an outright long position in inflation protection. This is good news, since we have previously argued that owning TIPS breakeven curve flatteners is a good idea even without an oil supply shock.8 Corporate bond excess returns respond positively to changes in the oil price. We recommend that investors enter TIPS breakeven curve flatteners, both because short-term inflation expectations will respond more quickly than long-term expectations to stronger realized inflation data and to hedge against the risk of an oil supply shock. Buy Energy Junk Bonds Table 3Corporate Bond Sensitivity To Oil Corporate bonds are the second segment of the US fixed income market that could be materially impacted by an oil supply shock, particularly bonds in the energy sector. To assess the potential value of corporate bonds as a hedge, we repeat the above analysis but use weekly corporate bond excess returns versus duration-matched Treasuries instead of CPI swap rates. Table 3 shows that investment grade and high-yield corporate bond returns both respond positively to changes in the oil price. Further, we see that energy bonds are more sensitive to the oil price, outperforming the overall index when the oil price rises, and vice-versa. Chart 9 shows that, while oil price sensitivities vary considerably over time, they are almost always positive. Also, energy sector sensitivity has been consistently above that of the benchmark index since 2014. Chart 9Betas Mostly Positive Going one step further, we once again use the New York Fed’s supply and demand decomposition to identify weeks when supply and/or demand was responsible for higher oil prices. Because we have more historical data for corporate bonds than for CPI swaps, this time we identify 340 weeks when both supply and demand drove the oil price higher, 123 weeks when only demand drove it higher and 142 weeks when only supply was responsible for the higher oil price (Table 4). Table 4Weekly Corporate Bond Excess Returns (BPs) When Brent Oil Price Increases Results for the ‘Demand & Supply Driven’ and ‘Demand Driven’ scenarios show that higher oil prices boost excess returns to both investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds more than half the time. Energy bonds also tend to outperform their respective benchmark indexes in the ‘Demand & Supply Driven’ scenario, but perform roughly in-line with the benchmark in the ‘Demand Driven’ scenario. But once again, it is the ‘Supply Driven’ scenario that we are most interested in. Here, we see that an oil supply disruption that leads to higher oil prices also leads to lower corporate bond excess returns. This is true for both the investment grade and high-yield indexes and for energy bonds in both rating categories. However, we also note that high-yield energy debt significantly outperforms the overall junk index during these “risk off” periods. In contrast, investment grade energy debt is not a clear outperformer. Chart 10HY Energy Spreads Are Very Attractive These results line up with our intuition. When oil prices are driven higher by demand it could simply be a sign of strong economic growth and not any specific trend related to the energy sector. As such, we’d expect all corporate bonds to perform well in those scenarios, but wouldn’t necessarily expect energy debt to outperform. However, supply disruptions in the Middle East directly benefit US shale oil players, whose debt is principally found in the high-yield energy sector. The investment grade energy sector is less exposed to the US shale space, and its documented outperformance in the ‘Supply Driven’ scenario is weaker as a result. We already recommend an overweight allocation to high-yield bonds and a neutral allocation to investment grade corporates. Within that overweight allocation to high-yield bonds, we recommend shifting some exposure toward the energy sector for two reasons. First, high-yield energy was severely beaten-down last year and is ripe for a rebound if global economic growth recovers, as we expect (Chart 10). Second, our analysis suggests that an allocation to energy will help mitigate losses in the event of a renewed flaring of US/Iranian tensions that removes oil supply from the market. Bottom Line: We recommend that investors initiate TIPS breakeven curve flatteners (or CPI swap curve flatteners) and add exposure to the high-yield energy sector. Both positions look attractive on their own terms, but will also help hedge the risk of an oil supply disruption if US/Iranian tensions flare back up in the months ahead.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The others are: the output gap, the US dollar and sentiment. For more details please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Bond Kitchen”, dated April 9, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 The Markit index is used in the construction of the Global PMI shown in Chart 2, 3 For more details on the politics behind the US/Iran conflict please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Alert, “A Reprieve Amid The Bull Market In Iran Tensions”, dated January 8, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 10, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Elizabeth Warren And The Markets”, dated September 13, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 6 In the TIPS market, an example of a breakeven curve flattener would be to buy 2-year TIPS and short the 2-year nominal Treasury note, while also buying the 10-year nominal Treasury note and shorting the 10-year TIPS. 7 https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/policy/oil_price_dynamics_report 8 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Position For Modest Curve Steepening”, dated October 29, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Special Report

