Geopolitical Regions

Special Report

Highlights So What? The tech war will continue to disrupt the trade truce. Why? The U.S. and China have legitimate national security concerns about each other’s tech policies. The 90-day trade talks cannot succeed without some compromises on tech issues. Chinese structural reforms could also reduce U.S. concerns over tech transfer. Feature The fanfare over President Donald Trump’s tariff ceasefire, agreed at the G20 summit on December 1, has already proved short-lived. We know now that on the same day President Trump sat down with Chinese President Xi Jinping to negotiate the truce, Canadian authorities arrested Meng Wanzhou, the chief financial officer of Huawei, under a U.S. warrant. Huawei is the world’s biggest telecoms equipment maker, second-biggest smartphone maker, and one of China’s high-tech champions. So far the controversial arrest – which prompted Beijing to make representations to the U.S. ambassador – has not derailed the trade truce. China’s Commerce Ministry has announced that tariffs will be eased and imports of American goods will increase. The CNY-USD has climbed upwards despite a rocky global backdrop in financial markets (Chart 1). Chart 1Currency Part Of The Trade Truce? Nevertheless, Meng’s arrest calls attention to our chief reason for skepticism about the ability of the U.S. and China to conclude a substantive trade deal. In essence, “trade war” is a misnomer for a broader strategic conflict that is centered on the military-industrial balance rather than the trade balance. Trade War? Tech War! The historian Paul Kennedy, in his bestselling The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, argued that the history of competition between nations is determined by economic and technologically advanced industrial production.1 Eighteenth-century Britain defeated France; Ulysses S. Grant defeated Robert E. Lee; and the U.S., the allies, and Russia defeated Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. This thesis helps to explain why China’s recent technological acceleration has provoked a more aggressive reaction from the U.S. than its general economic rise over the past four decades. For example, while China is rapidly catching up to the U.S. in research and development spending, it is only spending about half as much as the U.S. relative to its overall economy (Chart 2). If it comes to match the U.S.’s ratio then it will overwhelm it in real R&D investment, at least in dollar value. And R&D is just one of many factors showing that China is eroding the U.S.’s global dominance. Chart 2The U.S. Has Some Competition In September, an inter-agency U.S. government task force initiated by President Trump’s Executive Order 13806 sought to assess the strength of the U.S. defense industrial base and resilience of its supply chains.2 The conclusion was that the U.S.’s military-industrial base is suffering from a series of macro headwinds that need to be addressed urgently. The report cited key domestic issues, such as the erosion of the U.S. manufacturing sector (Chart 3). It argued that the country is rapidly losing the ability to source its defense needs from home, develop human capital for future needs, and surge capabilities in a national emergency. Chart 3Decline Of The U.S. Manufacturing Base However, foreign competition, specifically “Chinese economic aggression,” also holds a central place in the report. The obvious risk is U.S. overreliance on singular Chinese sources for critical inputs, as highlighted during the 2010 rare earth embargo, when Beijing halted exports of these metals to Japan during a flare-up of their maritime-territorial dispute in the East China Sea (Chart 4). Chart 4China’s Rare Earth Supply Chain Leverage The authors’ point is not simply that China’s near-monopoly of rare earths remains a threat to the U.S. supply chain, but that Beijing’s willingness to leverage its advantageous position in the supply chain to coerce its neighbors could be used in other areas. After all, Washington’s reliance on China is rapidly extending to industrial goods that are critical for U.S. defense supply chains, such as munitions for missiles. But Washington’s greatest fear is China’s move into higher-end manufacturing and information technology – and hence the flare-up in tensions over ZTE and Huawei this year. Bottom Line: Technological sophistication and economic output determine which nations rise and which fall over the course of history. While the U.S. can accept China’s eventually surpassing it in economic output, it cannot accept China’s technological superiority. This would translate into military and strategic supremacy over time. Semiconductors: The Next Battlefront While the U.S. lacks a national industrial policy, Beijing has made a concerted effort to promote indigenous production and innovation. The obvious example is Beijing’s state-backed ascent to the top of the global solar panel market. More broadly, China’s export growth has been fastest in the categories of goods where the U.S. has the greatest competitive advantage (Chart 5). Again, the U.S. concern is not market share in itself, but China’s ability to compete as an economically advanced “great power.” Chart 5China’s Comparative Advantage Threatens U.S. Global Market Share Semiconductors are rapidly becoming the next major battleground, as China is trying to build its domestic industry and the U.S. is considering a new slate of export controls that could constrict the flow of computer chips to China.3 Semiconductors are critical as the building blocks of the next generation of technologies. The semiconductor content of the world’s electronic systems is ever rising. Breakthroughs such as artificial intelligence and the Internet of Things (IoT) promise to create a huge boost in demand for chips in the coming decades. China’s predicament is that the U.S. and its allies control 95% of the global semiconductor market (Chart 6), and yet China is the world’s largest importer, making up about a third of all imports, and its largest consumer (Chart 7). This is a dangerous vulnerability that China has been working to mitigate. Back in 2014 Beijing launched a $100-$150 billion semiconductor development program and has more or less stuck with it. The Made in China 2025 program projects that China will produce 70% of its demand for integrated circuits by 2030 (Chart 8). Chart 6China’s Chip Makers Are Still Small FryChart 7China Accounts For 60% Of Global Semiconductor Demand While China-domiciled chip companies have a long way to go, they are rising rapidly, and China has already become a big player in global semiconductor equipment manufacturing (18% market share to the U.S.’s 11%). Chart 8Made In China 2025 Targets The problem for the U.S. is that semiconductors are one area where China runs a large trade deficit. Indeed, the U.S.’s share of China’s market is somewhat larger than the U.S. share of the global market, suggesting that the U.S. has not yet gotten shut out of the market (Chart 9). Chart 9U.S. Chips Still Have An Edge In China Moreover, 60% of U.S. semi imports from China and 70% of exports are with “related parties,” i.e. U.S. corporate subsidiaries operating in China. The U.S.’s highly competitive semiconductor industry is the most exposed to the imposition of tariffs (Chart 10). This may explain why so many exemptions were granted to the U.S. Trade Representative’s third tariff schedule: out of $37 billion in semi-related Chinese imports to face tariffs, $22.9 billion were given waivers.4 Chart 10Tariffs Are Harmful To U.S. Chip Makers The Barack Obama administration, initially faced with China’s disruptive entrance into this sector, determined that the U.S.’s best response would be to “win the race by running faster.” A council on science and technology warned that the U.S. would have to make extensive investments in STEM education, job retraining, manufacturing upgrades, research and development, international collaboration, and export promotion in order to stay ahead.5 However, these initiatives proved to be either too rhetorical (due to policy priorities and gridlock in Washington) or too slow-in-coming to make a difference in light of China’s rapid state-directed investments under the Xi Jinping administration. The Trump administration has obviously taken a more punitive approach. Trump originally focused on China’s alleged currency manipulation and criticized its large trade surpluses with the United States, but his focus has evolved since taking office. Under the influence of U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer – who is now heading up the 90-day talks – Trump’s complaints have given way to a Section 301 investigation into forced technology transfers, intellectual property theft, and indigenous innovation. This investigation eventually provided the justification for imposing tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese imports. Over this time period, it has become clear that there is considerable consensus across the U.S. government, on both sides of the aisle, to take a more aggressive approach with China that includes tariffs, sanctions, foreign investment reviews, and potentially new export controls. Significantly, the high-tech conflict has escalated separately from the trade war: it operates on a different timeline and according to a different set of interests. For example: The ZTE affair: The Commerce Department’s denial order against telecoms equipment maker ZTE came on April 15, even as the U.S. and China were trying (ultimately failing) to negotiate a trade deal to head off the Section 301 tariffs. CFIUS reforms: The U.S. Congress proceeded throughout the summer on its efforts to modernize the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, culminating in the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA). The Treasury Department released its implementing rules for the law in October, which will take effect even as trade negotiations get underway. The secretive body’s major actions have always been to block deals with China or related to China (Table 1). Table 1U.S. Foreign Investment Reviews Usually Hit China Chipmaker sanctions: The U.S. Department of Justice indicted Chinese chipmaker Fujian Jinhua Integrated Circuit despite the November diplomatic “thaw” between the two countries in preparation for the G20 summit.6 This action occurred even as top American and Chinese diplomats and generals engaged in talks intended to simmer down strategic tensions in the South China Sea and elsewhere. New export controls: Despite the 90-day trade talks scheduled through March 1, the U.S. government is currently holding public hearings on whether to expand U.S. export controls to cover a range of emerging technologies. These hearings, to conclude on December 19, are being held pursuant to the Export Control Reform Act signed into law in August along with the CFIUS reform. Most recently, the arrest of Meng Wanzhou, the CFO of Huawei, falls into this trend – casting doubt on the viability of the tariff ceasefire and forthcoming trade talks. The incident highlights how the pace, scale, and momentum of the tech conflict are substantial and will be difficult to reverse. Furthermore, the U.S. is building alliances with like-minded Western countries in order to encourage a unified embargo of Huawei, ZTE, and potentially other Chinese tech companies. In particular the U.S. and its allies are trying to block Chinese companies out of their upcoming 5G networks. The U.S. banned Huawei back in 2012, but it fears that allied countries – particularly those that host U.S. military bases – will have their commercial networks compromised by Huawei.7 5G will enable superfast connections that form the basis of the Internet of Things. If Huawei is embedded in 5G networks, it could theoretically gain unprecedented penetration into Western society and industry. Since China’s Communist Party has prioritized the “fusion” of civilian capabilities with military,8 and since the country’s security forces and cyber regulators are authorized to have access to Chinese companies’ critical infrastructures and data at will, American government departments have been soliciting allied embassies not to adopt Huawei as a supplier despite its competitive pricing and customizability. Australia, New Zealand, and Japan have effectively banned Huawei from 5G for their own reasons; the U.K. and others are considering doing the same. The expansion of this coalition creates a difficult backdrop for negotiating a final trade deal by March 1. And yet the G20 ceasefire clearly improved the odds of such a deal. So what will break first, the tech war or the trade ceasefire? Bottom Line: The tech war is intensifying even as the trade war takes a pause. The large-scale U.S. mobilization of a coalition of states opposed to China’s growing presence is a bad sign for the 90-day talks, though so far they are intact. What A Deal Might Look Like To get a sense of whether the tech war will upend the trade talks, or vice versa, we need to consider what a final trade deal that includes the U.S.’s technological demands would look like. It is significant that on November 20, the eve of the G20 summit, U.S. Trade Representative Lighthizer released a report updating the findings of his Section 301 investigation.9 Lighthizer’s position matters because he is leading the 90-day talks and a critical swing player within the administration.3 Lighthizer’s report is essentially the guideline for the U.S. position in the 90-day talks. It makes the following key claims: China has not altered its abusive and discriminatory trade practices since the Section 301 investigation was concluded. These practices include grave accusations of cyber-theft and industrial espionage. The report also argues that China’s state-driven campaign to acquire tech through mergers and acquisitions is ongoing, despite the drop in Chinese mergers and acquisitions in the United States over 2017-18 (Chart 11). The reason, the USTR alleges, is that China tightened controls on investment in real estate and other non-strategic sectors (essentially capital flight from China), whereas Chinese investment to acquire sensitive technology in Silicon Valley is still intense and is being carried out increasingly through venture capital deals (Chart 12). Chart 11M&A No Longer China’s Best Way To Get Tech...Chart 12...Now Venture Capital Deals Offer A Better Way China’s concessions so far are “incremental” and in some cases deceptive. For instance, China’s propaganda outlets have de-emphasized the “Made in China 2025” program even though the government is continuing apace with this program, as well as other state-subsidized industrial programs that utilize stolen tech, such as the “Strategic Emerging Industries” (SEI) policy. Not only has China maintained certain targets for domestic market share in key technologies, but modifications to the program have in some cases increased these targets, such as in the production of “new energy vehicles” (Chart 13). Other concessions, such as on foreign investment equity caps, are similarly unsatisfactory thus far, according to the USTR. For instance, China’s pledge gradually to allow foreigners to operate wholly owned foreign ventures in the auto sector is said to arrive too late to benefit foreign car manufacturers, who have already spent decades building relationships under required joint ventures. Chart 13The Opposite Of U.S.-China Compromise Trade partners share the U.S.’s concerns and are taking actions to address the same problems. In addition to the aforementioned actions on the 5G, the EU is developing foreign investment review procedures for the first time. Foreign industry groups share the U.S. business lobby’s fear of China’s forced tech transfers. Ultimately, Lighthizer’s report shows both that a trade deal is possible and that it will be extremely difficult to achieve: Possible, because while the report touches on deep structural factors underlying China’s practices, it emphasizes technical issues. Since these issues can often be adjusted by degree, there is ostensibly room to bargain. Difficult, because the main takeaway of the report is that the U.S. is giving China an ultimatum to stop cyber theft and industrial espionage. At minimum, the U.S. will demand assurances that China’s military, intelligence, and cyber agencies will rein in their hacking, spying, and tech acquisition campaigns. Other disputes are more susceptible to tradeoffs, but it will be hard for the U.S. to compromise on a list of grievances that so plainly enumerates national security violations. Can China really compromise on aspects of its Made in China 2025 industrial plan? Possibly. What China cannot compromise on is technological advancement in general, since its future economic sustainability and prosperity depend on it. So China may not accept getting shut out of investment opportunities in Silicon Valley. But if the 2025 plan provokes foreign sanctions, then it interferes with China’s technological advance, and hence can be compromised in order to achieve China’s true end. It makes sense for China and the U.S. to focus on the above tech issues – that is, for the “structural” part of the trade talks – as opposed to any macroeconomic structural demands that are more difficult to pull off at a time when China’s credit cycle is exceedingly weak and the economy is slowing. For instance, on China’s currency, while the U.S. will have to have some kind of agreement, and China has already shown it will allow some appreciation to appease the U.S., China is highly unlikely to agree to a dramatic, Plaza Accord-style currency appreciation. Therefore the negotiators will have to accept a nominal agreement on currency practices, perhaps as an addendum as was done with the U.S.-Korea trade renegotiation. As for other strategic tensions, China is continuing to support the Trump administration’s diplomatic efforts with North Korea. Therefore the U.S. is unlikely to get much traction on its demand that China remove missiles from the South China Sea. But unlike cyber theft and corporate hacking, the South China Sea could conceivably be set aside for the purposes of a short-term trade deal and left for later rounds of negotiations, much as Trump’s border wall with Mexico was set aside during the NAFTA renegotiation. Bottom Line: The U.S. is demanding that China (1) rein in its hacking and spying (2) shift its direct investment to less tech-sensitive sectors (3) adjust its Made in China targets to allow for more foreign competition (4) lower foreign investment equity restrictions. Our sense, from looking at these demands, is that a trade deal is possible. But given the underlying strategic rivalry, and the intensity of the tech conflict, we think it is more likely that the tech war will ultimately derail the trade talks than vice versa. China’s Reform And Opening Up Turns 40 Finally, a word about China’s reforms, which are no longer discussed much by investors, given that many of the ambitious pro-market reforms outlined at the 2013 Third Plenum flopped. This month marks the 40th anniversary of China’s “Reform and Opening Up” policies under Deng Xiaoping. The original Third Plenum, the third meeting of the 11th Central Committee at which Deng launched his sweeping policy changes, occurred on December 18-22, 1978. In the coming days, General Secretary Xi Jinping will commemorate the anniversary with a speech. Various party media outlets have been celebrating reform and opening up over the past few months. We have no interest in adding to the hype. But we do wish to highlight the interesting overlap in the deadline for the trade talks, March 1, with the annual meeting of China’s legislature, when new policy initiatives are rolled out. To conclude a substantive trade deal, China needs to make at least a few structural concessions. And to satisfy the Trump administration, these concessions will have to be implemented, not merely promised, since the administration has argued consistently that past dialogues have gone on forever without tangible results. The surest way to achieve such a compromise would be to strike a trade deal and then begin implementation at the appropriate time in China’s own political calendar, which would be the March NPC session – right after the 90-day negotiation period ends. What kind of structural changes might China make? Of the four points outlined above, the one that is likely to get the most traction is lifting foreign venture equity caps (Table 2). This would be substantive because it would remove an outstanding structural barrier to foreign market access – China’s prohibitive FDI environment – while depriving China of a means of pressuring firms into conducting technology transfers. It would also have the added benefit of attracting investment that could push up the renminbi. Table 2China’s Foreign Investment Equity Caps In this context, we will watch very carefully both for progress in the 90-day talks and for any new and concrete proposals within President Xi’s upcoming economic statements. This includes the annual Central Economic Work Conference as well as the 40th anniversary of the historic Third Plenum. Bottom Line: The basis for a substantial U.S.-China trade deal would be Chinese structural changes to grant the U.S. (and others) greater market access for investment and a safer operating environment for foreign intellectual property. While we remain pessimistic, the reform agenda is important to watch. Investment Conclusions We continue to believe that a final trade deal between the U.S. and China is not likely forthcoming – at least not in the 90-day timeframe. The difficulty of working out a deal with the tech issues above should support this baseline view. Nevertheless, given that there is a possible path forward, and given that Chinese tech stocks are heavily oversold, is now a good time for investors to buy? Our view is no, on a cyclical 6-12 month horizon. Relative to the MSCI China investable index, tech stocks are not so badly beaten down as they first appear (Chart 14). The incredible earnings performance of this sector over the past five years has rolled over lately, as reflected in trailing earnings-per-share. This is true relative to U.S. tech stocks and the global equity market as well (Chart 15). Chart 14China's Tech Selloff In Line With Market Chart 15Tech Earnings Rolled Over Pre-Tariffs Since this is a decline in trailing earnings, it does not stem from the trade war, but rather from internal factors like consumer sentiment and retail sales (given the large weights of consumer-related firms like Alibaba and Tencent in this sector). Relative to global tech stocks, Chinese tech has definitely become less expensive after the recent selloff. But they are still not cheap (Chart 16). Given the headwinds outlined above – the fact that the tech war is more likely to derail the trade talks than the trade talks are likely to resolve the tech war – we think it is too early to bottom-feed. Chart 16Tech Stocks Not All That Cheap In short, U.S.-China tensions are rising when looked at from the perspective of, first, China’s aggressive state-backed industrial programs and technological acquisition and, second, the U.S.’s emerging technological protectionism and alliance formation. Two long-term implications can be drawn: First, many of the United States’ complaints stem not only from China taking advantage of its economic openness, but also from the U.S.’s low-regulation environment and opposition to state-driven industrial policy. The U.S. will not have much luck demanding that China stop pouring billions of dollars of government funds into its nascent industries; it will deprive its own emerging sectors of funds if it prevents Chinese investment into Silicon Valley. In other words, the U.S. will have to become less open and more heavily regulated. The CFIUS reforms and the proposed export controls highlight this trend. In addition, any escalation of tensions will likely result in Chinese reprisals against U.S. companies. The U.S. tech sector is the marginal loser (Table 3). Table 3S&P Tech Companies With Large China Exposure Second, while it is often believed that China is playing “the long game,” the government’s technological acquisition policies suggest a very short-term modus operandi. The allegations of widespread and flagrant use of tech company employees by intelligence agencies, and gross cyber intrusions, if true, imply that China is making a mad dash for technology even at the risk of alienating its trading partners and driving them into a coalition against it. Since no government can overlook the national security implications of such practices, China will continue to suffer from foreign sanctions and embargoes, until it convinces foreign competitors it has changed its ways. As a result, China’s tech and industrial sectors are the marginal losers. The big picture is that the U.S. is setting up a “firewall” of rules and regulations to protect its knowledge and innovation, and China is frantically “downloading” as much data as possible before the firewall is fully operational. This dynamic will be difficult to reverse given that the overall context is one of rising suspicion and strategic distrust.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500-2000 (Random House, 1988). 2      Please see “Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of the United States,” Interagency Task Force in Fulfillment of Executive Order 13806, September 2018, available at media.defense.gov. 3      Please see U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security, “Review of Controls for Certain Emerging Technologies,” Department of Commerce, November 19, 2018, available at www.federalregister.gov. 4      Please see Dan Kim, "Semiconductor Supply Chains and International Trade,” SEMI ITPC, November 5, 2018. 5      Please see President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, “Ensuring Long-Term U.S. Leadership In Semiconductors,” Report to the President, January 2017, available at obamawhitehouse.archives.gov. 6      Please see Department of Justice, “PRC State-Owned Company, Taiwan Company, and Three Individuals Charged With Economic Espionage,” Office of Public Affairs, November 1, 2018, available at www.justice.gov. 7      Please see Stu Woo and Kate O’Keeffe, “Washington Asks Allies To Drop Huawei,” Wall Street Journal, November 22, 2018, available at www.wsj.com. 8      Please see Lorand Laskai, “Civil-Military Fusion and the PLA’s Pursuit of Dominance in Emerging Technologies,” China Brief 18:6, April 9, 2018, available at Jamestown.org. 9      Please see Office of the United States Trade Representative, “Update Concerning China’s Acts, Policies, And Practices Related To Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, And Innovation,” dated November 20, 2018, available at ustr.gov.

Highlights So What? The U.S.-China tariff ceasefire is a net positive, but a final deal is by no means assured. Why? In the near term there may be a play on global risk assets, but beyond that we remain cautious. Global divergence remains the key theme, and China now has less reason to stimulate. What to watch for a final deal: Trump’s approval rating, China’s structural concessions, and geopolitical tensions. We recommend booking gains on our long DM / short EM trades. Go long EM oil producers on OPEC 2.0 cuts. Feature U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping have agreed to a trade truce at the G20 summit in Buenos Aires. The deal includes: Tariff Ceasefire: A 90-day ceasefire – until March 1 – on hiking the second-round tariffs from 10% to 25% on $200bn of Chinese imports. Substantive Talks: The talks will center on structural changes to the Chinese economy, including forced tech transfer, IP theft, hacking, and non-tariff barriers. Vice-Premier Liu He, Xi Jinping’s key economics and trade advisor, may visit Washington in mid-December. Imports: China has agreed to import more goods to lower the U.S. trade deficit, including agricultural and capital goods. This harkens back to the failed May 20 “beef and Boeings” deal. As with the previous deal, there are no deadlines or quantities promised. Not included in the two-and-a-half-hour dinner between Trump and Xi was a substantive discussion on geopolitical tensions. While Chinese statements following the summit did reaffirm Chinese commitment to the U.S.-North Korean diplomacy, there was no broader agreement on tensions, particularly in the South China Sea. The U.S. has recently demanded that China demilitarize the area. Should investors “play” the summit? Tactically, there is an opportunity to play global risk assets in the near term. Cyclically and structurally, however, both economic fundamentals and the underlying trajectory of U.S.-China relations call for caution over the course of 2019. Will The Truce Hold? There are five reasons to doubt the sustainability of the truce: Trade imbalance: It is highly unlikely that the trade imbalance between China and the U.S. can be substantively altered over the course of 90 days. The U.S. economy is in “rude health,” the USD is strong, unemployment is low and pushing up wages, and the output gap is closed. These are the macroeconomic conditions normally associated with an elevated trade imbalance (Chart 1). Chart 1Trade Deficit To Rise Despite Tariffs Domestic politics: The just-concluded midterm election saw no opposition to President Trump on trade. The Democratic Party candidates campaigned against the president on a range of issues throughout the election season, but not on the issue of his aggressive China policy. Polling from the summer also shows that a majority of American voters consider trade with China unfair, unlike trade with other countries (Chart 2). As such, President Trump will have to produce a convincing deal in order to ensure that his base, and many Democrats, support the deal. Chart 2Americans Are Focused On China As Unfair Structural tensions: U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer issued a hawkish report ahead of the G20 summit concluding that China has not substantively changed any of the trade practices that initiated U.S. tariffs.1 The report was an update to the original investigation that launched the Section 301 tariffs against China. Lighthizer’s report therefore provides a road-map for what the U.S. will want to see over the course of 90 days. High-tech transfers: The Department of Commerce announced on November 19 a “Review of Controls for Certain Emerging Technologies.” This review will conclude on December 19 when the public comment period ends. In the report, the federal government lists biotech, AI, genetic computation, microprocessors, data analytics, quantum computing, logistics, 3D printing, robotics, hypersonic propulsion, advanced materials, and advanced surveillance as technologies with potential “dual-use” that may be critical to U.S. national security and thus might merit consideration for export control.2 As such, the U.S. may decide to impose export controls on technologies that China deems critical to accomplishing its “Made in China 2025” goals within the period of the 90 day talks. If those export controls were to include critical items – such as semiconductors, which are critical to China’s export-oriented manufacturing (Chart 3) – negotiations may become more complicated. Geopolitics: The trade truce did not contain any substantive resolution to ongoing strategic tensions between the U.S. and China. These tensions precede President Trump: we have detailed them in these pages since 2012.3 As such, the U.S. defense and intelligence community will have to be on board with any trade deal and that may suggest that Beijing will be asked to make geopolitical concessions over the course of the next 90 days. Chart 3China Accounts For 60% Of Global Semiconductor Demand Despite the above, the trade truce is a meaningful and substantive move away from an open trade war. Yes, the U.S. will retain tariffs on $250bn Chinese imports, with China maintaining tariffs on $66bn of U.S. imports (Chart 4). No, the U.S. did not rule out a third round of tariffs covering the remaining $267 billion of Chinese imports, if things go awry. Nevertheless, the 90-day truce implies that the U.S. will not ratchet up the tensions for now. Chart 4U.S.-China Trade Hit By Tariffs The truce also allows China to make substantive changes to its domestic economic policies that may satisfy some of the structural concerns cited in the above U.S. Trade Representative report. The soundest basis for a durable deal lies in China recommitting to structural reforms: this would both be positive for China’s productivity and would assuage some of Washington’s underlying anxieties about China’s state-backed industrial policies. Significantly, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs now says that it will “gradually resolve the legitimate concerns of the U.S. in the process of advancing a new round of reform and opening up in China.” When would this new round of reform occur? The upcoming Central Economic Work Conference, and the 40th anniversary of Deng Xiaoping’s reforms, should be watched closely for new initiatives. Also, the new March 1 tariff deadline lines up with the calendar for China’s National People’s Congress (NPC). The NPC meets every year and is the occasion when any major new domestic reforms would need to be laid out. Thus, any Chinese compromises on structural issues could be rolled out as part of a more general reform agenda in March. This is important because the U.S. administration is determined to focus on implementation and not to let China delay resolution of differences through endless rounds of dialogue. As such, investors should watch the following issues over the course of the next three months in order to gauge the likelihood of a substantive deal that not only rules out new tariffs but also rolls back the existing ones: Polls: President Trump is focused on his 2020 reelection. As such, he will want to see political gains from the easing of pressure on China, both in the general populace and amongst his GOP base (Chart 5). A slump in the polls, or a threatening turn in the Mueller investigation, may justify a shift in the narrative come March-April and thus end the truce. Chart 5Trump’s Approval Will Affect Trade Talks Big ticket announcements: China is going to have to make big-ticket item purchases. A huge order of Boeing airplanes, a massive ramp-up in the purchase of agricultural products, a raft of direct investments in manufacturing in the heartland … these are the type of announcements that President Trump could use to sell a substantive deal to his base. Structural changes to the Chinese economy: China will have to prove that it is addressing the concerns outlined in the U.S. Trade Representative report. We suspect that Lighthizer issued the report ahead of the G20 summit so as to set the benchmark for what the U.S. wants to see from Beijing. It is a high benchmark as it includes: An end to cyber theft, hacking, and corporate espionage; Substantive, rather than merely “incremental,” improvements to U.S. market access, including increased ownership of ventures; Serious changes to state-subsidized industrial programs that utilize stolen technology, particularly the so-called “Strategic Emerging Industries” program and “Made in China 2025”; An end to China’s state-backed investment campaign in Silicon Valley. No new U.S. embargoes: The public comment period for the newly proposed U.S. export controls ends on December 19. That suggests that high-tech restrictions could emerge over the course of the first quarter of 2019. These could exacerbate tensions. No new geopolitical tensions: Geopolitical tensions, such as over human rights in Xinjiang or the militarization of the South China Sea, would obviously make a deal less likely.  Bottom Line: The trade truce could lead to a substantive trade deal between China and the U.S. However, many impediments remain. Investors have to answer three key questions: is the deal politically useful for President Trump ahead of the 2020 election? Does the deal resolve the concerns laid out in the U.S. Trade Representative’s Section 301 report? And will geopolitical and national security tensions ease? Since 2012, we have had a structurally bearish view of the Sino-American relationship. This view is based on long-term structural factors that we do not think can be resolved over the course of 90 days. That said, every structural view can have cyclical deviations. The question we now turn to is how to play such a cyclical deviation in terms of the markets. What Does The Truce Mean For The Markets? In our view, the trade war has been of secondary importance to global markets. Far more relevant to the BCA House View that DM assets will outperform EM has been our conclusion that U.S. and Chinese economies would experience policy divergence. The U.S. economy has been buoyed by pro-cyclical stimulus, whereas Chinese policymakers have created a macro-prudential framework that has impaired the country’s credit channel. This divergence has led to the outperformance of the U.S. economy over the rest of the world, leading to a substantive USD rally (Chart 6). Chart 6U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD While this view has worked out well in 2018, it appears to be fraying as the year comes to the end: Chart 7U.S. Growth Weakening? Fed dovishness: Our recent travels to Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and the Midwest have revealed unease among investors regarding the health of the U.S. economy. Some recent data, such as the woeful core durable goods orders (Chart 7) and weak housing, have prompted calls for a more dovish Fed. On cue, Fed Chair Jay Powell delivered what was perceived as a dovish speech. BCA’s Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, makes a strong case for why investors should fade the enthusiasm.4 Specifically, Peter thinks that investors are focusing too much on the unknown – the neutral rate – and not enough on the known – the budding inflationary pressures (Chart 8). Nonetheless, in the near-term, the narrative of a “Fed pause” may overwhelm the data. Chart 8Does The Fed Like It Hot? Chart 9Fiscal Policy Becomes More Proactive Chinese stimulus: Evidence of a broad-based, irrigation-style, credit stimulus is scant in China’s data. Nonetheless, many investors we have met on the road are latching on to higher local government bond issuance (Chart 9) and a positive M2 credit impulse (Chart 10). Moreover, Q1 almost always brings a boost in new lending in China. Our colleague Dhaval Joshi, BCA’s Chief European Strategist, has recently pointed out that the global credit impulse has hooked up, suggesting that EM underperformance is over (Chart 11).5 We do not think that China can turn the corner on a slumping economy without a substantive increase in its total social financing, which remains subdued both in growth terms and as a second derivative (Chart 12). However, we concede that the narrative may have shifted sufficiently in the near term to warrant some tactical caution on our cyclical House View. ​​​​​​​Chart 10China's M2 Turned Positive Chart 11An Up-Oscillation In Global Credit Growth Technically Favours EM Trade truce: Trade concerns have had a clear impact on the outperformance of U.S. equities relative to the rest of the world (Chart 13). As such, a trade truce may alter the narrative sufficiently in the near term to change the direction. In this report, we cite why we are cautious regarding the truce leading to a substantive deal. However, we are biased by our structural perspective that Sino-American tensions are unavoidable. The vast majority of our clients and global investors does not share this view. In fact, the trade war has caught the investment community by surprise. As such, we would argue that investors are biased towards a “win-win” scenario. Therefore, investors may not be cautious, but may in fact project a much higher probability of a final deal into their market decisions. Chart 12China's Total Credit Is Weak Chart 13U.S. Is Winning The Trade War Over the course of 2019, we do not think the global risk asset bullishness is sustainable. In fact, a reprieve rally now is going to make global growth resynchronization less likely and continued policy divergence more likely. Why? First, Chinese policymakers will have less of a reason to deploy an irrigation-style credit stimulus if fears of an accelerated trade war abate. Second, the Fed will have less of a reason to back off from its hiking trajectory if both the DXY rally and equity market volatility ease. That said, we are going to close our long DM / short EM trades for the time being. This includes: Our long DM equities / short EM equities, for a gain of 15.70%; Our long U.S. Dollar (DXY) index for a gain of 0.56%; Our long USD / Short EM currency basket for a loss of 0.76%; Our long JPY/GBP call, for a gain of 0.32%. Our hedge of being long China play index ought to outperform on a tactical horizon, so we are leaving it open despite its paltry return so far of 0.32%. Also, we are keeping our long Chinese equities ex. Tech / short EM equities trade, as Chinese assets should rally on the back of the truce. Note that, as outlined above, China’s tech sector is not out of the woods yet. Our decision to close these recommendations is to preserve profits, not change our investment stance. On a cyclical horizon, we remain skeptical that global risk assets will outperform DM, and U.S. assets in particular, over the course of 2019. In the end, we do not believe that a mere narrative shift will be sustainable, especially given the robustness of the U.S. labor market (Chart 14) and the tepidness of Chinese stimulus (Chart 15). Chart 14A Tight Labor Market Chart 15Compare Any Stimulus To Previous Efforts Finally, a word on oil prices. The G20 was crucial for the oil call, as well as the trade war, given that Saudi Arabia and Russia suggested that their OPEC 2.0 union would produce supply cuts at the upcoming Vienna meeting on December 6. This proves that fundamentals were more important than the narrative that Saudi leadership “owed” a favor to President Trump. In particular, the Saudis have fiscal constraints given their budget breakeven oil price is around $80-$85 per barrel. As such, we are reinitiating our long EM energy producers (ex-Russia) / short broad EM (ex-China) equity call. We are excluding Russia from the “long” due to lingering geopolitical concerns – sanctions and Ukraine – and China from the “short,” as we are now tactically bullish on China.   Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see Office of the United States Trade Representative, “Update Concerning China’s Acts, Policies, And Practices Related To Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, And Innovation,” dated November 20, 2018, available at www.ustr.gov. 2      Please see The Federal Register, “Review of Controls for Certain Emerging Technologies,” dated November 19, 2018, available at www.federalregister.gov. 3      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?,” dated September 25, 2012, Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “Searing Sun: Japan-China Conflict Heating Up,” dated January 25, 2013, “Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II,” dated November 6, 2015, and “The South China Sea: Smooth Sailing?,” dated March 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Shades Of 2015,” dated November 30, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5      Please see European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “DM Versus EM, And Two European Psychodramas,” dated November 22, 2018, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 