Highlights The balance of power in US labor negotiations has shifted infrequently in the industrial age: Management completely dominated labor before the New Deal, which gave rise to a 45-year labor golden age that lasted until the Reagan revolution and globalization put employers firmly back in control. Employees rarely make gains without sympathetic elected officials and judges: The New Deal was a watershed in labor relations history because it granted workers legal protections that leveled the playing field with employers. Successful strikes beget strikes: Momentum matters in labor negotiations. One union’s win may embolden other unions to strike, blazing a path for further gains by demonstrating that the price of labor peace has risen. The pendulum may be swinging back in labor’s favor: Unions still face formidable headwinds in Washington, DC and state capitals, but a run of successful strikes may signal that rumors of the labor movement's demise have been exaggerated. Feature Where will inflation come from, and when will it arrive? An investor who answers these questions will have advance notice of the end of the expansion and the bull markets in equities and credit. Per our base-case scenario, the expansion won’t end until monetary policy settings become restrictive, and the Fed won’t pursue restrictive policy unless inflation pressures force its hand. Inured by a decade of specious warnings that “money printing” would let the inflation genie out of the bottle, investors are skeptical that inflation will ever re-emerge. The inflation backdrop has become much more supportive in the last few years, however, upon the closing of the output gap, and the stimulus-driven jolt in aggregate demand. Output gaps in other major economies will have to narrow further (Chart 1) for global goods inflation to gain traction, and mild inflation elsewhere in the G7 (Chart 2) suggests that goods prices are not about to surge. Chart 1There's Still Enough Spare Capacity ... Chart 2... To Restrain Global Goods Inflation Services are not so easily imported, though, and services inflation is a more fully domestic phenomenon. Rising wages could be the spur for services inflation, and the labor market is tight on several counts: the unemployment rate is at a 50-year low; the broader definition of unemployment, also encompassing discouraged workers and the underemployed, reached a new all-time (25-year) low in December; the JOLTS job openings and quits rates at or near their all-time (19-year) highs; and the NFIB survey and a profusion of anecdotal reports suggest that employers are having a hard time finding quality candidates. With labor demand exceeding supply, wages for nonsupervisory workers have duly risen (Chart 3). Gains in other compensation series have been muted, however, and investors have come to yawn and roll their eyes at any mention of the Phillips Curve. Chart 3Wage Growth Is Solid, But It's Lost A Good Bit Of Momentum Perhaps it’s not the Phillips Curve that’s broken, but workers’ spirits. A supine organized labor movement could explain why the Phillips Curve itself is so flat. As the old saying goes, if you don’t ask, you know what you’re going to get, and beleaguered unions and their memberships, cowed by two decades of woe coinciding with China’s entry into the WTO (Chart 4), have been afraid to ask. Strikes are the most potent weapon in labor’s arsenal; if it can’t credibly wield them, it is sure to be steamrolled. Chart 4Globalization Has Been Unkind To Labor Two years of high-profile strike victories by public- and private-sector employees may suggest that the sands have begun to shift, however, and inspired our examination of labor’s muscle. This first installment of a multi-part Special Report focuses on the history of US labor relations, with an eye toward identifying themes that shape relative bargaining power. We will subsequently examine the factors influencing the propensity for labor and management militancy, with a focus on where wages are headed in the near future. The Colosseum Era (1800-1933) We view US industrial labor history as having three distinct phases. We label the first, which lasted until the New Dealers took over Washington, the Colosseum era (Figure 1), because labor and management were about as evenly matched as the Christians and the lions in ancient Rome. Uprisings in textile mills, steel factories, and mines were swiftly squelched, often violently. Management was able to draw on public resources like the police and state National Guard units to