Special Report

Highlights So What? A trade deal is unlikely at the G20. Stay short CNY/USD. Why? The odds of a U.S.-China tariff ceasefire are around 30%-40%. Investors should see any ceasefire as a temporary reprieve. Stay neutral on Chinese equities. Expect a weaker CNY/USD. Fade any rally in U.S. China-exposed equities. In Taiwan, local elections do not herald a decline in geopolitical risk, which is elevated. Feature The scheduled meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Buenos Aires on December 1 has generated a fair amount of speculation that the trade war will be resolved or at least put on pause. A major de-escalation would bring some consolation to global equity markets that have fallen by 11% since their peak in late January, 2018, especially to Chinese and Asian cyclicals, which have fallen by 27% and 21% respectively over the same time period (Chart 1). Chart 1Desperate For Good News We are doubtful that the summit will cause a major positive catalyst for markets. Yes, it is tempting to think that President Trump could wrap up the whole trade war promptly, just as he wrapped up negotiations with Mexico and Canada in October. If President Xi could add a few sweeteners to concessions he has already made, then Trump could proclaim a “historic new deal” and roll back the tariffs. Equity markets would celebrate. The past year would seem like a bad dream. But this is all fantasy. U.S.-China relations have gotten worse every year since 2008 for a host of economic, political, military, and strategic reasons. Is the current stock market selloff really enough to force Trump into a major capitulation, given that trade tensions were not the primary cause either of the October correction or of the earlier pullback in February? And is Xi really going to make significant concessions with Trump holding bigger threats over his head? We admit that some kind of improvement is plausible – say, a tariff ceasefire and an agreement to launch a new round of talks. We attach a 30%-40% subjective probability to such a scenario. But our base case – which is driven as always by structural factors – is that the summit will turn out to be a flop and the trade war will escalate in 2019. How Likely Is A Tariff Ceasefire? Presidential summits can have major consequences, but context is everything. Trump’s impending meeting with President Xi will be the third since he took office. The first two – in April and November 2017 – did not prevent the trade war. Neither did high-level negotiations in May 2018, which produced a “trade truce” that did not last a week. However, much has changed since then: the U.S. has imposed tariffs on half of Chinese imports, while China has suffered a bear market and some signs of domestic economic stress (Chart 2). Chart 2Signs Of Economic Weakness Over the past month, some developments suggest that the U.S. and China are managing their strategic tensions a bit better than they were earlier this year. Tensions peaked in early October, when the U.S. imposed sanctions on China’s People’s Liberation Army for purchasing Russian Sukhoi-25 jets and S400 surface-to-air missiles, under a law designed to punish Russia for meddling in the U.S.’s 2016 election. Meanwhile CNN reported that the U.S. military was considering staging a “global show of force” in November, a show that would have included sensitive operations in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea. Since then, however, positive signs have emerged: Presidents Trump and Xi confirmed their meeting at the G20 in Buenos Aires. The two sides have exchanged letters and will bring trade negotiators to the summit, making it at least possible for substantive work to be done. Various preparatory discussions have been held, including a phone call between Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and top Chinese economic adviser and negotiator, Vice Premier Liu He. Beijing offered to hold military-to-military talks that it had previously canceled between Defense Minister Wei Fenghe and Secretary of Defense James Mattis. The two officials met in Singapore and in Washington for the second round of the U.S.-China Diplomatic and Security Dialogue. The U.S. and China tentatively agreed to a multilateral protocol for avoiding accidental encounters by military aircraft, supplementing a similar agreement covering unplanned encounters at sea.1 Treasury Secretary Mnuchin met with People’s Bank of China Governor Yi Gang on the sidelines of the World Bank’s annual meeting in Bali, Indonesia in October, and afterwards refrained from accusing China of currency manipulation in the Treasury’s biannual foreign exchange report. Director of the National Trade Council Peter Navarro, a fierce trade hawk on China, is reportedly not attending the G20 summit. National Economic Adviser Larry Kudlow publicly chastised Navarro for criticizing the new negotiations as a Wall Street capitulation to China.2 This piece of anecdotal evidence has captured the imagination of sell-side analysts and many of our clients. These developments, in addition to Trump’s positive tweets on the subject, suggest that both China and the U.S. are trying to step back from the brink and accomplish something at the upcoming summit. However, there are many reasons to take these developments with a grain of salt: China is negotiating under duress: In statements over the past month, and reiterated by President Trump as we go to press, the U.S. has warned that if the G20 summit does not go well, it will ratchet up the pressure. In early December, it might move forward with the third round of threatened tariffs, covering the remaining $267 billion in imports from China. On December 19, the U.S. Department of Commerce will conclude consultations on whether to impose new export controls on “emerging technologies.” And on January 1, 2019, the existing tariff rate on $200 billion worth of imports (the second round) is supposed to rise from 10% to 25%, which implies that a third round of tariffs would eventually have the same rate. Indeed, since the confirmation of the G20 summit, the U.S. has imposed sanctions on Chinese technology companies like Fujian Jinhua. It has also begun implementing a new law strengthening the Committee for Foreign Investment in the United States and its foreign investment reviews, which already mostly target China (Chart 3). Chart 3Rising Scrutiny Of Chinese Investment Further, the U.S. has taken the occasion in the recent military and diplomatic dialogue to demand, for the first time ever, that China remove its missile systems from the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea.3 Some of these moves can be read as evidence that the U.S. will impose penalties for various grievances even if China agrees to some of its key trade demands. The demands on the South China Sea and arms purchases, for instance, will stand even if China makes major concessions on key trade issues like technology acquisition. At minimum, the above details suggest that Xi Jinping will be negotiating with a sword over his head and thus may refuse to make concessions on principle, despite the negative impact on China’s stock market and export sector (Chart 4). Chart 4The Impending Tariff Impact Leaks from the negotiations do not suggest any breakthroughs: China’s written response to Trump’s letter reportedly contains no new, significant trade concessions.4 U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, the sine qua non of any trade deal, has issued a hawkish report on the eve of the summit arguing that China has not substantively changed any of the trade practices that prompted the tariffs so far.5 The report, an update to his initial Section 301 report, makes grave accusations about China’s use of cyber theft and corporate espionage over the past year alone, in addition to earlier years. These activities go far beyond trade disputes and clearly affect national security: a tariff freeze is hardly possible without substantial commitments by China to rein in these operations. Lighthizer also argues that China’s trade concessions so far are merely “incremental” and in several cases deceptive. For instance, China’s propaganda outlets have de-emphasized the “Made in China 2025” program even though the government is continuing apace with this program as well as other state-subsidized industrial programs that utilize stolen tech, such as the “Strategic Emerging Industries” (SEI) policy. Not only has China maintained certain targets for domestic market share in key technologies (Chart 5), but modifications to the program have in some cases increased these targets, such as in the production of “new energy vehicles” (Chart 6). Chart 5China’s High-Tech Protectionism Chart 6More High-Tech Protectionism Lighthizer further claims that China’s state-backed investment campaign in Silicon Valley continues despite a headline reduction in capital flight to the United States. And he also presents evidence that the full range of U.S. government agencies as well as the U.S.’s major allies are observing the same malicious or abusive practices from China and share the U.S.’s concerns. As for China hawk Navarro – who is far less important than Lighthizer to trade negotiations – his status today is not worse than it was in 2017, when his office was subordinated to that of former National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn. Of course, Cohn got fired, while Navarro’s office was upgraded and his pro-tariff argument won out. Trump’s olive branch is suspicious: Trump and his administration adopted friendly rhetoric during the lead-up to the midterm election, when it might have been desirable to show “progress” in the trade negotiations. It would have been impossible to engineer credible signs of progress without genuinely engaging the Chinese. Now, however, the midterms are over and there is no pressing political need for Trump to agree to a deal. Many of our clients – and almost all broker research – believe that Trump has a financial need to agree to a deal – i.e. to calm the stock market. However, there are two problems with this thesis. First, it is not clear that stock performance has had any relationship with President Trump’s approval rating (Chart 7). Chart 7Trump No Slave To Stock Market Second, both of the U.S. stock market pullbacks this year were catalyzed by sharp rises in treasury yields, not disruptive news on the trade front (Chart 8). As such, positive news about the trade war will yield only a passing relief rally in the United States. Chart 8Yields, Not Trade, Drive U.S. Selloff On this basis, we doubt that President Trump will agree to a hurried, watered-down trade deal that the Democrats will slam as a “giveaway” to China for the remaining two years of his presidency. With the U.S. economy fired up, the trade deficit is likely to widen regardless of tariffs (Chart 9), rendering any weak Trump-China deal a humiliation. Chart 9Trade Deficit To Rise Despite Tariffs However, while a trade deal is out of reach, there is a logic to suspending further tariff impositions: Trump may wish to disperse the negative impact of the trade tariffs over a longer period of time. This would give him room to try to settle a very tricky trade agreement before the 2020 election. Then, if the talks succeed, he can present himself as a great dealmaker. If the talks fail, he has all the more ammunition to launch a third round of tariffs. (And on this time frame, the effects of the third round would not be felt by consumers until after the election.) Xi, for his part, may wish to “lock in” Trump with concessions today rather than wait to see how aggressive Trump will become as 2020 draws near. True, Xi cannot afford to “lose face” by capitulating abjectly. But he is the dictator of a regime that has full control of the media; he will be able to suppress domestic criticism of his concessions. In fact, the most insidious criticism of Xi is that he flouted the maxims of both Sun Tzu and Deng Xiaoping by provoking the wrath of China’s greatest enemy prematurely. Thus, if he stays Trump’s hand on tariffs in exchange for a new round of talks or minor concessions, then he comes out of Buenos Aires looking okay. The reason we put this ceasefire scenario at only 30%-40% probability is that we still do not see Trump as heavily constrained by the trade war. His greatest constraint is political and works against a trade deal: it comes from the Democrats, whose protectionist candidates performed very well in the midterm election in the Rust Belt states that are critical for Trump’s reelection (Table 1). Table 1Massive Republican Losses Across The Midwest Economically, our assessment is that the selloff in U.S. financial markets is a correction, not a bear market, and that there is no sign that the U.S. economy is likely to slip into recession (Chart 10). Trump is constrained by the unemployment rate, not by the stock market alone. As long as Trump shares this assessment, he will not be lulled into a politically damaging capitulation to China. Chart 10No Sign Of Recession Yet Also, Xi will fear that difficult concessions will encourage Washington to continue what Chinese government officials have called “trade bullyism,” i.e. using coercive measures and upping its demands. In other words, the main argument for a tariff ceasefire is that Trump might simply prefer one to boost the stock market and thus may accept few or no concessions. And that preference is not enough to change our baseline view in light of his political constraints. Bottom Line: There is no basis for a resolution of the trade war at present, but there is a basis for a tariff ceasefire and a new effort at trade negotiations. Still, it is not our base case. Xi has good reason not to make major concessions under duress and Trump does not want to get outflanked by his political opponents by freezing tariffs without major Chinese concessions. Do Presidential Summits Matter? Have presidential summits between the U.S. and China ever brought about major breakthroughs? Yes, but not since the Great Recession. As Table 2 demonstrates, looking at 50 U.S.-China leadership summits since 1972, only 18 qualify as true “green light” summits in which the outcome was a concrete improvement in relations over the period before the next summit – and 10 of these were during the first decade of the 2000s, the heyday of “Chinamerica,” when China and Emerging Market economies roared ahead while George W. Bush courted China’s cooperation on terrorism and North Korea. Table 2U.S.-China Leaders Summits: A Chronology Only eight summits mark truly historic positive inflection points: Nixon 1972, Carter 1979, Reagan 1984, Clinton 1997, Clinton 2000, Bush 2002, Bush 2005, and arguably Obama 2009. Since 2009, under four different leaders (two from each country), Sino-American relations have categorically worsened. Moreover, both President Obama’s and President Trump’s major meetings with President Xi, at the Sunnylands estate in California in 2013 and at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida in 2017, saw much fanfare at the time but were followed by a significant deterioration in relations. Indeed, the Obama administration launched a more aggressive China policy in September 2015, including freedom of navigation operations in disputed areas of the South China Sea. This was after President Xi declared that China “does not intend to pursue militarization” of the Spratly Islands – a statement that American officials have repeatedly cited when arguing that China’s foreign policy is increasingly aggressive and that China is not following through with diplomatic promises. Investors should focus not on the Trump-Xi summit on December 1 but rather on the two governments’ actions afterwards. The substance of any positive outcome will depend, in particular, on whether Trump indicates that he will proceed with the tariff rate hike on January 1, 2019 and/or the initiation of a third round of tariffs covering the remainder of U.S. imports from China.6 Bottom Line: History does not give reason for optimism about the summit – especially not recent history, in which heavily hyped summits have not been able to arrest the secular decline in U.S.-China cooperation due to underlying strategic distrust. Investment Implications The primary driver of the recent selloff in global risk assets is not the trade war but the divergence between U.S. and Chinese economic policy writ large. The U.S. economy continues to support the case for Fed normalization, while China’s stimulus continues to disappoint. The result is a double whammy for commodity prices and EM assets as the dollar strengthens and exports of resources and capital goods to China soften (Chart 11). Chart 11A Bad Combination For EM Given that China’s December Central Economic Work Conference will likely reinforce the message of greater policy support, and that China tends to frontload new credit expansion in the beginning of the year (Chart 12), it is entirely possible that a rally in global risk assets on the back of positive trade news in late November could gain traction in December and the New Year. BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy will continue to hedge against the risk of substantial reflation in China by means of our Foreign Exchange Strategy’s long “China Play Index” trade (Chart 13). Chart 12China May See A Q1 Credit Spike Chart 13Monitoring The Risk To Our View Fundamentally, however, we would view a December-January rally as a short-term movement that is not worth playing. We expect the Xi administration to remain disciplined in its use of stimulus measures, for the purposes of economic restructuring. Ever worsening trade tensions give Xi the option of blaming the American administration for the economic pain incurred due to his reform agenda. Therefore we think global divergence can persist, which is positive for the dollar and USD/CNY exchange rate. While acknowledging the potential for a near-term rally, we remain neutral Chinese stocks relative to their global counterparts over a 6-12 month horizon and continue to favor low-beta stocks within the Chinese equity universe. We also remain neutral on Taiwanese equities. The ruling Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) loss in local elections on November 24 was severe (Chart 14), though not unexpected. The election result does not change Geopolitical Strategy’s view that Taiwan faces heightened geopolitical risk. Chart 14Taiwanese Voters Seek More Conciliatory Approach To Beijing Indeed, the election suggests that the Tsai Ing-wen administration may only have 14 months remaining in power, and hence that it will try rapidly to finalize some material improvement in the U.S.-Taiwan relationship. Since the Trump administration will also try to exploit this closing window of opportunity, the potential is rising for a controversy to erupt over diplomatic or military relations. This could prompt a negative, market-relevant reaction from Beijing. It is also too soon to bottom-fish within the tech sector in China and the U.S., and we remain pessimistic about the earnings outlook for companies exposed to the U.S.-China trade relationship.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      While these agreements do not ensure collisions will not occur, given the USS Decatur incident earlier this year, they are at least a sign of coordination. 2      Navarro had said the following at a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies: “Consider the shuttle diplomacy that’s now going on by a self-appointed group of Wall Street bankers and hedge fund managers between the U.S. and China. As part of a Chinese government influence operation, these globalist billionaires are putting a full-court press on the White House in advance of the G-20 in Argentina. The mission of these unregistered foreign agents – that’s what they are; they’re unregistered foreign agents – is to pressure this president into some kind of deal.” Please see “Economic Security as National Security: A Discussion with Dr. Peter Navarro,” CSIS, November 13, 2018, available at www.csis.org. 3      Please see U.S. Department of State, “U.S.-China Diplomatic and Security Dialogue,” November 9, 2018, available at www.state.gov.   For the proposed export controls, open for public comment until December 19, 2018, please see U.S. Department of Commerce, “Review of Controls for Certain Emerging Technologies,” Bureau of Industry and Security, November 19, 2018, available at www.bis.doc.gov. 4      Please see Jeff Mason and David Shepardson, “Exclusive: China sends written response to U.S. trade reform demands - U.S. government sources,” Reuters, November 14, 2018, available at www.reuters.com. 5      Please see Office of the United States Trade Representative, “Update Concerning China’s Acts, Policies, And Practices Related To Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, And Innovation,” dated November 20, 2018, available at https://ustr.gov/ 6      It is very unlikely, but perhaps not impossible, that China would accept a ceasefire that allows the January 1 tariff hike to go forward but forswears the third round of tariffs on the remaining Chinese imports.

Highlights So What? The Trump administration is focusing on re-election in 2020, which could push the recession call into 2021. Why? The midterms were investment-relevant, just not in the way most of our clients thought. We are downgrading our alarmism on Iran; Trump is aware of his constraints. But investor optimism regarding the trade war may be overdone. China has contained its capital outflows, which suggests Beijing will be comfortable with more CNY/USD downside. A new GPS mega-theme: Bifurcated Capitalism! Watch carefully for any upcoming trade action on semiconductors. Feature There is no better feeling than hearing from our clients that we got a call wrong because we misjudged the constraints of the Trump administration by focusing too much on its preferences. Why? Because it means that clients are keeping us honest by employing our most important method: constraints over preferences. This is one of the takeaways from a quarter filled with meetings with our clients in the Midwest, Toronto, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, Frankfurt, Berlin, Auckland, Melbourne, Sydney, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and sunny Marbella, Spain! In this report, we discuss several pieces of insight from our clients. Midterms Are Investment Relevant Generally speaking, few of our clients agreed with our assessment that the midterm elections were not investment-relevant. The further away from the U.S. we traveled, the greater the sense among investors that equity markets influence U.S. politics: both the upcoming takeover of the House of Representatives by the Democratic Party and the odds of trade war intensification. We strongly disagree with this assessment. Both periods of equity market turbulence this year were preceded by a rising U.S. 10-year yield, not any particularly damning trade war chatter (Chart 1). In fact, the intensification of the trade war this summer occurred amidst a fairly buoyant S&P 500! Meanwhile, the odds of a Democratic takeover of the House were priced in well before the October equity decline began. Chart 1Yields, Not Trade, Matter For Stocks Generally speaking, even midterms that produce gridlock have led to a relief rally (Chart 2). This time could be the same, especially because the likely next Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has signalled that the main policy goal for 2019 would be infrastructure spending. In her "victory" speech following the election, Pelosi mentioned infrastructure numerous times (impeachment, zero times). Chart 2Stocks Are Indifferent To Midterm Results Democratic Representative Peter DeFazio, likely head of the House of Representatives committee overseeing transportation, has already signalled that he will ask for "real money, real investment."1 DeFazio has previously proposed a $500bn infrastructure plan, backed by issuance of 30-year Treasuries and raising fuel taxes. He has rejected the February 2017 Trump proposal, which largely relied on raising private money for the job. Would President Trump go with such a plan? Maybe. In early 2018, he stunned lawmakers by saying that he supported hiking the federal gasoline tax by 25 cents a gallon (the federal 18.4 cent-a-gallon gasoline tax has not been hiked since 1993). He has since confirmed that "everything is on the table" to achieve an infrastructure deal. Several clients from around the world pointed out that both Democrats and President Trump have an incentive to make a deal. President Trump wants to avoid the deeply negative fiscal thrust awaiting him in 2020 (Chart 3). Given the House takeover by the Democrats, it is tough to imagine that new tax cuts are the means for Trump to avoid the "stimulus cliff." As such, another round of stimulative fiscal spending may be the only way for him to avoid a late-2020 recession (although the latter is currently the BCA House View). Chart 3Can Trump And Pelosi Reverse... Democrats, on the other hand, have an incentive to ditch "Resistance" and embrace policy-making. Yes, hastening the recession in 2020 would be the Machiavellian play, but President Trump would be able to blame Democrats for the downturn - since they will necessarily have had to participate in planning an infrastructure bill only to sink it. They also learned the lesson from the January 2018 government shutdown, which backfired at the polls and forced Senate Democrats to come to an agreement quickly on a two-year stimulative budget deal. What about the GOP fiscal conservatives? They don't necessarily need to come on board. The House is held by Democrats. And the Democrats in the Senate would only need 15-18 GOP Senators to support a profligate infrastructure plan. Given that infrastructure is popular, that the president will be pushing it, and that the GOP-controlled Senate agreed with the budget bill in January, we think that even more Republican Senators can go along with an infrastructure plan. Another big takeaway from the midterms is that the GOP suffered deep losses in the Midwest. President Trump's party lost ten out of twelve races in the region (Table 1). The two most representative contests were the loss of Republican Wisconsin Governor and one-time rising presidential star Scott Walker, and the victory of the left-wing and über-protectionist Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio. Table 1Massive Republican Losses Across The Midwest Senator Brown won his contest comfortably by 6.4% in a state that Trump carried by 8.13%. The appeal of Brown to the very blue-collar voters that Trump himself won is obvious. On trade, there is no daylight between the left-wing Brown and President Trump. Meanwhile, Walker, an establishment Republican who built his reputation on busting public-sector unions, could not replicate Trump's success in Wisconsin. Several of our clients suggested that the GOP performance in the Midwest was poor because of the aggressive trade rhetoric. But that makes little sense. Republicans did not run Trump-style populists in the Midwest, to their obvious detriment. Democrats have always claimed to be for "fair trade" rather than "free trade." And we know, empirically, that Trump saw a key swing of turnout in 2016 in these states, largely thanks to his protectionist rhetoric (Chart 4). Chart 4Trump Owes The Midwest The Presidency President Trump cannot take Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin lightly. His performance in 2016 was extraordinary, but also tight. The Democrats will win these states if Trump does not grow voter turnout and support, according to demographic projections - and they lost them by less than a percentage point of white voters (Map 1). As such, we think that Democrats will talk tough on trade and try to reclaim their union and blue-collar voters, while President Trump has to double down on an aggressive trade posture towards China. Map 1Can 'White Hype' Work In 2020? Trump's Margins Are Small The midterms are investment relevant after all, but not in the way some might think. The Democratic takeover of the House, and the resultant gridlock, will potentially avert the "stimulus cliff" in 2020. This ought to support short-term inflation expectations and thus allow the Fed to stay-the-course. For markets, this could be unsettling given the correlation between yields and downturns in 2018. For the dollar, this should be supportive. The odds of an infrastructure deal are good, above 50%, with the key risk being a Democratic House focused on impeaching Trump. Such a bill would augur even higher levels of fiscal spending through 2020, possibly prolonging the business cycle, and setting up an even wider budget deficit when the next recession hits (Chart 5). Chart 5Pro-Cyclical Policy Has To Continue Meanwhile, the shellacking in the Midwest ought to embolden the president to go even harder against China on trade. Rather than the upcoming Xi-Trump meeting in Buenos Aires, the key bellwether of this thesis is whether Trump signals afterwards that he will implement the tariff rate hike on January 1, 2019 (and whether he announces a third round of tariffs). Bottom Line: Go long building products and construction material stocks. Stay short China-exposed S&P 500 companies. The 10-year yield may end the year even closer to 3.5% when the market realizes that the odds of an infrastructure deal are higher than previously thought. The political path of least resistance in the U.S. continues to point towards greater profligacy. Trump Is Aware Of His Constraints In The Middle East Throughout 2018, we have flagged U.S.-Iran tensions as the risk for 2019. In early October, we went long Brent / short S&P 500 as a hedge against this risk, a trade that we closed for a 6% gain last week. During our meetings with clients this quarter, however, several astute observers pointed out that in our own analyses we have stressed the geopolitical and political constraints to President Trump. First, we have argued that the original 2015 nuclear deal signed by President Obama had a deep geopolitical logic, allowing the U.S. to pivot to Asia and stare down China by geopolitically deleveraging the U.S. from the Middle East. If President Trump undermined the détente with Iran, he would be opening up a two-front conflict with both China and Iran, diluting his administration's focus and capabilities. Second, we noted that a rise in oil prices could precipitate an early recession and push up gasoline prices in 2019, a probable death knell for any president's re-election prospects. Our clients were right to ask: Why would President Trump face down these constraints, given the high cost that he would incur? We did not have a very good answer to this question. It is difficult to understand President Trump's preferences for raising tensions against Iran beyond the fact that he promised to do so in his campaign, appears to want to undermine all of President Obama's policies, and turned to Iran hawks to head his foreign policy. Are these preferences worth the risk of a recession in 2019? Or worth the risk of triggering yet another military conflict in the Middle East over a country that only 7% of Americans consider is the 'greatest enemy' (Chart 6)? Chart 6Americans Don't Perceive Iran As 'The Greatest Enemy' Given that the administration has offered exemptions to the oil embargo to eight key importers, it now appears that President Trump is well aware of his geopolitical and domestic constraints. The combined imports of Iranian oil by these eight states is ~1.4mm b/d. While we do not have the detail of the volumes that will be allowed under the waivers, it is likely that these Iranian sales will recover some of the ~1mm b/d of exports lost already (Chart 7). Chart 7Waivers Will Restore Iranian Exports For 180 Days What does this mean for investors? On one hand, it means that the risk of oil prices spiking north of $100 per barrel have substantively decreased. On the other hand, however, it also means that the Trump administration agrees with BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy view that oil markets remain tight and that OPEC 2.0's spare capacity may be a constraint to future production increases. Bottom Line: The risks of an oil-price-shock-induced 2019 recession have fallen. However, oil prices may yet surge in 2019 to the $85-95 level (Brent) on the back of supply risks in Venezuela and Iran, especially if Saudi Arabia and Russia prove unable to expand production much beyond their current levels. Most of our clients in the Middle East shared the skepticism of our commodity strategists that Saudi Arabia would be able to increase production much higher than current levels in 2019. However, the view was not unanimous. Risks Of Saudi Arabia Going Rogue Have Declined Clients in the Middle East were convinced that the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi would have no impact on Saudi oil production decisions. However, the insight from the region is that the incident has probably ended the "blank cheque" that the Trump administration initially gave Riyadh on foreign policy. For global investors, this may not have a major impact. But it may have been at least part of the administration's reasoning behind giving embargo exemptions to such a large number of economies. The incident has likely forced Saudi Arabia to adjust its calculus on three issues: Qatar: The Saudi-Qatari split never made much sense in the first place. It was initially endorsed by President Trump, who may not have understood the strategic value of Qatar to the United States. Defense Secretary James Mattis almost immediately responded by reaffirming the U.S. commitment to the Persian Gulf country which hosts one of the most strategic U.S. air bases in the world. Yemen: The U.S. has now openly called on Saudi Arabia to end its military operations in Yemen. We would expect Riyadh to acquiesce to the request. Iran: With the U.S. giving major importers of Iranian oil exemptions, the message is twofold. First, the U.S. cares about its domestic economic stability. Second, the U.S. does not care about Saudi domestic economic stability. Our commodity strategists believe that Saudi fiscal breakeven oil price is around $85. As such, the U.S. decision to slow-roll the sanctions against Iran will be received with chagrin in Riyadh, especially as the latter will now have to shoulder both lower oil prices and the American request for higher output. Could Saudi Arabia break with the U.S.? Not a chance. The U.S. is the Saudis' security guarantor. As such, it is up to Saudi Arabia to acquiesce to American foreign policy goals, not the other way around. While we think that President Trump ultimately succumbed to geopolitical and political constraints when he decided to take the "phoney war" approach to Iran, he may have been nudged in that direction by Khashoggi's tragic murder. Bottom Line: A major risk for investors in 2019 was that the Trump administration would treat Saudi preferences for a major confrontation with Iran as its own interests. Such a strategy would have destabilized the global oil markets and potentially have unwound the 2015 U.S.-Iran détente that has allowed the U.S. to focus on China. However, the death of Khashoggi has marginally hurt President Trump domestically - given that it makes him look soft on Saudi Arabia, an unpopular stance in the U.S. Moreover, the administration has come to grips with the risks of a dire oil shock should Iran retaliate. The shift in U.S. policy vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia will therefore refocus the Trump administration on its own priorities, not that of its ally in the Middle East. Trade War Is All About CNY/USD In The Short Term... Clients in Australia and New Zealand are the most sophisticated Western investors when it comes to China. The level of macro understanding of the Chinese economy and the markets in these two countries is unparalleled (outside of China itself, of course). We therefore always appreciate the insights we pick up from our clients Down Under. And they are convinced that the massive capital outflow from China has clearly ceased. The flow of Chinese capital into Auckland, Melbourne, and Sydney real estate has definitely slowed, and anecdotal evidence appears to be showing up in the price data (Chart 8). Separately, this intel has been confirmed by clients from British Columbia and California. Chart 8Pacific Rim Home Prices Rolling Over The reality is that China has successfully closed its capital account. How else can we explain that a 4.7% CNY/USD depreciation in 2015 precipitated a $483 billion outflow of forex reserves, whereas a 10.1% depreciation this year has not had a major impact (Chart 9)? Chart 9On Balance, China Is Experiencing Modest Outflows To be fair, forex reserves declined by $34bn in October, but that is still a far cry from the panic in 2015. Our other indicators suggest that the impact on capital seepage is muted this time around, largely due to the official crackdown on various forms of capital outflows: Quarterly data (Chart 10) reflecting the change in foreign exchange reserves minus the sum of the current account balance and FDI, indicate that while net inflows have remained negative, they are still a far cry from 2015 levels. Chart 10Far Cry From 2016 Crisis Import data (Chart 11) no longer show the massive deviation between Chinese national statistics and IMF figures. Imports from Hong Kong (Chart 12), specifically, are now down to normal levels, with the fake invoicing problem having quieted down for now. Chart 11No More Confusion Regarding Imports Chart 12Fake Invoicing Has Been Curbed Growth rate of foreign reserves (Chart 13) is not clearly contracting yet, and has been positive this year. Chart 13Severe FX Reserve Drawdown Has Ended Chinese foreign borrowing (Chart 14) is down from stratospheric levels, which limits the volume of potential outflows. Chart 14China's Foreign Lending Has Eased And the orgy of M&A and investment deals in the U.S. (Chart 15) has ended. Chart 15M&A Deals Have Eased Bottom Line: Anecdotal and official data suggest that capital outflows are in check despite their recent uptick. This could embolden Chinese leaders to continue using CNY/USD depreciation as their primary weapon against President Trump's tariffs, especially if the global backdrop is not collapsing. An increase of the 10% tariff rate to 25% on January 1 could, therefore, precipitate further weakness in the CNY/USD. The announcement of a third round of tariffs covering the remainder of Chinese imports could do the same. This would be negative for global risk assets, particularly EM equities and currencies. ... In the Long Term, Bifurcated Capitalism Our annual pilgrimage to Oceania included our traditional meeting with The Smartest Man In Oceania The Bloke From Down Under.2 He shares our belief that the long-term result of the broader Sino-American geopolitical conflict will be a form of Bifurcated Capitalism. His exact words were that "countries may soon have to choose between being in the Amazon or Alibaba camp," a great real-world implication of our mega-theme. Australian and New Zealand clients are particularly sensitive to the idea that the world may soon be split into spheres of influence because both countries are so high-beta to China, while obviously retaining their membership card in the West. Our suspicion is that both will be fine as they export mainly a high-grade and diversified range of commodities to China. Short of war, it is unlikely that the U.S. will one day demand that New Zealand stop its dairy exports to China, or that Australia stop iron ore and LNG exports. Countries exporting semiconductors to China, on the other hand, could face a choice between enforcing a future embargo or incurring the wrath of their closest military ally. The Bloke From Down Under has pointed out that, given China's dependency on semiconductor technology, a U.S. embargo of this critical tech could be comparable to the U.S. oil embargo against Japan that precipitated the latter's attack on Pearl Harbor. Chart 16China Accounts For 60% Of Global Semiconductor Demand The global semiconductor market reached $354 billion in 2016, with China accounting for 60% of total consumption (Chart 16). Despite the country's insatiable appetite for semiconductors, no Chinese firm is among the world's top 20 makers. This is why Beijing's "Made in China 2025" plan has focused so much on semiconductor capability (Chart 17). The goal is for China to become self-sufficient in semiconductors, gaining 35% share of the global design market. Chart 17China's High-Tech Protectionism A key feature of Bifurcated Capitalism will be impairment of investment in high-tech that has dual-use applications in military. Semiconductors obviously make that list. Another key feature would be investment restrictions in such high-tech sectors, particularly the kind of investments and M&A deals that China has been looking for in the U.S. this decade. Further, clients in California are very concerned about the U.S.'s proposed export controls, which would cut off access to China and wreak havoc on the industry. The Trump administration has already signalled that it will restrict Chinese inbound investment. Congress passed, with a large bipartisan majority, an expanded review system, the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA). The law has expanded the purview of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), a secretive interagency panel nominally under control of the Treasury Department that can block inbound investment on national security grounds. CFIUS, at its core, has always been an entity focused on China. While the Treasury Department initially signalled it would take as much as 18 months to adopt the new FIRRMA rules, Secretary Mnuchin has accelerated the process. The procedure now will expand review from only large-stake takeovers to joint ventures and smaller investments by foreigners, particularly in technology deemed critical for national security reasons. This oversight began on November 10 and will allow CFIUS to block foreigners from taking a stake in a business making sensitive technology even if it gives the foreign investors merely a board seat. Countries of "special concern" will inherently receive heightened scrutiny, and a country's history of compliance with U.S. law, as well as cybersecurity and American citizens' privacy, will be considerations. A new interagency process led by the Commerce Department will focus on refurbishing export controls so as to protect "emerging and foundational technologies." Such impediments to capital flows are likely to become endemic and expand beyond the U.S. We may be seeing the first steps in the Bifurcated Capitalism concept that one day comes to dominate the global economy. Entire countries and sectors may become off-limits to Western investors and vice-versa for Chinese market participants. At the very least, companies whose revenue growth is currently slated to come from expansion in overseas markets may see those expectations falter. At its most pessimistic, however, Bifurcated Capitalism may precipitate geopolitical conflict if it denies China or the U.S. critical technology or commodities. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see David Shepardson, "Democrats to push for big infrastructure bill with 'real money' in 2019," Reuters, dated November 7, 2018, available at reuters.com. 2 At the time of publication, the said investor was unable to secure the permission of his wife for the "The Smartest Man" moniker. Geopolitical Calendar