put down strikes, or was able to unleash its own security or ad hoc militia forces on strikers or union organizers without state interference. The public, staunchly opposed to anarchists and Communists, generally sided with employers. Figure 1Significant Events In The Colosseum Era Unions won some small-bore victories during the period, but they nearly all proved fleeting as companies regularly took back concessions and public officials and courts failed to enforce the loose patchwork of laws aimed at ameliorating industrial workers’ plight. Labor inevitably suffered the brunt of the casualties when conflicts turned violent. Workers were hardly choir boys, and seem to have initiated violence as often as employers’ proxies, but they were inevitably outgunned, especially when police, guardsmen or soldiers were marshaled against them. Societal norms have changed dramatically since the Colosseum era, but the lore of past “battles” encourages an us-versus-them union mentality that occasionally colors negotiations. The UAW Era (1933-1981) Established presumptions about the employer-employee relationship were upended when FDR entered the White House. Viewing labor organization as a way to ease national suffering, New Dealers passed the Wagner Act to grant private-sector workers unionization and collective bargaining rights, and created the National Labor Relations Board to ensure that employers respected them. The Wagner Act greatly aided labor organization, enabling unions to build up the heft to engage with employers on an equal footing. Unionized workers still fought an uphill battle in the wake of the Depression, but tactics like the sit-down strike (Box) produced some early labor victories that paved the way for more. The UAW signed a similar accord with Chrysler immediately after the Flint sit-down strike, and the CIO (the UAW’s parent union) swiftly reached an agreement with US Steel that significantly improved steelworkers’ pay and hours. Labor unions’ path wasn’t always smooth – Ford fiercely resisted unionization until 1941, and ten protesters were killed, and dozens injured, by Chicago police at a peaceful Memorial Day demonstration in support of strikers against the regional steelmakers that did not follow US Steel’s conciliatory lead – but it generally trended upward after the New Deal (Figure 2). From the 1950 signing of the Treaty of Detroit, a remarkably generous five-year agreement between the UAW and the Big Three automakers, the UAW ran roughshod over the US auto industry for three-plus decades. The New Deal’s encouragement of unionization had given labor a fighting chance, and was the foundation on which all of its subsequent gains were built. Figure 2Significant Events In The UAW Era Box David Topples Goliath: The Flint Sit-Down Strike The broad mass of factory workers had not been organized to any meaningful degree before the New Deal, and the United Auto Workers (UAW) was not formed until 1935. Despite federal protections, the fledgling UAW had to conduct its operations covertly, lest its members face employer reprisals. At the end of 1936, when it took on GM, only one in seven GM employees was a dues-paying member. The strike began the night of December 30th when workers in two of GM’s Flint auto body plants sat down at their posts, ignoring orders to return to work. The sit-down action was more effective than a conventional strike because it prevented GM from simply replacing the workers with strikebreakers. It also made GM think twice about attempting to remove them by force, lest valuable equipment be damaged. GM was unsure how to dislodge the workers after a court injunction it obtained on January 2nd went nowhere once the UAW publicized that the presiding judge held today’s equivalent of $4 million in GM shares. It turned off the heat in one of the plants on January 11th, before police armed with tear gas and riot guns stormed it. The police were rebuffed by strikers who threw bottles, rocks, and car parts from the plant’s upper windows while spraying torrents of water from its fire hoses. No one died in the melee, but the strike was already front-page news across the country, and the attack helped the strikers win public sympathy. Michigan’s governor responded by calling out the National Guard to prevent a rematch, shielding the strikers from any further violence. The strike was finally settled on February 11th when GM accepted the UAW as the workers’ exclusive bargaining agent and agreed not to hinder its attempts to organize its work force. The Reagan-Thatcher Era (1981 - ??) The disastrous strike by the air traffic controllers’ union (PATCO) is the watershed event that heralded the end of unions’ golden age. Strikes by federal employees were illegal, so PATCO broke the law when it went on strike in April 1981, spurning the generous contract terms its leaders had negotiated with the Reagan administration. PATCO had periodically held the flow of air traffic hostage throughout the seventies to extract concessions from its employer, earning the lasting enmity of airlines, government officials and the public. Other unions were aghast at PATCO’s openly contemptuous attitude, and