Special Report

Highlights So What? Donald Trump's reelection depends on the timing of the next recession. Why? The midterm elections will not determine Trump's reelection chances. Rather, the timing of the next recession will. BCA's House View expects it by 2020. Otherwise, President Trump is favored to win. Trump may be downgrading "maximum pressure" on Iran, reducing the risk of a 2019 recession. Trade war with China, gridlock, and budget deficits are the most investment-relevant outcomes of U.S. politics in 2018-20. Feature The preliminary results of the U.S. midterm elections are in, with the Democrats gaining the House and failing to gain the Senate, as expected. Our view remains that the implications for investors are minimal. The policy status quo is now locked in - a gridlocked government is unlikely to produce a major change in economic policy over the next two years. While the election is to some extent a rebuke to Trump, this report argues that he remains the favored candidate for the 2020 presidential election - unless a recession occurs. A Preliminary Look At The Midterms First, the preliminary takeaways from the midterms, as the results come in: The Democrats took the House of Representatives, with a preliminary net gain of 27 seats, resulting in a 51%-plus majority, and this is projected to rise to 34 seats as we go to press Wednesday morning. This is above the average for midterm election gains by the opposition party, especially given that Republicans have held the advantage in electoral districting. Performance in the Midwest, other swing states, and suburban areas poses a threat to Trump and Republicans in 2020. Republicans held the Senate, with a net gain of at least two seats, for a 51%-plus majority. Democrats were defending 10 seats in states that Trump won in 2016. While Democrats did well in the Midwest, these candidates had the advantage of incumbency. On the state level, the Democrats gained a net seven governorships, two of them in key Midwestern states. The gubernatorial races were partly cyclical, as the Republicans had hit a historic high-water mark in governors' seats and were bound to fall back a bit. However, the Democratic victory in Michigan and Wisconsin, key Midwestern Trump states, is a very positive sign for the Democrats, since they were not incumbents in either state and had to unseat incumbent Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin. (Their victory in Maine could also help them in the electoral college in 2020.) The governors' races also suggest that moderate Democrats are more appealing to voters than activist Democrats. Candidate Andrew Gillum's loss in Florida is a disappointment for the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.1 With the House alone, Democrats will not be able to push major legislation through. In the current partisan environment it will be nigh-impossible to reach the 60 votes needed to end debate in the Senate ("cloture"), and even then House Democrats will face a presidential veto. They will not be able to repeal Trump's tax cuts, re-regulate the economy, abandon the trade wars, resurrect Obamacare, or revive the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal. Like the Republicans after 2010, they will be trapped in the position of controlling only one half of one of the three constitutional branches. The most they can do is hold hearings and bring forth witnesses in an attempt to tarnish Trump's 2020 reelection chances. They may eventually bring impeachment articles against him, but without two-thirds of the Senate they cannot remove him from office (unless the GOP grassroots abandons him, giving senators permission to do so). U.S. equities generally move upward after midterm elections - including midterms that produce gridlock (Chart 1A & Chart 1B). However, the October selloff could drag into November. More worryingly, as Chart 1B shows, the post-election rally tends to peter out only six months after a gridlock midterm, unlike midterms that reinforce the ruling party. Chart 1AMidterm U.S. Elections Tend To Be Bullish... Chart 1B... But Markets Lose Steam Six Months Post-Gridlock However, the 2018 midterms could be mildly positive for the markets, as they do not portend any major new policies or uncertainty. Trump's proposed additional tax cuts would have threatened higher inflation and more Fed rate hikes, whereas House Democrats will not be able to raise taxes or cut spending alone. Bipartisan entitlement reform seems unlikely in 2018-20 given the acrimony of the two parties and structural factors such as inequality and populism. An outstanding question is health care, which Republicans left unresolved after failing to repeal Obamacare, and which exit polls show was a driving factor behind Democratic victories. Separately, as an additional marginal positive for risk assets, the Trump administration has reportedly granted eight waivers to countries that import Iranian oil. We have signaled that Trump's "maximum pressure" doctrine poses a key risk for markets due to the danger of an Iran-induced oil price shock. A shift toward more lax enforcement reduces the tail-risk of a recession in 2019 (Chart 2). Of course, the waivers will expire in 180 days and may be a mere ploy to ensure smooth markets ahead of the midterm election, so the jury is still out on this issue. Chart 2Rapid Increases In Oil Prices Tend To Precede Recessions This brings us to the main focus of this report: what do the midterms suggest about the 2020 election? Bottom Line: The midterm elections have produced a gridlocked Congress. Trump can continue with his foreign policy, most of his trade policy, his deregulatory decrees, and his appointment of court judges with limited interference from House Democrats. The only thing the Democrats can prevent him from doing is cutting taxes further. He tends to agree with Democrats on the need for more spending! While the U.S. market could rally on the back of this result, we do not see U.S. politics being a critical catalyst for markets going forward. On balance, a gridlocked result brings less uncertainty than would otherwise be the case, which is positive for markets in the short term. The Midterms And The 2020 Election There is a weak relationship at best between an opposition party's gains in the midterms and its performance in the presidential election two years later. Given that the president's party almost always loses the midterms - and yet that incumbent presidents tend to be reelected - the midterm has little diagnostic value for the presidential vote, as can be seen in recent elections (Chart 3A & Chart 3B). Chart 3AMidterm Has Little Predictive Power For Presidential Popular Vote ... Chart 3B... Nor For Presidential Electoral College Vote Nevertheless, historian Allan Lichtman has shown that since 1860, a midterm loss is marginally negative for a president's reelection chances.2 And for Republicans in recent years, losses in midterm elections are very weakly correlated with Republican losses of seats in the electoral college two years later (Chart 4). Chart 4Republican Midterm Loss Could Foreshadow Electoral College Losses Still, this midterm election does not give any reason to believe that Trump's reelection chances have been damaged any more than Ronald Reagan's were after 1982, or Bill Clinton's after 1994, or Barack Obama's after 2010. All three of these presidents went on to a second term. A midterm loss simply does not stack the odds against reelection. Why are midterm elections of limited consequence for the president? They are fundamentally different from presidential elections. For instance, "the buck stops here" applies to the president alone, whereas in the midterms voters often seek to keep the president in check by voting against his party in Congress.3 Despite the consensus media narrative, the president is not that unpopular. Trump's approval rating today is about the same as that of Clinton and Obama at this stage in their first term (Chart 5). This week's midterm was not a wave of "resistance" to Trump so much as a run-of-the-mill midterm in which the president's party lost seats. Its outcome should not be overstated. Bottom Line: There is not much correlation between midterms and presidential elections. The best historians view it as a marginal negative for the incumbent. This result is not a mortal wound for Trump. Chart 5President Trump Is Hardly Losing The Popularity Contest 2020: The Recession Call Is The Election Call The incumbent party has lost the White House every single time that a recession occurred during the campaign proper (Chart 6).4 The incumbent party has lost 50%-60% of the time if recession occurred in the calendar year before the election or in the first half of the election year. Chart 6A 2020 Recession Is Trump's Biggest Threat This is a problem for President Trump because the current economic expansion is long in the tooth. In July 2019, it will become the longest running economic expansion in U.S. history, following the 1991-2001 expansion. The 2020 election will occur sixteen months after the record is broken, which means that averting a recession over this entire period will be remarkable. BCA's House View holds that 2020 is the most likely year for a recession to occur. The economy is at full employment, inflation is trending upwards, and the Fed's interest rate hikes will become restrictive sometime in 2019. The yield curve could invert in the second half of 2019 - and inversion tends to precede recession by anywhere from 5-to-16 months (Table 1). No wonder Trump has called the Fed his "biggest threat."5 Table 1Inverted Yield Curve Is An Ominous Sign The risks to this 2020 recession call are probably skewed toward 2021 instead of 2019. The still-positive U.S. fiscal thrust in 2019 and possibly 2020 and the Trump administration's newly flexible approach to Iran sanctions, if maintained, reduce the tail-risk of a recession in 2019. If there is not a recession by 2020, Trump is the favored candidate to win. First, incumbents win 69% of all U.S. presidential elections. Second, incumbents win 80% of the time when the economy is not in recession, and 76% of the time when real annual per capita GDP growth over the course of the term exceeds the average of the previous two terms, which will likely be the case in 2020 unless there is a recession (Chart 7). Chart 7Relative Economic Performance Could Give Trump Firepower The above probabilities are drawn from the aforementioned Professor Allan Lichtman, at American University in Washington D.C., who has accurately predicted the outcome of every presidential election since 1984 (except the disputed 2000 election). Lichtman views presidential elections as a referendum on the party that controls the White House. He presents "13 Keys to the Presidency," which are true or false statements based on historically derived indicators of presidential performance. If six or more of the 13 keys are false, the incumbent will lose. On our own reading of Lichtman's keys, Trump is currently lined up to lose a maximum of four keys - two shy of the six needed to unseat him (Table 2). This is a generous reading for the Democrats: Trump's party has lost seats in the midterm election relative to 2014; his term has seen sustained social unrest; he is tainted by major scandal; and he is lacking in charisma. Yet on a stricter reading Trump only has one key against him (the midterm). Table 2Lichtman's Thirteen Keys To The White House* What would it take to push Trump over the edge? Aside from a recession (which would trigger one or both of the economic keys against him), he would need to see two-to-four of the following factors take shape: a serious foreign policy or military failure, a charismatic Democratic opponent in 2020, a significant challenge to his nomination within the Republican Party, or a robust third party candidacy emerge. In our view, none of these developments are on the horizon yet, though they are probable enough. For instance, it is easy to see Trump's audacious foreign policy on China, Iran, and North Korea leading to a failure that counts against him. Thus, as things currently stand, Trump is the candidate to beat as long as the economy holds up. What about impeachment and removal from office prior to 2020? As long as Trump remains popular among Republican voters he will prevent the Senate from turning against him (Chart 8). What could cause public opinion to change? Clear, irrefutable, accessible, "smoking gun" evidence of personal wrongdoing that affected Trump's campaigns or duties in office. Nixon was not brought down until the Watergate tapes became public - and that required a Supreme Court order. Only then did Republican opinion turn against him and expose him to impeachment and removal - prompting him to resign. Chart 8Trump Cannot Be Removed From Office All that being said, Trump tends to trail his likeliest 2020 adversaries in one-on-one opinion polling. Given our recession call, we would not dispute online betting markets giving Trump a less-than-50% chance of reelection at present (Chart 9). The Democratic selection process has hardly begun: e.g. Joe Biden could have health problems, and Michelle Obama, Oprah Winfrey, or other surprise candidates could decide to run. The world will be a different place in 2020. Bottom Line: The recession call is the election call. If BCA is right about a recession by 2020, then Trump will lose. If we are wrong, then Trump is favored to win. Chart 9A Strong Opponent Has Yet To Emerge Is It Even Possible For Trump To Win Again? Election Scenarios Is it demographically possible for Trump to win? Yes. In 2016 BCA dubbed Trump's electoral strategy "White Hype," based on his apparent attempt to increase the support and turnout of white voters, primarily in "Rust Belt" battleground states. While Republican policy wonks might have envisioned a "big tent" Republican Party for the future, demographic trends in 2016 suggested that this strategy was premature. Indeed, drawing from a major demographic study by the Center for American Progress and other Washington think tanks,6 we found that a big increase in white turnout and support was the only 2016 election scenario in which a victory in both the popular vote and electoral college vote was possible. In other words, while "Minority Outreach" have worked as a GOP strategy in the future, Donald Trump's team was mathematically correct in realizing that only White Hype would work in the actual election at hand. This strategy did not win Trump the popular vote, but it did secure him the requisite electoral college seats, notably from the formerly blue of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Comparing the 2016 results with our pre-election projections confirms this point: Trump won the very swing states where he increased white GOP support and lost the swing states where he did not. Pennsylvania is the notable exception, but he won there by increasing white turnout instead of white GOP support.7 Can Trump do this again? Yes, but not easily. Map 1 depicts the 2016 election results with red and blue states, plus the percentage swing in white party support that would have been necessary to turn the state to the opposite party (white support for the GOP is the independent variable). In Michigan, a 0.3% shift in the white vote away from Republicans would have deprived Trump of victory; in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, a 0.8% shift would have done the same; in Florida, a 1.5% change would have done so. Map 1The 'White Hype' Strategy Narrowly Worked In 2016 Critically, the country's demographics have changed significantly since 2016 - to Trump's detriment. The white eligible voting population in swing states will have fallen sharply from 81% of the population to 76% of the population by 2020 (Chart 10). Chart 10Demographic Shift Does Not Favor Trump Thus, to determine whether Trump still has a pathway to victory, we looked at eight scenarios, drawing on the updated Center for American Progress study. The assumptions behind the scenarios in Table 3 are as follows: Status Quo - This replicates the 2016 result and projects it forward with 2020 demographics. 2016 Sans Third Party - Replicates the 2016 result but normalizes the third party vote, which was elevated that year. Minority Revolt - In this scenario, Hispanics, Asians, and other minorities turn out in large numbers to support Democrats, even with white non-college educated voters supporting Republicans at a decent rate. The Kanye West Strategy - Trump performs a miracle and generates a swing of minority voters in favor of Republicans. Blue Collar Democrats - White non-college-educated support returns to 2012 norms, meaning back to Democrats. Romney's Ghost - White college-educated support returns to 2012 levels. White Hype - White non-college-educated support swings to Republicans. Obama versus Trump - White college-educated voters ally with minorities in opposition to a surge in white non-college-educated voters for Republicans. Table 3Assumptions For Key Electoral Scenarios In 2020 The results show that Trump's best chance at remaining in the White House is still White Hype, as it is still the only scenario in which Trump can statistically win a victory in the popular vote (Chart 11). Another pathway to victory is the "2016 Sans Third Party" scenario. But this scenario still calls for White Hype, since a third party challenger is out of his hands (Chart 12).8 Chart 11'White Hype' May Be Only Way To Secure Both Popular And Electoral College Vote...   Chart 12... Although Moving To The Center Could Still Yield Electoral College Vote However, the data show that Trump cannot win merely by replicating his white turnout and support from 2016, due to demographic changes wiping away the thin margins in key swing states. He needs some additional increases in support. These increases will ultimately have to be culled from his record in office - which reinforces the all-important question of the timing of recession, but also raises the question of whether Trump will move to the center to woo the median voter. In the "Kanye West" and "Romney's Ghost" scenarios, Trump wins the electoral college by broadening his appeal to minorities and college-educated white voters. This may sound far-fetched, but President Clinton reinvented himself after the "Republican Revolution" of 1994 by compromising with Republicans in Congress. The slim margins in the Midwest suggest that the probability of Trump shifting to the middle is not as low as one might think. Especially if there is no recession. Independents remain the largest voting block - and they have not lost much steam, if any, since 2016. Moreover, the number of independents who lean Republican is in an uptrend (Chart 13). Without a recession, or a failure on Lichtman's keys, Trump will likely broaden his base. Chart 13Trump Shows Promise Among Independents Bottom Line: Trump needs to increase white turnout and GOP support beyond 2016 levels in order to win 2020. Demographics will not allow a simple repeat of his 2016 performance. However, he may be able to generate the requisite turnout and support by moving to the center, courting college-educated whites and even minorities. His success will depend on his record in office. Investment Implications What are the implications of the above findings for 2018-20 and beyond? The Rust Belt states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin will become pseudo-apocalyptic battlegrounds in 2020. The Democrats must aim to take back all three to win the White House, as they cannot win with just two alone.9 They are likely to focus on these states because they are erstwhile blue states and the vote margin is so slim that the slightest factors could shift the balance - meaning that Democrats could win here without a general pro-Democratic shift in opinion that hurts Trump in other key swing states such as Florida, North Carolina, or Arizona. The "Blue Collar Democrat" scenario, for instance, merely requires that white non-college-educated voters return to their 2012 level of support for Democrats. Joe Biden is the logical candidate, health permitting, as he is from Pennsylvania and was literally on the ballot in 2012! Moreover, these states are the easiest to flip to the Democratic side via the woman vote. In Michigan, a 0.5% swing of women to the Democrats would have turned the state blue again; in Pennsylvania that number is 1.6% and in Wisconsin it is 1.7% (Table 4). These are the lowest of any state. Women from the Midwest or with a base in the Midwest - such as Michelle Obama or Oprah Winfrey - would also be logical candidates. Table 4Women Voters May Hold The Balance The Democrats could also pursue a separate or complementary strategy by courting African American turnout and support, especially in Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina. But it is more difficult to flip these states than the Midwestern ones. With the Rust Belt as the fulcrum of his electoral strategy and reelection, Trump has a major incentive to maintain economic nationalism over the coming two years. Trump may be more pragmatic in the use of tariffs, and will certainly engage in talks with China and others, but he ultimately must remain "tough" on trade. He has fewer constraints in pursuing trade war with China than with Europe. For the same Rust Belt reason, the Democrats, if they get into the Oval Office, will not be overly kind to the "butchers of Beijing," as President Clinton called the Chinese leadership in the 1992 presidential campaign (after the 1989 Tiananmen Square incident). Hence we are structurally bearish U.S.-China relations and related assets. Interestingly, if Trump moves to the middle, and tones down "white nationalism" in pursuit of college-educated whites and minorities, then he would have an incentive to dampen the flames of social division ahead of 2020. The key is that in an environment without recession, Trump has the option of courting voters on the basis of his economic and policy performance alone. Whereas if he is seen fanning social divisions, it could backfire, as Democrats could benefit from a sense of national crisis and instability in a presidential election. Either way, culture wars, controversial rhetoric, identity politics, unrest, and violence will continue in the United States as the fringes of the political spectrum use identity politics and wedge issues to rile up voters.The question is how the leading parties and their candidates handle it. What about after 2020? Are there any conclusions that can be drawn regardless of which party controls the White House? The two biggest policy certainties are that fiscal spending will go up and that generational conflict will rise. On fiscal spending, Trump was a game changer by removing fiscal hawkishness from the Republican agenda. Democrats are not proposing fiscal responsibility either. The most likely areas of bipartisan legislation in 2018-20 are health care and infrastructure - returning House Speaker Nancy Pelosi mentioned infrastructure several times in her election-night speech - which would add to the deficit. The deficit is already set to widen sharply, judging by the fact that it has been widening at a time when unemployment is falling. This aberration has only occurred during the economic boom of the 1950s and the inflation and subsequent stagflation beginning in the late 1960s (Chart 14). The current outlook implies a return of the stagflationary scenario. In the late 1960s, the World War I generation was retiring, lifting the dependent-to-worker ratio and increasing consumption relative to savings. Today, as Peter Berezin of BCA's Global Investment Strategy has shown, the Baby Boomers are retiring with a similar impact. Chart 14The Deficit Is Blowing Out Even Without A Recession Trump made an appeal to elderly voters in the midterms by warning that unfettered immigration and Democratic entitlement expansions would take away from existing senior benefits. By contrast, Democrats will argue that Republicans want to cut benefits for all to pay for tax cuts for the rich, and will try to activate Millennial voters on a range of progressive issues that antagonize older voters. The result is that policy debates will focus more on generational differences. Mammoth budget deficits - not to mention trade war - will be good for inflation, good for gold, and a headwind for U.S. government bonds and the USD as long as the environment is not recessionary. The greatest policy uncertainties are health care and immigration. These are the two major outstanding policy issues that Republicans and Democrats will vie over in 2018 and beyond. While President Trump could achieve something with the Democrats on either of these issues with some painful compromises, it is too soon to have a high conviction on the outcome. But assuming that over the coming years some immigration restrictions come into play and that some kind of public health care option becomes more widely available, there are two more reasons to expect inflation to trend upward on a secular basis. Also on a secular basis, defense stocks stand to benefit from geopolitical multipolarity, especially U.S.-China antagonism. Tech stocks stand to suffer due to the trade war and an increasingly bipartisan consensus that this sector needs to be regulated.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com   1 Furthermore, victories on the state level, if built upon in the 2020 election, could give the Democrats an advantage in gerrymandering, i.e. electoral redistricting, which is an important political process in the United States. 2 Please see Allan J. Lichtman, Predicting The Next President: The Keys To The White House 2016 (New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 2016). 3 Please see Joseph Bafumi, Robert S. Erikson, and Christopher Wlezien, "Balancing, Generic Polls and Midterm Congressional Elections," The Journal of Politics 72:3 (2010), pp. 705-19. 4 Please see footnote 2 above. 5 Please see Sylvan Lane, “Trump says Fed is his ‘biggest threat,’ blasting own appointees,” The Hill, October 16, 2018, available at thehill.com. 6 Please see Rob Griffin, Ruy Teixeira, and William H. Frey, "America's Electoral Future: Demographic Shifts and the Future of the Trump Coalition," Center for American Progress, dated April 14, 2018, available at www.americanprogress.org. 7 In several cases, he did not have to lift white support by as much as we projected because minority support for the Democrats dropped off after Obama left the stage. 8 Interestingly, however, this scenario would result in an electoral college tie! Since the House would then vote on a state delegation basis, it would likely hand Trump the victory (and Pence would also win the Senate). 9 However, if they win Pennsylvania plus one electoral vote in Maine, they can win the electoral college with either Michigan or Wisconsin.

Special Report

Highlights So What? Chancellor Angela Merkel's decision to step down as party chairperson is positive for European political evolution and thus not a risk to the market. Why? The Christian Democratic Union (CDU) is unlikely to turn Euroskeptic, the median German voter is not. Europhile Green Party is surging, throwing shade at the narrative that Germans are souring on Europe. New elections are unlikely in the next 12 months, neither main centrist party would benefit. Chancellor Merkel's stabilizing role in the Euro Area crisis is overstated. Infusion of new blood is precisely what Germany, and Europe, needs. Also... 2019 will be a big year for Europe with multiple decisions to be taken on governance reforms. New leadership in Berlin is exactly what the doctor ordered. Feature German Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) suffered a deep loss in the Hesse election on October 28. Germany's main centrist parties - the center-right CDU and center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD) - suffered deep losses in Hesse, mirroring the results in Bavaria from October 14 (Chart 1). The results have prompted Angela Merkel to confirm that she will not stand for re-election as chair of the CDU at the Hamburg party convention and that she will not seek any political posts after her current term as chancellor ends in 2021. Chart 1Winners And Losers In Bavaria And Hesse In this Client Note, we examine what Chancellor Merkel's decision means for Germany and Europe. Are Euroskeptics Taking Over Germany? The most important question for global investors is whether Merkel's fall from grace is related to a growing trend of populism in Europe. In part, yes. However, Merkel's problem is deeper. Merkel-fatigue in Germany has deeper roots than her decision on immigration in 2015. Polling suggests that Merkel recovered from that crisis and reached a 70% approval rating in mid-2017, only to see a precipitous decline since (Chart 2). Chart 2Merkel's Political Capital Is Spent That said, German Euroskeptic sentiment is not on the rise (Chart 3). In fact, Germans support the currency union at one of the highest clips in Europe. Furthermore, Germans continue to "feel" European (Chart 4). Chart 3Germans Are Europhile... Chart 4...And Feel Quite European In the last two Lander elections in Bavaria and Hesse, the right-wing, Euroskeptic party Alternative for Germany (AfD) underperformed its national polling. Its support in opinion polls, at 16%, appears to be limited by the number of Germans who identify as Euroskeptic, similarly around 14%. In fact, it was the Green Party that surprised in both Bavaria and Hesse, gaining 8.9% and 8.7% respectively. Bottom Line: The short answer is no, Germany is not being taken over by Euroskeptics. True, the 2015 migration crisis has given the AfD a tailwind, allowing it to become entrenched in the political system. Yet just as impressive is the rise of the Europhile Green party (Chart 5). Chart 5Grand Coalition Parties Would Be Crazy To Call A New Election OK, But Will The CDU Move To The Right? The previous question was purposely hyperbolic. The more nuanced question is whether the CDU will swing to the right in the face of AfD's rise? The answer depends on the issue. The two key issues are immigration and EU integration. On immigration, it is simply good politics for Germany's center-right party to steal from the AfD platform. The only downside of adopting a right-leaning immigrant policy is that it will make forming coalitions with the surging Green Party more difficult. It was immigration policy that ultimately prevented the so-called Jamaica Coalition - the CDU, the Green Party, and the pro-business and mildly Euroskeptic Free Democratic Party (FDP) - from becoming a fully-fledged ruling coalition in November 2017. This forced Merkel to re-establish the uninspiring Grand Coalition with the SPD.1 On European integration, it is possible that the CDU will adopt more Euroskeptic rhetoric, but such a move could backfire. First, data suggests that Germans continue to support the euro at a high clip. Second, AfD has already captured the "hard Euroskeptic" voters, whereas FDP has captured "soft Euroskeptics." It is unclear if the CDU has any chance of getting any of those voters back by crowding the "Euroskeptic corner." In fact, data from Bavaria and Hesse indicate that the CDU has been losing voters equally to the Green Party and the AfD. From the perspective of the Median Voter Theory, the CDU has a clear path forward. By remaining Europhile and pro-EU, it can ensure that it does not abandon the 83% of Germans who continue to support the currency union. The German median voter clearly does not want to abandon European institutions. But by ditching Merkel's liberal, pro-immigrant policy, the CDU can ensure that it withstands the AfD's attack on its right flank. Bottom Line: Germany's main center-right party has the luxury of picking its battles with the right-wing AfD. We suspect that the CDU will adopt some of the AfD's anti-immigrant rhetoric and policy, but retain its centrism on other issues. Who Will Replace Merkel As The Head Of The CDU? After months of speculation, Chancellor Merkel has confirmed that she will not pursue the CDU chairmanship at the upcoming December 7-8 party conference in Hamburg. Instead, Germany's ruling party will select a new chairperson, one who will be groomed as Merkel's successor for the 2021 election. The process for selecting the CDU chairperson is largely closed and dominated by party elites. The Federal Executive Board of the CDU - which is made up of the chairperson and 39 other members - sits down with the CDU parliamentary faction to approve the candidates, ensuring that a rogue candidate cannot stage a surprise in the delegate vote. It is highly likely that Merkel will be able to hand-pick a successor. Table 1 is our attempt to collate the likeliest candidates to replace Merkel as the head of the CDU. The list includes only one Euroskeptic candidate - former party whip Friedrich Merz who has not sat in the Bundestag since 2009 - and quite a few outright Europhiles. Merkel's preferred candidate is Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer - often referred to by German media by her acronym AKK - a centrist who is to the left of Merkel on economic policy, EU matters, and social issues. Table 1Potential Merkel Successors Given the short period of time between now and the Hamburg conference, it is highly unlikely that a surprise candidate - such as the Euroskeptic Merz - will emerge victorious. Merkel, for instance, spent months grooming the party rank-and-file prior to her nomination. Bottom Line: Merkel's successor is likely to be hand-picked. Will Merkel Survive Until 2021? Merkel's chances of staying in power until the end of the current government's term will increase if her favored successor - Kramp-Karrenbauer - emerges victorious in December. A win for an outsider, or someone highly critical of Merkel (such as Jens Spahn, who has disagreed with Merkel on immigration), might hasten Merkel's demise. How would such an outcome play out? If Merkel resigns, the Bundestag would have to elect a new chancellor with a simple majority. Given that the CDU currently governs in a coalition with the SPD, the latter party would have to support the election of a new chancellor. Kramp-Karrenbauer would be acceptable to the SPD, but one of the more contentious candidates may not. A new election would require the chancellor - Merkel or her successor - to lose a confidence vote that he or she has called. However, this is a controversial matter constitutionally as the government must claim that it has reached a legislative impasse on a particular issue. (Chancellor Gerhard Schroder argued in 2005 that his economic agenda was stalled.) The other question is why would either of the ruling parties want new elections at this point? Both centrist parties are tanking in the polls, as both Bavarian and Hesse elections signal and as overall polling indicates (see Chart 5). As such, we suspect that a new election will not take place over the next 12 months, at the very least. Bottom Line: Early elections are not easy to arrange and neither of the two ruling parties want one at the moment. Merkel has at least one more year in power. Investment Implications: Does Any Of This Matter? Chancellor Merkel has lost all of her political capital: that much is clear. As such, her decision to begin the process of finding a successor is a positive development, one that political leaders rarely take willingly. Given the election of a Europhile Emanuel Macron in France in 2017, Berlin needs to find a comparable partner that can carry on reforms. Otherwise, Germany risks wasting the window of opportunity afforded by the Macron presidency to make critical changes to Euro Area governance. On the agenda over the next year or two are several important issues. First, the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) is supposed to be granted new powers, evolving it into a kind of European replacement for the IMF. Some argue - including the ESM's leadership - that this expanded role will necessitate a greater injection of capital, for which obviously Berlin must be on board. Second, the stalled Banking Union project requires Berlin's intimate involvement. A deposit insurance union would go a long way toward stabilizing the Euro Area amid future financial crises. Under Merkel, Berlin has been reticent to greenlight such developments. Third, Berlin must agree with EU peers on several important positions after the European Parliament elections in May 2019. These will include staffing the European Commission. According to press reports this summer, Merkel was focused on ensuring that the next president of the European Commission would be a German. To get her way, Chancellor Merkel supposedly indicated that she would not fight to get a German to replace Mario Draghi, whose term at the ECB is set to expire in October 2019. A change at the top in Berlin, particularly if a Euroskeptic takes over the CDU, may signal a reversal of this strategy. That said, what Berlin wants is not necessarily what Berlin will get, no matter who is in charge. Finally, there is the philosophical question of whether Merkel has been a factor of stability for Europe over the past decade. We believe the answer is no. Not for any normative reason but rather because she has been an intently domestic chancellor. Investors have been overstating Merkel's role as the "anchor" of Euro Area stability. She has, in fact, dithered multiple times throughout the crisis. In 2011, for example, Merkel delayed the decision on whether to set up a permanent Euro Area fiscal backstop mechanism due to the upcoming Lander elections in Rhineland-Palatinate and Baden Württemberg. Such delays and hesitations have cost Europe considerable momentum throughout the crisis and since. As such, we believe that Chancellor Merkel's decision presents considerable upside for European politics and limited downside. Infusion of new blood in Berlin is the only way for Europe to restart the stalled governance reforms. However, much will depend on whether the CDU takes a significant turn towards a "softer Euroskeptic" position or maintains its traditional pro-European outlook. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 The name references the colors of the three parties (black for CDU, green for the Green Party, and yellow for the FDP).