declined to support it with sympathy strikes, while conservatives blasted the new administration behind closed doors for the profligacy of its initial PATCO offer. President Reagan therefore had an unfettered opportunity to make an example out of the controllers, and he seized it, firing those who failed to return to work within 48 hours and banning them from ever returning to government employment. A fed-up public supported the president’s hard line, and employers and unions got the message that a new sheriff was in town. His deputies were not inclined to enforce labor-friendly statues, or investigate labor grievances, with much vigor, and they would not necessarily look the other way when public sector unions illegally struck. Unions also found themselves on the wrong side of the growing disaffection with bureaucracy that was bound up with the push for deregulation. The globalization wave further eroded labor’s power. Unskilled workers in the developed world would be hammered by the flat world that allowed people, capital and information to hopscotch around the globe. Eight years of a Democratic presidency brought no relief, as the “Third Way” Clinton administration embraced the free-market tide (Chart 5), and the unionized share of employees has receded all the way back to mid-thirties levels (Chart 6). Chart 5Inequality Took Off ... Chart 6... As Unions Lost Their Way A Fourth Phase? A handful of data points do not make a trend, especially in a series that stands out for its persistence, but the bargaining power pendulum could be shifting. Public school teachers won improbable statewide victories with illegal strikes in three highly conservative states in the first half of 2018 (Table 1); a canny hotel workers union steered its members to big gains in their contract negotiations with Marriott in the second half of 2018; and the UAW bested General Motors and the rest of the Big Three automakers last fall. Unions may have more bargaining power than markets and employers realize, and they could be on the cusp of becoming more aggressive in flexing it. The next installment(s) in this series will examine the factors determining whether or not unions will become more assertive and the likelihood that more assertive bargaining would meet with success. Table 1Teachers' Unions Conquer The Red States Takeaways There is not sufficient space to explore those factors in this installment, but we conclude by highlighting two key themes that emerge from our historical review. US industrial history makes it clear that employees are unlikely to gain ground if government sides with employers. Employees no longer have to fear that the state will look the other way while strikers are beaten, or fail to prosecute those responsible for loss of life, but they face especially long odds when the government is inclined to favor employers. Its thumb weighs heavily on the scale when it drags its feet on enforcement; cuts funding to agencies policing workplace standards; and appoints agency or department heads that are conditioned to see things solely from employers’ perspective, shaped by long careers in management. Successful strikes beget strikes, and the converse is also true. Withholding their labor is employees’ most powerful weapon, and when employers can’t replace them cheaply and easily, strikes often succeed. Striking is frightening for an individual, however, because it cuts off his or her income (or sharply reduces it, if the striker’s union has a strike fund) until the strike is over. If the strike fails, the employee may find him/herself blacklisted, impairing his/her long-term income prospects on top of his/her short-term losses. Prudent workers should therefore strike sparingly, with the due consideration that a prudent poker player exercises before going all-in. When other unions facing comparable conditions pull off successful strikes, it makes it much easier for another union to take the leap, in addition to making success more likely, provided conditions truly are comparable. “Before they occur, successful strikes appear impossible. Afterward, they seem almost inevitable .”1 The retrospective inevitability stiffens the spine of potential strikers who observe successful outcomes, and raises the bar for action among potential strikers who observe failures. “Just as defeats in struggle lead to demoralization and resignation, victories tend to beget more victories .”2 Public opinion matters just as surely as momentum, and it proved decisive in the Flint sit-down strike and in the air traffic controllers’ showdown with President Reagan. According to Gallup’s annual poll, Americans now regard unions as favorably as they did before Thatcher and Reagan came to power (Chart 7). We will dive more deeply into the topic in our next installment, as we probe labor market conditions for insight into the direction of inflation, and its implications for Fed policy, the business cycle and markets. Chart 7Could Unions Make A Comeback?   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Blanc, Eric. Red State Revolt: The Teachers’ Strike Wave and Working-Class Politics, Verso: New York (2019), p. 204. 2 Ibid, p. 209.