Special Report

Highlights So What? Ongoing reforms will drag on China's policy easing measures. Why? Xi Jinping is not abandoning his "Three Tough Battles" against leverage, pollution, and poverty. China is striving to contain leverage, despite the shift of rhetoric away from deleveraging. China's anti-pollution targets have eased, but in a pragmatic way. Barring a sharp economic deceleration, China's stimulus measures will be about stability rather than reacceleration. Feature China's leader Xi Jinping has clearly focused on two systemic risks: leverage and pollution (Table 1). Xi redoubled his efforts to address these risks in 2017 when he launched the "Three Tough Battles" against financial systemic risk, pollution, and poverty that will last through 2020. In this Special Report we provide a "status update" on the three battles, particularly the anti-pollution campaign. Investors should not mistake China's policy easing for a wholesale reversal of reform in order to stimulate growth. Today's policy environment and response is different from what investors are familiar with, which is large-scale fiscal and credit injections that pump up infrastructure and property construction and materially reaccelerate global and Chinese demand. Table 1Central Government Spending Preferences (Under Leader's Immediate Control) The First Battle: Financial Systemic Risk First, a word about financial systemic risk, which is of the utmost importance to China's economic trajectory, the global investment outlook, and Xi Jinping's other two policy battles. We have now had two months of full data - August and September - since China's top leaders announced in late July that they would ease economic policy. The data show that there has not been a major acceleration in total private credit growth. This is based on the adjusted total social financing measure used by BCA's China Investment Strategy, which now includes the special purpose bonds that local governments have been issuing rapidly in response to central government demands to ease policy (Chart 1). Chart 1No Credit Spike ... Yet We also closely watch China's money supply. Monetary impulses are bottoming and the M2 impulse is now positive (Chart 2). This is a marginal positive for both the Chinese and global economic outlook in 2019, though it is at odds with China's credit impulse. Chart 2Money And Credit Impulses At Odds While bank loan growth remains steady, informal lending growth is starting to pick up (Chart 3). This could herald a relaxation of controls on shadow banking, although that is by no means clear yet. Chart 3Shadow Banking Crackdown Is Easing Fiscal spending is also becoming more proactive, as is apparent from the spike in local government bond issuance (Chart 4). However, these new bonds hardly make a dent in the total credit picture, as shown in Chart 1 above. Chart 4Fiscal Policy Becomes More Proactive We expect China to stimulate more if internal or external conditions worsen. That looks likely, as we also have a structurally bearish view of the U.S.-China relationship. The trade war could prompt the U.S. to extend tariffs to all Chinese imports at the 25% rate that will apply to $200 billion worth of imports as of January 1, 2019. To be prudent, investors need to be prepared for even a 45% tariff rate on all Chinese imports, as President Trump first threatened on the campaign trail. People's Bank of China Governor Yi Gang has recently implied that benchmark interest rates could be cut if necessary, in addition to further cuts to the required reserve ratio. These measures would have the additional effect of weakening CNY/USD, which could also be stimulative for China, but may first disrupt emerging markets and worsen the trade war. The foregoing data reveal that, while the government has clearly toned down its rhetoric about deleveraging, it continues to try to contain the rise in leverage. China's administration - in contrast to many bullish investors - views leverage as a form of systemic risk. The top leaders perceive that excess leverage is bad for productivity. It delays China's adjustment to a more sustainable, consumer-driven economic model. And it exacerbates quality-of-life problems that could lead to socio-political instability, such as land appropriation and environmental degradation. China's economy can only reaccelerate sharply if Xi Jinping and his deputies - namely his top economic adviser Liu He and also Guo Shuqing, the party secretary of the PBOC - throw in the towel and allow total credit to skyrocket. President Xi is pragmatic and ultimately may have to do this - if conditions get bad enough. But for now, the pace of deceleration is not so quick that throwing in the towel is warranted. Furthermore, the trade war provides Xi with ample domestic political "coverage" to blame the U.S. for any economic pain incurred while pursuing badly needed domestic restructuring. Bottom Line: The Chinese administration wants to contain leverage, and this policy imperative will not easily waver. Data shows that the policy shifts announced in July were indeed evidence of "fine-tuning" rather than wholesale stimulus. The U.S. trade war provides the Xi administration with a scapegoat to absorb public anger when the pain of long-needed economic adjustments sets in. We remain data-dependent and will alter our global asset allocation recommendation - long DM / short EM - if evidence of a wholesale policy shift occurs. The Second Battle: Pollution What about Xi's second battle, the anti-pollution campaign? Is China already throwing out its new environmental regulations in order to stimulate growth? No, but it is compromising them for the sake of stability. Chart 5China Is Resource Intensive China's rapid rise from an agrarian society to an industrial power came at a devastating environmental cost. The heavy resource intensity of its economy (Chart 5) translates to extremely high pollution levels (Chart 6). Chart 6A Highly Polluting Economy To some extent, this is a natural phase of development. The "environmental Kuznets curve" hypothesizes that as economies industrialize they become increasingly polluting - and yet at a certain level of income the relationship reverses and economic growth becomes associated with environmental improvement (Diagram 1).1 Diagram 1The 'Environmental Kuznets Curve' Applies To Air Pollution Chart 7China Following In The Footsteps Of Less Resource-Intensive Neighbors As China transitions to a services-led economy, its appetite for commodities will slow. This is what happened in the advanced economies - and China is already on this path (Chart 7). The transition points away from export-manufacturing, which means that the share of electricity consumed by the industrial sector - currently disproportionately large - will ease (Chart 8). Chart 8Manufacturing Intensity Will Moderate Chart 9Reliance On Coal Power Will Fall China's consumption of coal, on which it depends very heavily (Chart 9), will continue to fall as a share of total energy consumption. And coal is significantly more polluting than other forms of energy (Table 2). Table 2Natural Gas Emits Less Carbon Already, growth in the service sector - the so-called tertiary industries - now outpaces manufacturing growth and accounts for more than half of Chinese GDP (Chart 10). Chart 10Rising Service Sector Means Less Pollution However, the pace of change is too slow for the Chinese public, which has been suffering from the health-related costs of rapid industrialization. The World Health Organization reports that in 2016, over a million deaths in China were attributed to ambient air pollution.2 Chart 11There Is A Reason Xi Jinping Cracked Down On Corruption And Pollution The Pew Research Center finds that 76% of survey respondents would classify air pollution as a "big problem," and nearly half of which a "very big problem" (Chart 11). On top of that, a 2016 survey shows that the Chinese public favors clean air over industry if forced to make a tradeoff (Chart 12). Chart 12The Public Understands The Tradeoff To prevent public discontent from boiling over, China launched a sweeping effort to restrain pollution when Xi Jinping took power in 2012-13 - particularly after the appallingly smoggy winter of 2013, known as "airpocalypse." Chart 13Air Pollution Is Trending Downwards These measures have broadly been effective. Readings of China's preferred measure of air pollution - PM2.5 concentration3 - have fallen steadily (Chart 13). The goals were achieved by means of overcapacity cuts in the coal and steel sectors - including shutting down low-quality steel plants - and replacing coal with cleaner forms of energy, particularly natural gas (Chart 14). Chart 14Coal Reliance Is Declining However, pollution is a structural challenge, not one that can be solved in a single five-year plan. Though PM2.5 emissions have fallen by 35% in 2017 compared to 2012, the current concentration of 47.3 µm/m3 remains well above China's national standard for maximum annual average exposure of 35 µm/m3. China's standards are also lax relative to international peers. The World Health Organization recommends a much lower annual mean for the concentration level at 10 µm/m3. Furthermore, air pollution is not equally concentrated throughout the country. The industrialized north is significantly more polluted than the rest of the country (Map 1). The provinces of Shanxi and Shaanxi saw PM2.5 levels rise from 2015-17, reaching the highest alert levels. Map 1China's Air Pollution By Province As a result, the Xi administration has doubled down on its anti-pollution goals. The 13th Five Year Plan, covering 2016-20, was the first national economic blueprint to include air pollution targets. It got off to a rocky start because China had to stimulate the economy aggressively in 2015-16 to fend off a destabilizing slowdown. Pumping credit and fiscal spending into the industrial economy led to a rebound in high-polluting activity (Chart 15). Yet, as mentioned, when Xi consolidated power in 2017, he elevated the war on pollution to the "second battle" of the three battles. Chart 15Excess Credit Means Excess Pollution Pursuant to this 2018-20 framework, the latest action plan for air pollution reinforces the targets of the Five Year Plan and its 2020 deadline: The plan applies to all cities of prefectural or higher level, and thus expands the government's actions beyond the major cities in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei, Yangtze River Delta, and Pearl River Delta areas. Furthermore, the Pearl River Delta is no longer one of the key regions, having made substantive progress. It has been replaced by the Fen-Wei Plains, which include Xi'an and parts of Shaanxi, Henan, and Shanxi provinces. These provinces rely on coal for energy and contain polluting industries. PM2.5 levels must fall by at least 18% from 2015 baseline levels in cities of prefectural or higher level and anywhere else where standards have not been met. Targets for reducing volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxide emissions are set to 10% and 15%, respectively, by the end of the period. The number of good-air days should reach 80 percent annually and the percentage of heavily polluted days should decrease by more than 25 percent from 2015 levels. The new air pollution goals are not as aggressive as those of the 2012-17 plan. For instance, the 18% cut in PM2.5 levels is less than the maximum 25% cut in the previous plan. However, the new goals are more precise and targeted. Rather than impose further declines in regions where air pollution has been successfully reduced, the plan aims to prevent heavy industries from migrating to other parts of China to evade environmental restrictions. After all, many of China's coal producers are located in the Fen-Wei Plains, which will no longer escape the regulator's eye (Chart 16). Chart 16The Fen-Wei Plain Now Under Scrutiny What is the market implication of the above? In our view, some market participants have misread the new anti-pollution targets as a form of economic stimulus because they are less aggressive than those of the previous five years. While it is true that China faces a tradeoff between clean air and economic growth (Chart 17), the regulatory easing looks like an attempt to make the anti-pollution goals more realistic and achievable rather than abandoning the overarching anti-pollution push (see Box 1). In net terms, China is still tightening regulation. Chart 17Heavy Industrial Model Drives Pollution Box 1 Easing Up On winter Curbs? China has recently relied on heavy industry production curbs to limit pollution during the especially smog-prone winter months. The 2017-18 season saw the first of these wintertime cuts. Production in highly polluting industries such as coal, aluminum, and steel was slashed by up to 50% in 28 northern cities between mid-November 2017 and mid-March 2018. As a result, fine particle emissions fell. The year-on-year change in emissions peaked with the start of the cuts and troughed with their end, falling by an average 18% y/y over the period (Chart 18). Chart 18Last Winter's Anti-Pollution Crackdown Cuts will continue this winter, in theory limiting steel and aluminum production as well as coal consumption. However, the impact looks to be less dramatic this time around: While the August draft plan reportedly set PM2.5 reduction targets at 5% y/y for the 2018-19 winter, the final plan, released by the newly formed Ministry of Ecology and Environment, set a less ambitious objective of a 3% reduction in emissions. Blanket production cuts are being replaced by more flexible measures that will be overseen by local governments. Central government inspection teams will be dispatched less frequently. The new changes reflect the fact that Chinese policymakers are fine-tuning their policies to minimize the negative impact on industry as well as households that use coal-fired heating: The revision of emissions cuts from 5% in the August draft to 3% in the final plan reflects a more realistic cut than the 15% cut last year. But it is still a cut. The scrapping of blanket measures, in favor of more flexible cuts determined by regional emissions levels, will avoid penalizing producers who have already abided by the targets. It will also reward producers who have upgraded their facilities to be more eco-friendly. While year-on-year changes in emissions fell in northern China last winter, they spiked in the rest of the country, as economic agents shifted to areas not covered by the new rules. The same pattern emerged in the steel industry: steel production cuts in northern China were offset by a ramp-up in steel production from other regions (Chart 19). The newest plan expands the coverage of the regulations even as its demands are less draconian. Chart 19Polluters Know How To Evade Controls Last winter, local governments frantically shut down coal usage in order to meet strict 2017 deadlines for the plan to convert 20 million rural households from coal-heating to gas-heating by 2020. However, natural gas supplies could not pick up the slack - storage capacity, LNG import capacity, internal distribution, Central Asian imports, and bureaucratic coordination all fell short.4 Millions of households lost heating during the winter months, the authorities were forced to backtrack and allow coal imports, and a massive public backlash ensued. It is not surprising, then, that the government is compromising its coal-to-gas requirements for the coming winter.5 While the gas crunch is not expected to be as bad this winter, the underlying problems with natural gas storage, import, or distribution problems remain unresolved. So it makes sense for Beijing to give local governments more flexibility. A total conversion to natural gas heating is still supposed to be accomplished by 2020 in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region as well as in Shanxi and Shaanxi.6 The goal post may be moved but policies will still push in this direction. Ultimately, pollution is a cross-regional phenomenon - and it has proven to generate significant political opposition movements over time. Many developed nations have gone through a period of political upheaval sparked by popular backlash against the excesses of industrialization - including pollution.7 China does not have voters who can vote on environmental demands, but it greatly fears the political ramifications of widespread protests due to unbearable living and health conditions. As with the anti-corruption and anti-leverage campaigns, the Xi administration is trying to catch up to the magnitude of the problem and mitigate it before something snaps and triggers a general uproar. Bottom Line: China has pared back its emissions cuts for 2018-20 and softened its pollution curbs for the winter. These actions are less negative for economic growth than earlier curbs and proposals would have been. However, they still amount to a net increase in China's environmental regulation, which is in keeping with Xi Jinping's overarching policy priorities. The Third Battle: Poverty Poverty rates have collapsed in China since its opening up and reform in 1979. Xi's third battle is to eliminate rural poverty by 2020. This is the only battle of the three that is growth-enhancing rather than growth-constraining. It lifts China's growth by transferring government funds to the poorest citizens, who have the highest propensity to consume. At the average rate of rural poverty reduction over the past several years, there will still be around 11-12 million rural poor by the end of 2020 (Chart 20). Thus China will have to spend more to meet the target, creating a net increase in fiscal spending. Chart 20Anti-Poverty Campaign Requires Spending The war on poverty underscores a constraint on the previous two battles: growth and stability. Financial and environmental regulation cannot be imposed so aggressively as to lead to a sharp drop in growth or employment. This is China's "Socialist Put" - and it remains in place despite the fact that the government has a higher threshold for economic pain since 2017. While Xi has signaled that China will do away with annual GDP growth targets, he has not discarded them immediately. The leadership is still bound by the economic targets due in 2020 - the doubling of GDP from 2010 levels and the doubling of rural and urban incomes (Chart 21). Chart 21Stimulus Necessary If 2020-21 Goals In Jeopardy These targets are especially important because they more or less coincide with the "centenary goal" of making China a "moderately prosperous society" by 2021. The latter year will mark the 100th anniversary of the Communist Party; the administration will want to make sure that the economy is in good shape. The Chinese leadership takes its two centenary goals (2021 and 2049) seriously.8 As long as headline GDP growth does not fall too far below the average of 6.5% per year in 2018-20, the first centenary goals will be met. New tax cuts worth an estimated 1% of GDP, and other targeted measures, will help reach the goal for urban income, which is the one most at risk. If these goals look to be met, China can save its biggest stimulus measures for later. In recent years, China's economic "mini-cycles" have lasted about 1.4-to-2 years, from the trough of the total credit impulse to the peak of nominal GDP (Chart 22). If China launches a large-scale stimulus now, peak output will occur in 2020 and the economy will be decelerating into 2021. This would be bad timing for the centenary. It would make more sense for China to save some dry powder for 2019 or 2020 to ensure a positive economic backdrop in 2021. Chart 22Economy Peaks Two Years Post-Stimulus Bottom Line: We would need to see a much bigger shock to the economy than is currently in the offing for Xi to abandon his reform agenda for a traditional fiscal-and-credit splurge that exacerbates the credit bubble, fires up overbuilt industries, and annihilates all the hard work of his recent financial and environmental regulations. Investment Conclusions The above findings suggest that coal prices can rise in the near term.Demand will be supported by more flexibility on pollution curbs, while supply will be constrained by the ongoing supply-side cuts in coal production. Steel prices may fall, as production will rise amid less stringent environmental rules. More broadly, however, investors should understand what the recent tactical "easing" measures suggest about China's policy settings overall. China's political system is a system of single-party rule, in which the Communist Party explicitly rejects the legitimacy of "checks and balances" or political liberalism. However, the government cannot do whatever it wants. Its authoritarian model still requires it to address public pressure and maintain general popular approval - otherwise it would lose legitimacy and ultimately power. For the past four decades, the Communist Party has maintained legitimacy by providing economic growth and rising incomes - and these are still essential. But as the economy matures and growth rates naturally fall, it becomes more important to re-establish the party's legitimacy on improving quality of life. Xi Jinping made this point official in his address to the nineteenth National Party Congress last October, but it has driven his administration since 2012.9 The Communist Party is flush with tax revenues and maintains absolute control over government branches, banks, key corporations, security forces, and most forms of civil association. With these tools it can, for the most part, maintain its rule against regional or topical challenges. What it fears are systemic risks - challenges to its authority that span ideological, ethnic, class, or regional divides. Here the government is behind the curve, as quality of life has been entirely neglected during the country's high-growth phase of economic development. Thus Xi has tried to make up for lost time and tackle the most flagrant quality-of-life concerns. His anti-corruption campaign, for instance, sought to address the chief source of public discontent from the moment he came into office - as well as to recentralize power into his own hands so that he could tackle the other major grievances with zero resistance from the party or state bureaucracy. Now his top priorities are leverage and pollution, both of which pose systemic risks and hence the forthcoming improvement in fiscal and credit indicators will not proceed unchecked. Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist roukayai@bcaresearch.com 1 There is a large body of literature on the Environmental Kuznets Curve; the important point for this study is that it holds up well to empirical scrutiny when it comes to modeling air pollution concentrations. Please see David I. Stern, "The Environmental Kuznets Curve After 25 Years," Australian National University, CCEP Working Paper 1514 (December 2015), available at ageconsearch.umn.edu. 2 The death rate attributable to ambient air pollution is 81 per 100,000 people, which places China among the most dangerously polluted countries, alongside North Korea, Russia, and several developing eastern European countries. Please see the WHO's Global Health Observatory data repository, available at www.who.int/gho/en. 3 PM2.5 is a general term for particles and liquid droplets in the atmosphere with aerodynamic diameters less than or equal to 2.5 microns (µm). Short- or long-term exposure to these particles has been found to lead to adverse cardiovascular effects such as heart attacks and strokes. 4 Please see David Sandalow, Akos Losz, and Sheng Yan, "A Natural Gas Giant Awakens: China's Quest for Blue Skies Shapes Global Markets," Columbia Center on Global Energy Policy, July 27, 2018. 5 Please see Yujing Liu, "China scrambles to avoid a repeat of last winter's botched coal-to-gas conversion programme in highly polluting northern rural areas," SCMP, September 24, 2018, available at www.scmp.com. 6 Please see "China coal city vows 'no-coal zones' in bid to curb pollution," Reuters, October 11, 2018, available at reuters.com. 7 The Great London Smog of 1952 is a classic example, but for a detailed study please see Russell J. Dalton and Manfred Kuechler, Challenging the Political Order: New Social and Political Movements in Western Democracies (Cambridge: Polity, 1990). 8 The first goal is to create a "moderately prosperous society in all respects," namely by doubling real GDP and rural and urban per capita income from 2010 levels by 2020. The second goal is to make China into a "modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, and harmonious," with the GDP per capita of a moderately developed country at around $55,000 in 2014 dollars. Please see "CPC Q&A: What are China's two centennial goals and why do they matter?" Xinhua, October 17, 2017, available at www.xinhuanet.com. 9 Xi, in his work report at the party congress in 2017, said, "what we now face is the contradiction between unbalanced and inadequate development and the people's ever-growing needs for a better life." This is a new formulation of the "principal contradiction" facing Chinese society, by contrast with the earlier formulation, which emphasized "the ever-growing material and cultural needs of the people and the low level of social production," according to former President Hu Jintao in 2007.

Highlights So What? The odds of the Democrats taking the Senate have fallen. Meanwhile China's policy easing will benefit China itself, or consumer goods exporters, more so than other EMs. Why? China is the fulcrum of global macro at the moment - only a sharp spike in credit growth will signal a total capitulation by President Xi Jinping. We are lowering the odds of a Democratic takeover of the House from 70% to 65%, while in the Senate the odds fall from 50% to 40%. Generational warfare is one of our new long-run investment themes - it will help define the 2020 election. Feature Amidst the market correction last week, it was easy for investors to take their eyes off the ball: Chinese policy. Chart 1U.S. Is In Rude Health... The ongoing macro environment is one of policy divergence, with the U.S. economy in "rude health," (Chart 1) - to quote BCA's Chief U.S. Strategist Doug Peta - while Chinese growth disappointed under the pressure of macroprudential structural reforms (Chart 2). The dueling policies have converged to produce epic tailwinds for the U.S. dollar (Chart 3) and correspondingly headwinds for global risk assets. Chart 2...But China Still Struggling Chart 3Epic Tailwinds For The Dollar Amidst this backdrop, investors have finally come to terms with the first portion of our thesis: the Fed will respond to robust U.S. growth. Merely weeks ago, markets doubted that the Fed had the temerity to raise interest rates beyond a single hike in 2019. Today, despite President Trump's rhetoric, there is no doubt which way the Fed will guide interest rates next year (Chart 4). Chart 4The Fed Will Keep Hiking A surge in expectations for hawkish Fed policy beyond 2018 should be detrimental for global risk assets. A determined Fed, racing to meet the rising U.S. neutral rate, may tighten global monetary policy too much given that the global neutral rate is likely lower. That view would support remaining overweight U.S. assets and underweight EM well into 2019. Chart 5Signs That China Is Stimulating China is the fulcrum upon which this view will balance. Beijing continues to signal policy easing. BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy's "China Play Index" has perked up, suggesting that global assets are sniffing out the bottoming of restrictive policy (Chart 5). Our own checklist, which would falsify our thesis that Chinese policymakers will avoid a stimulus "overshoot," is starting to see some movement (Table 1). Table 1Will China's Policy Easing Produce A Stimulus Overshoot? If China ramps up stimulus to keep pace with U.S. growth - itself a product of pro-cyclical fiscal stimulus - global risk assets may rally significantly. Our recommendation that investors buy the China Play Index as a portfolio hedge to our bearish view of global risk assets has only returned 0.7% since August 8. China: Credit Data Holds The Key Is it time to ditch the safety of U.S. stocks and embrace ROW? Chart 6What Will September Credit Data Bring? No, at least not yet. It is true that China is clearly shifting towards stimulus. As we go to press, the credit data for September has not yet appeared, but a sharp reversal in credit growth will be necessary to convince global markets that Xi Jinping has fully abandoned his efforts to impose more discipline on China's banks, shadow banks, local governments, and local government financing vehicles (Chart 6). It will be crucial to watch for a reversal in non-bank credit growth, which would suggest that Xi is capitulating on shadow banking, which would then imply a larger reflationary push overall (Chart 7). Chart 7Shadow Bank Crackdown To Lighten Up? The monetary policy setting is currently as easy as in 2016, although there has been no substantive change since July and People's Bank of China chief Yi Gang has signaled that while more can be done, his policy remains "prudent and neutral" (Chart 8). So far this year there have been four cuts to banks' required reserve ratios - it will take additional cuts to signify policy easing beyond expectations as of July (Chart 9). Easier monetary policy implies additional currency depreciation, which could have a reflationary effect. Chart 8Lending Rates Will Decline Substantially If Repo Rates Don't Rise Chart 9RRR Cuts Can Continue Local government brand new bond issuance is catching up to the previous two years', despite a late start. We expect this indicator to be abnormally strong in the closing months of the year, making for an overall increase year-on-year (Chart 10). Local governments are responding to the central government's encouragement to borrow and spend more. Chart 10Local Governments Borrowing More Further, global trade war concerns may abate in the coming months. There is still no guarantee that U.S. President Donald Trump will meet his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping at the G20 leaders' summit in Argentina at the end of November. Both sides are expected to bring negotiating teams to this meeting if it goes forward. While no formal talks have taken place since August 23, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin did meet with China's central bank Governor Yi Gang on the sidelines of the World Bank Annual Meeting in Bali, Indonesia. They discussed China's foreign exchange policy and the potential meeting between Trump and Xi. Our structural view is that the Sino-American tensions are hurtling towards a modern version of a Cold War. However, that structural view can have cyclical deviations. A pause in U.S.-China acrimony - though not a reversion to status quo ante - could manifest by the end of the year. Chart 11U.S. Is Winning The Trade War... Trade policy uncertainty has greatly favored U.S. assets relative to global, both in terms of equities (Chart 11) and the U.S. dollar (Chart 12). Even a temporary truce, if combined with further Chinese stimulus, could reverse the trend. Chart 12...And So Is The U.S. Dollar As such, we can see a temporary pullback in our central thesis of policy divergence, one that benefits global risk assets in the immediate term. However, we caution investors from believing that a structural shift is in place that favors EM and high-beta assets. Put simply, we doubt that China will stimulate as aggressively as it did in 2016, 2012, or 2009 (Chart 13). There is just too much political capital already sunk into macroprudential reforms. Beijing policymakers are therefore sending mixed signals, both looking to stabilize growth rates and contain leverage. Chart 13Expect A Weaker Jolt This Time Several clients have pointed out that the pace and intensity of stimulus is not important. Even a modest turn in Chinese policy will be a strong catalyst for global risk assets at the moment given that the context of 2018-2019 is much more favorable than 2015-2016. In other words, the world is not facing a global manufacturing recession precipitated by a historic decline in commodity prices as it was in 2015. Today, the world needs a lot less from China to spark a cyclical recovery. We are not so sure. First, the big difference between 2015-2016 and today is not the health of the global economy but the health of the U.S. economy and the fact that the Fed is much further along in its tightening cycle. In 2016, the Fed took a 12-month vacation after hiking rates in December 2015, as the amount of slack in the U.S. economy was much larger (Chart 14). Today, the market has begun to price in expectations of further rate hikes in 2019. Chart 14Output Gap Is Closed Second, China's foreign exchange policy could still prove globally deflationary. China faces an exogenous risk today - the trade war - that it did not face in 2015-16. At that time the currency fell amidst financial turmoil, capital outflows, and policy devaluation. But it bottomed in late 2016 after the PBoC defended it robustly, the government imposed strict capital controls, and stimulus stabilized growth. Today the CNY has come under downward pressure again from slower growth, easing monetary policy, and manipulation to retaliate against U.S. tariffs. Despite capital controls, the one year swap-rate differential between China and the U.S. appears to be leading CNY/USD further downward (Chart 15). Given that China's current policy easing is heavily reliant on monetary easing, CNY/USD has more downside. Chart 15Interest Rate Differentials And CNY-USD: A Tight Link Chinese currency trajectory is therefore an important gauge for global investors. Downside beyond the psychological barrier of 6.9-7.0 CNY/USD will at some point have a deflationary rather than reflationary global impact. The PBoC may hold the line and prevent further depreciation, in which case any additional stimulus measures will reinforce this line. But if China adopts more aggressive fiscal and credit stimulus and yet the currency still depreciates due to the U.S. conflict, then China's import demand will not rise by as much as the stimulus would imply. Domestic sentiment will worsen, causing capital outflow pressure to rise, and EM currencies and global growth expectations will suffer. As such, we prefer to play Chinese stimulus through exposure to Chinese equities (ex-tech) relative to other EM equities. Chinese stimulus, we argue, will stay in China, rather than rescue global risk assets. Within EM ex-China, we generally prefer equity indices that are exposed to the Chinese consumer over those exposed to resource-oriented "old China." A key point about China's current policy easing is the use of tax cuts more so than credit-fueled infrastructure construction: the goal of the reform agenda is to boost the consumption share of the economy. As such, we have been recommending that clients overweight South Korea and Malaysia relative to EM benchmarks. Bottom Line: Chinese policy is the fulcrum upon which global policy divergence will turn. If Chinese stimulus overshoots, investors should expand beyond the safety of U.S. assets and spring for global risk assets. At the moment, our view is that Chinese stimulus will not cause global economies to re-converge. Instead, it will benefit Chinese equities relative to other EM plays, and EM markets that export consumer goods to China. Overall, however, we remain cautious on global risk assets. Midterm Update: Did Trump Declare A Generational War? Chart 16GOP Improves In Key Senate Races The Democratic Party's midterm election strategy of opposing Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's nomination has failed to work in key Senate races, where President Trump has rallied his base in reaction to the contentious nomination hearings. Polls now indicate that several Republican Senate candidates are in the lead, including the three that we are watching most closely: Tennessee, Arizona, and Nevada (Chart 16). Our own Senate model, which has been generous to Democrats, now sees Arizona, Tennessee, and Missouri as likely going to the Republican Party (Chart 17). Nevada is still projected to flip to the Democratic Party, but the GOP retains the current 51-49 Senate makeup. Chart 17Our Model Suggests Senate Race Will Be A Wash Political betting markets have sniffed out the shift in Senate polls, with the probability of the GOP maintaining control of the Senate now soaring to above 80%. However, the odds of retaining the House have actually reversed after initial gains in October (Chart 18). Why? Chart 18Republican Odds Surge For Senate First, because President Trump remains unpopular despite the surge of support for GOP Senate candidates in some states (Chart 19). Second, the generic ballot continues to give Democrats a robust lead of 7.3% (Chart 20). The lead has narrowed from a high of 9.5% in early September, but does not suggest that Republicans will benefit in the House as much as in the Senate. Chart 19Trump Still Has Popularity Deficit Chart 20Democrats' Robust Lead In Generic Polls Third, Justice Kavanaugh is now sitting on the Supreme Court! Had his nomination been stalled or outright rejected, the anger of the GOP base would have been more sustainable and broad-based going into the voting booth. The paradox for President Trump is that by winning the Supreme Court battle, the shot of adrenaline to the GOP base has been expended. Nonetheless, the fight itself shows yet again that anger works as an election strategy. After all, as counterintuitive as it may seem, there is no evidence that economic performance helps win midterm elections. Our research actually suggests that there is a mildly negative correlation between economic performance and congressional election performance (Chart 21). Voters only vote with their stomachs when they are hungry. Chart 21Strong Economy Won't Save The GOP In The House Of Representatives Midterm voters tend to be motivated by non-economic issues. With the Supreme Court settled in favor of the GOP base, the question arises: Is Trump out of ways to motivate his base with anger? Maybe not (there is still a Wall to be built!), but it may be too late to rally the GOP base sufficiently by November 6. The House appears to be lost, especially if GOP polling momentum stalls at its current level. However, the two parties have given us a glimpse into their strategies for 2020 - outrage versus outrage. President Trump, in an op-ed for USA Today, blasted the Democratic Party as a party of "open border socialism" that seeks to "model America's economy after Venezuela."1 Specifically, he cited plans by the Democratic Party to reform healthcare in such a way as to transfer the benefits that seniors currently enjoy under Medicare to the rest of the population, ending Medicare benefits in the process. The veracity of President Trump's claims is beyond the scope of this report - and has been covered extensively by the media. What is important is that President Trump may have revealed his strategy for 2020: Generational Warfare. Chart 22Here Comes Generational Warfare Investors caught glimpses of this strategy in 2016, when Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders appealed directly to Millennial voters in his surprisingly robust battle against Secretary Hillary Clinton. For Democrats, appealing to Millennials is a no brainer. First, they are the largest voting bloc in the country (Chart 22). Their numbers relative to Baby Boomers will necessarily grow. Chart 23Beware The Crisis Of Expectations Second, the share of 30-year-olds earning more than their parents at a similar age has fallen by nearly half (Chart 23). Despite the poor economic situation of today's youth, government spending continues to accrue mainly to the elderly (Chart 24). Chart 24Get Grandma! The problem for Democrats is that the more they appeal to the youth, the more likely that President Trump's charges of socialism will ring true. After all, the 18-29 age cohort has more favorable views of socialism than capitalism (Chart 25). Yes, even in America! Chart 25Uh-Oh... Where does this leave investors? First, American politics is no longer merely ideologically polarized. In 2020, we expect generational polarization to emerge as a major theme. Second, the kind of Generational Warfare practised by President Trump leaves no room for cuts to public services. Trump is not opposing Democratic "open border socialism" with traditional, centrist, Republican calls for entitlement reform. Instead, he is casting himself as a champion and defender of Baby Boomer entitlements, which, as Chart 24 clearly illustrates, leave spending on the youth in the dust. The point is that President Trump is not preaching fiscal conservativism. There is no room for entitlement reform in the new GOP. Generational Warfare will simply seek to prevent Democrats from shifting more benefits to the non-Baby Boomer share of the population by preserving the already unsustainable Baby Boomer entitlements. BCA Research's House View sees 2020 as the likeliest date for the next U.S. recession. At the end of 2020, The Congressional Budget Office projects that the U.S. budget deficit will be around 5% (Chart 26). Given that the last four recessions raised the U.S. budget deficit by an average of 5% of GDP, it is safe to say that the U.S. budget deficit may rise to 2010 levels after the next downturn. Chart 26U.S. Deficits Will Be Extremely Large For A Non-Recessionary Period Given President Trump's and the Democratic Party's focus on Generational Warfare, it is unlikely that entitlement reform will occur proactively either before or after the next recession. This suggests that bond yields could rise significantly after the next downturn. Bottom Line: Our baseline odds for the midterm recession are due for an adjustment. We are lowering the odds of a Democratic House takeover to 65% (from 70%) and of a Senate takeover to 40% (from 50%). President Trump's USA Today op-ed signals a turn towards Generational Warfare. Neither the GOP nor the Democratic Party are interested in entitlement reform. The former, under Trump, seeks to preserve the already unsustainable Baby Boomer benefits, while the latter seeks to expand them to the rest of the population. The 2020 election may be fought along the lines of who is more profligate toward their base. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Donald Trump: Democrats Medicare for All plan will demolish promises to seniors," published by USA Today, dated October 12, 2018.

Special Report

Highlights So What? More downside to CNY/USD ahead. Why? The trade war is spilling into political and military arenas, making it harder to de-escalate and negotiate a trade deal. Official U.S. and Chinese rhetoric is increasingly antagonistic, reflecting once-in-a-generation policy shifts toward a new Cold War. Tensions will not subside after the U.S. midterm election - neither the U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement nor any quick deals with Japan and the EU will speed up U.S.-China negotiations. Feature Clients know that BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has been alarmist on U.S.-China relations since we started as a service in 2012.1 This structural view is based on the long-term decline of U.S. power relative to China and the emergence of global multipolarity.2 However, the rise of General Secretary Xi Jinping in 2012 and President Donald Trump in 2016 have reinforced our view that "Sino-American conflict is more likely than you think."3 This includes military as well as economic conflict. Setting aside the risk of war, a geopolitical "incident" of some kind is becoming increasingly likely. As the two sides engage in brinkmanship, the probability of a miscalculation or provocation rises, and the probability of a grand new compromise falls. For investors, the takeaway is supportive of Geopolitical Strategy's current stance: long U.S. dollar, long U.S. stocks relative to DM, and long DM stocks relative to EM. We expect CNY/USD to fall further as markets question the ability to discount trade uncertainties via tariff rates alone (Chart 1). We continue to recommend a "safe haven" hedge of Swiss bonds and gold. Chart 1CNY/USD Has More Downside The risk is that China could respond to U.S. pressure by stimulating its economy aggressively. So far, the "China Play Index," devised by our Foreign Exchange Strategy, does not signal reflation. Nor do Chinese domestic infrastructure stocks relative to global, which our China Investment Strategy watches closely (Chart 2). Chart 2Small Stimulus Thus Far Trade Tensions Are Spilling Over A corollary of our view that U.S.-China tensions are secular and strategic in nature - i.e., not limited to the U.S. trade deficit - is the view that trade tensions will spill over into strategic areas, exacerbating those tensions and generating negative outcomes for investors exposed to the U.S.-China economic partnership.4 This strategic spillover is now taking shape. Since President Trump went forward with the second round of tariffs - 10% on $200 billion worth of imports, to ratchet up to 25% on January 1, 2019 - a series of negative events have taken place in U.S.-China relations (Table 1), culminating in the USS Decatur incident on September 30. Table 1Trade War Spills Into Strategic Areas The Decatur, an Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer, was conducting operations in the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea when it sailed within 12 nautical miles of Gaven and Johnson Reefs, which China claims as sovereign islands. At around 8:30am that Sunday morning, a Luyang-class destroyer from China's People's Liberation Army Navy "approached within 45 yards of Decatur's bow, after which Decatur maneuvered to prevent a collision," according to the U.S. Pacific Fleet spokesman. This was not an unprecedented incident in itself, but it came very close to a collision that could easily have resulted in a shipwreck, a full-blown U.S.-China crisis, and a global risk-off event in financial markets. The Decatur sailed close to the Chinese-claimed reefs because it was conducting a "Freedom of Navigation Operation" (FONOP) to assert the international right of free passage. A major point of contention between China and the U.S. (and between China and most of its neighbors and the western world) is that China claims outright sovereignty over about 80% of the South China Sea, including the Spratly Islands. In July 2016, the International Court of Arbitration ruled that none of the contested rocks and reefs in the sea qualify as islands and hence that they are not entitled to 12 nautical miles of "territorial" sea. China rejects this ruling and asserts sovereignty over the maritime features and much of the sea itself.5 In Diagram 1 we illustrate how a FONOP works based on a similar operation last year. The U.S. has conducted these operations for decades, but in late 2015 it began a series of FONOPs focusing on countering China's excessive claims in the South China Sea.6 This was also a way of opposing China's construction, reclamation, and "militarization" of the reefs under its possession. Diagram 1What Is A 'Freedom Of Navigation Operation'? It is not remotely a surprise that this year's trade tensions came close to exploding in the South China Sea. It is the premier geographic location of U.S.-China strategic friction: a hub for international trade; a vital supply route for all major Asian economies; and the primary focus of China's attempt to rewrite global rules (Diagram 2).7 The Appendix updates our list of clashes in this area. Diagram 2South China Sea As Traffic Roundabout The takeaway is that, far from capitulating to the Trump administration's trade demands, China is taking a more aggressive stance - and it is doing so outside the trade context. The U.S., for its part, has not diminished the significance of this incident, as it has often done on similar occasions.8 Instead, Vice President Mike Pence gave a remarkable speech at the Hudson Institute on October 4 in which he highlighted the Decatur, among a range of other "predatory" Chinese state-backed actions, to make a comprehensive case that China is a geopolitical rival seeking to undermine the United States and specifically the Trump administration.9 Pence's comments reflect a decision to "go public" with a shift in national strategy that has been developing in recent years, beginning - albeit tepidly - even in the Obama administration. A similar shift is underway in China - and has accelerated with the U.S.'s implementation of tariffs. Official Communist Party rhetoric increasingly characterizes the U.S. as an enemy whose real intention is to "contain" China's rise and has recently called for Chinese "self-reliance" in the face of U.S. sanctions.10 The two sides are bracing for conflict and are now seeking to mold public opinion more actively. Bottom Line: Investors should take note: markets were 45 yards away from a significant correction! The U.S.-China trade tensions are spilling outside of economic relations into political and military domains, as we expected. The South China Sea remains a hot zone that could be the setting of a geopolitical incident as tensions mount. What Is A Show Of Force? Notably, the U.S. military is said to be considering a "global show of force" during an unspecified week in November in order to deter China from its current policy trajectory. If this occurs, it will be market-relevant as it will be seen as a provocation by China and other U.S. rivals. A "show of force" is a formal military operation conducted by a nation with the purpose of demonstrating that it has both the will and the ability to use force in defense of its interests. It is fundamentally a political action, even though it utilizes military resources. The declared intention is to demonstrate resolve and prevent or deter an undesirable course of action by a rival state.11 Nevertheless, it is the equivalent of a dog baring its teeth and should not be taken lightly, especially when conducted by one major power against another. The U.S. holds shows of force fairly frequently. Over recent decades it has been the third most common type of operation for U.S. forces.12 However, for most of the past several decades, the U.S. conducted very few operations in the Asia Pacific not pertaining to the Vietnam War, and these were usually of limited length and intensity. They were often shows of force to deter North Korea from various acts of terrorism and sabotage. China was rarely involved - there was, for example, no U.S. deployment during the Tiananmen crisis. Nevertheless there are a few highly relevant precedents: By far the most important exception is the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis in 1996. This was a major show of force - and one whose shadow still hangs over the Taiwan Strait. In July 1995, Beijing launched a series of missile tests and military exercises, hoping to discourage pro-independence sentiment and dissuade the Taiwanese people from voting for President Lee Teng-hui - who was rightly suspected of favoring independence - ahead of the 1996 elections. The United States responded on March 1, 1996 by deploying two aircraft carriers, USS Nimitz and USS Independence, and various warships to the area. The Nimitz even sailed through the strait. Tensions peaked ahead of the Taiwanese election on March 23, 1996 - in which voters went against China's wishes - and the show of force concluded after 48 days on April 17. Of course, tensions simmered for years afterwards. The Taiwan incident was the only operation involving China in the 1990s, and the first to do so since a minor contingency operation upon the Chinese invasion of Vietnam in 1979. It is generally deemed successful in demonstrating U.S. commitment to Taiwan's security - but it also spurred a revolution in Chinese military affairs, such that China is today in a far better position to attack Taiwan than ever before.13 The market effects were pronounced: Chinese and Taiwanese equities sold off. American stocks were unaffected (Chart 3). Chart 3Naval Shows Of Force Can Rattle Markets The second major exception was the Hainan Island Incident, or EP-3 Incident. On April 1, 2001 a Chinese jet struck a U.S. EP-3 ARIES II signals reconnaissance plane in the skies over the South China Sea. The U.S. plane landed on China's island province of Hainan, where its crew was detained and interrogated for 10 days while their aircraft was meticulously disassembled. Ultimately the U.S. issued a half-hearted apology and the crew was released. This was a much smaller show of force than the third Taiwan crisis. The U.S. Navy positioned three destroyers in the area for two days. Chart 4A South China Sea Incident Helped Kill The Bull Market This incident marked the peak of the cycle in U.S. equities ex-tech (Chart 4). In China, both A-shares and H-shares experienced volatility before selling off in subsequent months (Chart 5, top panel). Chart 5Volatility And Selloffs Amid Asian Shows Of Force The Cheonan and Yeonpyeong Island incidents occasioned a show of force. On March 26, 2010 a North Korean miniature submarine conducted a surprise torpedo attack against the Cheonan, a South Korean Corvette, sinking it and killing 46 sailors. The U.S. intended to respond by positioning the USS George Washington in the Yellow Sea, but was intimidated from doing so by China's fiercely negative diplomatic reaction. Instead it deployed the carrier to the Sea of Japan. Later that year, however, after North Korea shelled Yeonpyeong Island and killed four South Koreans, the U.S. responded with a beefed up version of regular military drills, including the George Washington, for four days in the Yellow Sea. This incident is significant in showing how aggressively China will oppose demonstrations of American naval power in its near abroad. Unlike in 1996, China is today much better positioned to react to U.S. naval action in its neighborhood. If Beijing was so resistant to a U.S. show of force against North Korea in the wake of a North Korean attack, it will be even more resistant to a U.S. display of might in China's nearby waters aimed at China in response to what China views as a defense of maritime-territorial sovereignty. Chinese A-shares sold off, while H-shares were somewhat more resilient, during this episode (Chart 5, second panel). Fire and Fury: The United States' latest significant show of force occurred in 2017 when the navy positioned three aircraft carrier strike groups in the region to deter North Korean nuclear and missile tests and belligerent rhetoric against the United States. This action ultimately led to Chinese enforcement of sanctions and North Korean capitulation to U.S. demands. Chinese stocks only briefly sold off during this episode (Chart 5, third panel). However, the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield fell during the peak of tensions in the summer. So what about the global show of force that the U.S. is considering in November? Details on the specific operation under consideration are scant because they fall under a "classified proposal," written by members of the U.S. Navy's Pacific Command and only partially leaked to the press (apparently to coincide with Vice President Pence's speech).14 The proposal is still being discussed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Intelligence Community, so nothing is final. From the information that is publicly available, it is highly significant that the proposed show of force is supposed to be "global" in range. It would reportedly involve a "series" of military missions on "several fronts," including the South China Sea, the Taiwan Strait, an unspecified area near Russia, and the west coast of South America. It would also involve multiple military services - the navy, the air force, the marines, and potentially cyber and space capabilities. While the various missions would reportedly be "concentrated" and "focused," implying that the U.S. wants to manage the escalation of tensions carefully, the locations that have been named are extremely sensitive. A show of force in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea would be provocative enough. A simultaneous show of force against both China and Russia in today's context would be truly extraordinary.15 In short, if the report is accurate, the U.S. is contemplating a rare and provocative display of its global power projection capabilities. Why would the U.S. stage such a grand demonstration merely because of a taunt by a Chinese ship? The Decatur incident is only the proximate cause. Washington is in the midst of attempting a very dangerous "two-front war" against China and Iran, the latter of whom faces oil sanctions from November 4.16 Moreover, this is a "three-front war" if today's historically bad relations with Russia are taken into account. Indeed, the U.S. may well be responding to the joint show of force by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi in their own large-scale military exercises in September, in which Chinese soldiers participated in a Russian drill outside the auspices of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization for the first time.17 As such, we would not put any stock in the idea that a sudden drop-off in geopolitical tensions, with China or anyone else, will occur after the U.S. midterm election on November 6. Rather, investors should expect an increase in geopolitical risk. There is no combination of midterm election results in which Trump will be forced to pull back on his "Maximum Pressure" doctrine. The proposal is not final, and the idea alone is a low-level threat that could be used in negotiations. But under the circumstances, we think it more likely than not that the U.S. will go forward with it. Ultimately, the U.S. proposal epitomizes our mega-theme of multipolarity. The U.S. is in relative decline and is reasserting itself with a muscular national security policy, particularly against China and Iran but also against Russia. However, its actions are highly unlikely to cause a change in China's behavior now that Beijing has determined that the U.S. is seeking Cold War-style strategic containment. Instead, China will hasten its efforts to become self-reliant and to deter U.S. aggression in its near abroad. Global economic policy uncertainty, and trade policy uncertainty, are likely to increase, not decrease, in such an environment. Saber-rattling and supply-chain risk will weigh on EM Asia in particular. Bottom Line: The U.S. government is contemplating an extraordinary "global show of force" that could involve a series of joint military operations across the globe. The chief focus is China, but the unknown array of operations could also target Russia or Iran. We think such operations are plausible and will increase global economic uncertainty. We would expect them to create volatility in global markets, adding to jitters over China tariffs (supply-chain risks) and Iranian sanctions (oil prices). How Will China Retaliate? China does not have the ability to respond proportionately to the U.S. - it cannot hold a global show of force of its own. Because its own shows of force will appear diminutive next to American fireworks, it may not react immediately. Beijing is more likely to respond by changing its policies to address the underlying increase in antagonism with the United States and improve its national security. We would classify its potential responses into two main groups: the low road and the high road. The low road consists of policies meant to confront the U.S. directly and forcefully. In our view, these policies bring significant costs that will make China reluctant to embrace them fully: Raise the stakes in the South China Sea: China could go for broke and deploy the full range of military assets in the islands that it has repurposed. This would provoke an even larger international naval response from the U.S. and its allies.18 Remove sanctions on North Korea: China could reverse sanctions enforcement on North Korea (Chart 6) and undermine President Trump's signature foreign policy overture. The problem is that China would then provide the U.S. with a pretext for an even greater military presence in Northeast Asia. Chart 6China Could Reverse Sanctions Enforcement Flout sanctions on Iran: China could subsidize Iran (Chart 7) in the hopes of helping to create a huge American distraction comparable to the second Iraq war. But this confrontation would threaten China with an oil shock and economic dislocation, an even greater conflict with the U.S., and the risk of regime change in Iran.19 Chart 7China Could Flout Iran Sanctions Punish U.S. companies: China could raise the pressure on U.S. companies doing business on its territory. The problem is that the U.S. has already demonstrated, through the ZTE affair this year, that it can inflict devastating reprisals against the tech champions on whom China's economic future depends (Chart 8). Chart 8U.S. Could Punish Chinese Tech Firms Thus China is most likely to take the "high road," i.e. seeking alternatives to the United States throughout the rest of the world: Chart 9China's Market Is Its Biggest Advantage Import more goods: China's greatest strength in winning friends is that its domestic demand remains relatively robust (Chart 9). China can substitute away from the U.S. by shifting to other developed markets. Emerging markets are becoming more connected with China and less so with the U.S. (Chart 10). Chart 10China's Trade Ties Grow, Ex-U.S. Maintain outward investment: China's outward investment profile is expanding rapidly (Chart 11), but there is potential for a negative political backlash - as has occurred in Malaysia.20 China will need to focus on improving relations with those countries where it expands investment, including in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).21 Chart 11China's Outward Investment Strategy: Priorities Over The Past Decade Court U.S. regional allies: Relations with South Korea have already improved; Shinzo Abe of Japan is soon to make a rare state visit to China; and trilateral trade talks between these three have revived for the first time since 2015 (Chart 12). Both the Philippines and Thailand currently have governments that are friendly to China. Beijing will need to ensure that its growing trade surpluses do not get out of whack. Chart 12Can China Court U.S. Allies? Sign multilateral trade pacts: China is trying to position itself as a leader of free trade. This is a tough sell, but a successful completion of negotiations on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) will generate some momentum. This Asia Pacific trade grouping is far larger in terms of total imports than its more sophisticated rival, the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), the latter being shorn of U.S. participation (Chart 13). Chart 13RCEP Is Bigger Than CPTPP Play nice in the South China Sea: Now that the U.S. is proposing to push back against Chinese militarization of the islands, it makes sense for China to take a conciliatory approach. It is proposing joint energy exploration with the Philippines and others at least as long as offshore activity is depressed (Chart 14). China might also try to settle a diplomatic "Code of Conduct" for the sea with its neighbors. Chart 14A Reason For China To Play Nice The most important consequence is an alliance with Russia, whether formal or not. The security agenda of these two powers is increasingly aligned with their robust economic partnership (Chart 15).22 The differences and distrust between them cannot override their need to guard themselves against a more assertive United States. Chart 15Embrace Of Dragon And Bear Bottom Line: China's "high road" strategies are its best options when more aggressive options have higher risks of undermining China's own long-term interests. But an alliance with Russia is quickly becoming inevitable. Investment Implications A global show of force targeting China's "core interests" in Taiwan and the South China Sea will make trade negotiations even more difficult. China is not going to offer concessions when facing U.S. military intimidation in addition to tariffs.23 Investors should watch closely for any signs that nationalist protests and boycotts of U.S. goods are developing in China. Such a movement would not be allowed to continue for long without the Communist Party condoning it. A boycott would mark a form of retaliation that is much more impactful than tariffs. A deterioration in cultural ties is also in the cards. The United States is reported to be considering restrictions on Chinese student visas after intelligence assessments of non-traditional technological and intellectual property theft via graduate students in advanced programs such as artificial intelligence and quantum computing.24 U.S. markets remain insulated today, as in the last big rupture in U.S.-China relations in 1989, so we continue to expect U.S. equities to outperform Chinese (and global) stocks amid trade tensions and saber-rattling. Chart 16Last U.S.-China Crisis Prompted Stimulus... However, an important takeaway from the 1989 episode is that China stimulated the economy (Chart 16). This time we think stimulus will remain lackluster, reflecting Xi's need to keep overall leverage contained (Chart 17). But conflict escalation with the U.S. is clearly the biggest risk to this view. Chart 17...But Stimulus Muted Thus Far One oft-discussed retaliatory option is that China could sell off its vast $1.17 trillion holdings of U.S. treasuries. Rapidly dumping them is not effective, but slowly tapering is precisely what China has been doing since 2011 (Chart 18). This will accelerate its need to invest in real assets abroad and to purchase alternative reserve currencies, such as the euro, pound, and yen. Chart 18China Weans Itself Off Treasuries Ultimately, the significance of Vice President Pence's speech is that the U.S. now views China as both a great power and a threat to U.S. supremacy. This raises the potential for a large share of the $33 billion in cumulative U.S. direct investment in China since 2006 to become, effectively, stranded capital (Chart 19). If that is indeed the case, it would mean that investors in S&P 500 China-exposed companies would have to take note and re-rate their investments. Companies with significant investment in China may have to make capital investments in alternative supply-chain options, leading to a significant hit to their profit margin. Chart 19Stranded Capital In China? Other countries in Europe and the rest of Asia stand to benefit from the U.S. getting squeezed out of China's market, unless and until the new Cold War forces them to choose sides. Their choice is by no means a foregone conclusion, underscoring that China's policy response will be to seek better bonds with its neighbors and non-U.S. partners. Over the longer term, we think that our mega-theme of multipolarity will produce the bifurcation of capitalism. Within each sphere of influence globalization will continue to operate, but between spheres, or in the border areas, it will become a much less tidy affair. In addition to our recommendations above on page 2, we are reinitiating our short U.S. S&P 500 China-exposed stocks relative to the broad market. These companies have sold off heavily in recent months but the negative backdrop suggests that there is farther to go. Housekeeping On a separate note, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy is closing our long U.S. high-tax rate basket relative to S&P 500 trade for a gain of 8.26%. This was a play on the Trump tax cuts that we initiated in April 2017. Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?" dated September 25, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think," dated October 4, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Throwing The Baby (Globalization) Out With The Bath Water (Deflation)," dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Underestimating Sino-American Tensions," dated November 6, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The South China Sea: Smooth Sailing?" dated March 28, 2017, and "The Looming Conflict In The South China Sea," May 29, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Comparable incidents in December 2013, August 2014, May 2016, December 2016, August 2017, and March 2018 did not receive such a high-level response from U.S. leaders, reflecting both the seriousness of the Decatur incident and the administration's sense of political expediency amidst the trade conflict and midterm election cycle. 9 Pence criticized Chinese President Xi by name for allegedly breaking his word on the militarization of the Spratly Islands. He suggested that China's outward investment should be understood in strategic rather than economic terms, implying that the Belt and Road Initiative is a Soviet-style plan to organize a "bloc" of nations under Chinese hegemony. And he hinted at a new defense of the Monroe Doctrine in his criticism of China's recent assistance to the collapsing socialist regime in Venezuela. Please see the White House, "Remarks by Vice President Pence on the Administration's Policy Toward China," dated October 4, 2018, available at www.whitehouse.gov. 10 The Trump administration's key document is Secretary of Defense James Mattis, "Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America," Department of Defense, 2018, available at dod.defense.gov. For the Xi administration, see Orange Wang and Zhou Xin, "Xi Jinping says trade war pushes China to rely on itself and 'that's not a bad thing,'" South China Morning Post, dated September 26, 2018, available at www.scmp.com; and the Information Office of the State Council, "The Facts and China's Position on China-US Trade Friction," September 2018, available at www.chinadaily.com. 11 For this discussion of shows of force please see W. Eugene Cobble, H. H. Gaffney, and Dmitry Gorenburg, "For the Record: All U.S. Forces' Responses to Situations, 1970-2000 (with additions covering 2000-2003)," Center for Strategic Studies, May 2005, available at www.dtic.mil. 12 See footnote 11 above. 13 Please see William S. Murray, "Asymmetric Options for Taiwan's Defense," Testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, June 5, 2014, available at www.uscc.gov. 14 Please see Barbara Starr, "US Navy proposing major show of force to warn China," dated October 4, 2018, available at www.cnn.com. 15 Even the South American location implies that Chinese, Russian, and Iranian influence on that continent is now deemed meaningful enough to require a reassertion of the Monroe Doctrine. Over the past decade, the U.S. has tended to regard these activities as limited, but now that may be changing. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "2019: The Geopolitical Recession?" dated October 3, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see "Russia Holds Massive War Games, As Putin And Xi Tout Ties," Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, September 11, 2018, available at www.rferl.org. 18 Australia, Japan, and the U.K. have already begun enforcing freedom of navigation alongside the U.S. 19 The U.S. could also impose secondary sanctions on China for non-compliance. State-owned energy firm Sinopec, for instance, was said to be reducing imports of crude from Iran by half in the month of September. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy notes that Chinese refiners, like other Asian refiners, are preparing to run more light-sweet crude from the U.S. in the future, which gives a good yield in high-value-added products like gasoline. So far China has not imposed retaliatory tariffs on these imports from the U.S. Please see Chen Aizhu and Florence Tan, "China's Sinopec halves Iran oil loadings under U.S. pressure: sources," Reuters, dated September 28, 2018, available at uk.reuters.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Are You Ready For 'Maximum Pressure?'," dated May 16, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "China's Belt And Road Initiative: Can It Offset A Mainland Slowdown?" dated September 13, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Can Russia Import Productivity From China?" dated June 29, 2016, and "The Embrace Of The Dragon And The Bear," dated April 11, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 23 Xi Jinping's refusal to meet with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo over the past weekend, and decision to visit North Korea for the first time in his term, underscores this point. 24 Please see Demetri Sevastopulo and Tom Mitchell, "US considered ban on student visas for Chinese nationals," Financial Times, dated October 2, 2018, available at www.ft.com. Appendix Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) (Continued) Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) (Continued)

Special Report

Highlights So What? Go long Brent / short S&P 500. The risk of a recession in 2019 is underappreciated. Why? The likelihood is increasing of a geopolitically-induced supply-side shock that pushes crude prices above $100 per barrel in the coming 6-12 months. Oil supply disruptions in Iran, Iraq, and Venezuela represent the primary source of risk. Historically, the combination of Fed rates hike and an oil price spike has preceded 8 out of the last 9 recessions. Also... A recession in 2019, ahead of the 2020 election, would set the stage for a confrontation between Trump and the Fed, adding fuel to market volatility. Feature Geopolitical tensions are brewing from the Strait of Hormuz to the Strait of Malacca. As we go to press, news is breaking that a Chinese naval vessel almost collided with the USS Decatur as the latter conducted "freedom of navigation" operations within 12 nautical miles of Gaven and Johnson reefs in the Spratly Islands. Given the trade tensions between China and the U.S., this alleged maneuver by the Chinese vessel suggests that Beijing is not backing off from a confrontation. Our view remains that Sino-American trade tensions can get a lot worse before they get better. The latest incident, which builds on a series of negative gestures recently in the South China Sea, suggests that both sides are combining longstanding geopolitical tensions with the trade war. This will likely encourage brinkmanship and further degrade U.S.-China relations. Yet China-U.S. tensions are not the only concern for investors in 2019. Another crisis is brewing in the Middle East, with the potential to significantly increase oil prices over the next 12 months. U.S. households may have to deal with a double-whammy next year: higher costs of imported goods as the U.S.-China trade war rages on and a significant increase in gasoline prices. In this report, we discuss this dire outlook. The Folly Of Recession Forecasting In mid-2017, BCA Research published two reports, one titled "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession" and another titled "The Timing Of The Next Recession."1 Both argued that if the Federal Reserve kept raising rates in line with the FOMC dots, then monetary policy would move into restrictive territory by early 2019 and increase the likelihood of recession thereafter. We subsequently adjusted the timing of our recession forecast to 2020 or beyond, based on a more positive assessment of the U.S. economy. In this report, we explore a risk to the BCA House View on the timing of the next recession. As BCA's long-time Chief Economist Martin Barnes has said, predicting recessions is a mug's game. There have been eight recessions in the past 60 years (excluding the brief 1980-81 downturn) and the Fed failed to forecast all of them (Table 1). Table 1Fed Economic Forecasts Versus Outcomes The Atlanta Fed produces a recession indicator index which is designed to highlight the odds of recession based on trends in recent GDP data. At the moment, the indicator is at a historically sanguine 2.4%. Unfortunately, low readings are not a reliable cause for optimism. The 1974-75, 1981-82, and 2007-09 recessions were all severe and the Atlanta Fed's recession indicator had a low reading of 10%, 1.6%, and 7.7%, respectively - just as the recession was about to begin (Chart 1). Chart 1The Market Is Not Expecting A Recession The 1974-75 recession is instructive, given the numerous parallels with the current environment: Energy Geopolitics: The 1973 oil crisis caused a massive spike in crude prices. This point is especially pertinent since the 1973 oil embargo is widely viewed as an important contributor to the 1974-75 recession. Real short rates had risen and the yield curve had inverted long before oil prices spiked, so recession was almost inevitable even without the oil price move. But the oil spike made the recession much deeper than otherwise. Protectionism: President Nixon imposed a 10% across-the-board tariff on all imports into the U.S. in 1971 to try to force trade partners to devalue the U.S. dollar. Dislocation: Competition from newly industrialized countries - Japan and the East Asian tigers in particular - laid waste to the steel industry in the developed world. Polarization: President Nixon polarized the nation with both his policies and behavior, leading to his resignation in 1974. Given the exogenous and geopolitical nature of oil supply shocks, today's recession indicators are missing a critical potential headwind to the economy. A geopolitically induced oil-price shock could create more pain than the economy is able to handle. Why An Oil Price Shock? America's renewed foray into the politics of the Middle East will unravel the tenuous equilibrium that was just recently established between Iran and its regional rivals. The U.S.-Iran détente that produced the signing of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) created conditions for a precarious balance of power between Israel and Saudi Arabia on one side, and Iran and its allies on the other side. This equilibrium led to a meaningful change in Tehran's behavior, particularly on the following fronts: The Strait of Hormuz: Tehran ceased to rhetorically threaten the Strait as soon as negotiations began with the U.S. (Chart 2). Since then, Iran's capabilities to threaten the Strait have grown, while the West's anti-mine capabilities remain unchanged.2 Iraq: Iran directly participated in the anti-U.S. insurgency in Iraq. Tehran changed tack after 2013 and cooperated closely with the U.S. in the fight against the Islamic State. In 2014, Iran acquiesced to the removal of the deeply sectarian, and pro-Iranian, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Bahrain and the Saudi Eastern Province: Iran's material and rhetorical support was instrumental in the Shia uprisings in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province in 2011 (Map 1). Saudi Arabia had to resort to military force to quell both. Since the détente with the U.S. in 2015, Iranian support for Shia uprisings in these critical areas of the Persian Gulf has stopped. Chart 2Geopolitical Crises And Global Peak Supply Losses Map 1Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province Is A Crucial Piece Of Real Estate Put simply, the 2015 nuclear deal traded American acquiescence toward Iranian nuclear development in exchange for Iran's cooperation on a number of strategically vital regional issues. By unraveling that détente, President Trump is upending the balance of power in the Middle East and increasing the probability that Iran retaliates. Since penning our latest net assessment of the U.S.-Iran tensions in May, Iran has already retaliated.3 Our checklist for "kinetic" conflict has now risen from zero to at least 15%, if not higher (Table 2). We expect the probability to rise once the U.S. starts implementing the oil embargo in November. This will dovetail our Iran-U.S. decision tree, which sets the subjective probability of kinetic action by the U.S. against Iran at a baseline of 20% (Diagram 1). Table 2Will The U.S. Attack Iran? Diagram 1Iran-U.S. Tensions Decision Tree Bottom Line: The premier geopolitical risk to investors in 2019 is that President Trump's maximum pressure tactic on Iran spills over into Iraq, causing a loss of supply from the world's fifth-largest crude producer.4 We expect the U.S. oil embargo against Iran to remove between 1 million and 1.5 million barrels per day from the market. In addition, the loss of Iraqi production due to sabotage could be anywhere between 500,000 and 3.5 million barrels per day. Added to this total is the potential loss of Venezuelan exports due to the deteriorating situation there. When our commodity team combines all of these factors, they generate a worst-case scenario where the price of crude rises to $110 per barrel in 2019 or higher (Chart 3). And this scenario assumes that EMs do not reinstitute energy subsidies (and therefore their consumption falls faster than if they do reinstitute them). Chart 3Worst-Case Scenario Propels Oil Price Toward 0/Barrel The Ayatollah Recession We believe that the midterm election is a dud from an investment perspective, no matter the outcome. However, the election does matter as a hurdle that, once cleared, will allow President Trump to renew his "maximum pressure" tactic against China, Iran, and perhaps domestic tech corporations.5 Iran is a critical risk in this strategy. If President Trump applies maximum pressure on Iran, then a reduction in crude exports from Iran, Iranian retaliation in Iraq, and the simultaneous loss of Venezuelan supplies could combine to increase the likelihood of U.S. recession in 2019. Readers might recall that no sitting president has gotten re-elected during a recession. Why would Trump pursue a policy that risks his re-election chances in 2020? Surely he would deviate from his maximum pressure tactic if faced with the prospect of a recession. However, it is folly to assume that policymakers are perfectly rational, or fully informed. American presidents are some of the most unconstrained policymakers in the world, given both the hard power of the United States and the constitutional lack of constraints on the president when it comes to national security. Trump may believe, for instance, that the 660 million barrels of crude in America's Strategic Petroleum Reserve can offset the impact of sanctions against Iran.6 Or he may believe that he can force OPEC to supply enough oil to offset the Iranian losses. The problem for President Trump is that Iran is not led by idiots. Iranian policymakers understand that the best way to reduce American pressure is to induce an oil price spike in the summer of 2019 that hurts President Trump's re-election chances, forcing him to back off. As such, sabotaging Iraqi oil exports, which mainly transit through the port of Basra - a city highly vulnerable to Shia-on-Shia violence that is already a risk to the country's stability - would be an obvious target. An oil price spike would serve as a negotiating tool against the U.S., and the additional revenue would help replace what Iran loses due to the embargo. Tehran and Washington will therefore play a game of chicken throughout 2019, and there is a fair probability that neither side will swerve. President Trump may be making the same mistake as many predecessors have made, assuming that the Iranian regime is teetering at a precipice and that a mere nudge will force the leadership to negotiate. Oil price shocks and recessions have a historical connection. In a recent report, our commodity strategists highlighted that a spike in oil prices preceded 10 out of the past 11 recessions in the U.S. since 1945 (Table 3). Admittedly, not all spikes were followed by recession. The combination of an oil price spike and Fed rate hikes has produced a recession 8 out of 9 times.7 If oil prices rose to $100 per barrel in the coming 6-12 months, there will be several negative macro consequences. In particular, gasoline prices will rise back toward $4 per gallon (Chart 4). Retail gasoline prices have already increased by more than 50% since they bottomed in February 2016. So how much more upside can the U.S. private sector take? Table 3History Of Oil Supply Shocks Chart 4A Source Of Pressure For Consumers The Household Sector Consumer confidence is currently near all-time highs, which tends to signal that the path of least resistance is flat or down (Chart 5). Household gasoline consumption has already declined in response to higher oil prices since the middle of 2017. Given that gasoline demand is relatively inelastic, consumers may already be near their minimum consumption level. Chart 5Nearing All-Time Highs Instead, households will experience a decline in their disposable income. This will come on the back of both higher gasoline prices and an increase in the prices of other goods and services, as the oil spike spills across sectors. U.S. households - and most likely those in other markets - are stretched to the limit already. A recent Fed survey found that 40% of U.S. households do not have the funds needed to meet an unexpected $400 cost in any given month.8 Such an unexpected expense would require them to either sell possessions, borrow, or cut back on other purchases. Chart 6Most Americans Cannot Cut Saving To Spend Left with few other options, households would react to their lower disposable income by reducing demand for other goods and services. This dent in consumer spending would bring down aggregate demand, leading to slower employment growth and even less income and spending. Households could save less to maintain their current purchasing levels, given the recent rise in the savings rate (Chart 6). But this is unlikely. Although the household savings rate has increased in recent years, we have previously argued that a material part of the increase was driven by small business-owner profits. These owners have much higher levels of income than the median consumer. For Americans living paycheck-to-paycheck, it would be difficult to reduce a savings rate that is already close to, or below, zero. Higher oil prices will also hurt growth in Europe and Japan, economies that are already struggling to gain economic momentum after grappling with a weaker growth impulse from China. In addition, EM economies that took the opportunity to reform their oil subsidies amid lower oil prices post-2014 will have to grapple with a much larger shock to consumers than usual. The Corporate Sector In theory, what consumers lose from rising oil prices, producers of crude can gain in stronger revenue. This is especially important in the U.S. as domestic energy production has increased significantly over the past 10 years. Nonetheless, the oil and gas extraction sector accounts for just 1.1% of GDP and 0.1% of total employment. The marginal propensity to spend out of every dollar of income is lower for producers than consumers. Moreover, if consumer confidence fell and consumer spending weakened, non-energy capex would decline as businesses reassessed household demand and held off from making investment decisions. Small business confidence is at record highs, and as with consumer confidence, vulnerable to downward revisions (Chart 7). Chart 7Dizzying Heights Chart 8Only One Way To Go (Down) Profit margins remain at a highly elevated level and also have only one way to go (Chart 8). If high oil prices should combine with rising borrowing costs and upward pressure on wages (which could develop in this macro environment) the result would be a triple hit to margins (Chart 9). Of course, rising wages would give consumers some offset to higher oil prices, so the question will be the net effect of all variables. And if the dollar bull market continues, as our FX team believes it will, the combination of higher oil prices and a strong USD would hurt U.S. companies with international exposure. The debt load held by the U.S. corporate sector would turn this bad dream into a nightmare. Many American companies have spent the past 10 years increasing leverage to buy back equity (Chart 10). Companies with high debt would need to revise down their profit expectations, with potentially devastating consequences. Elevated debt levels also increase the likelihood of financial market stress if bond investors get worried and spreads begin to widen significantly. Chart 9Rising Pressures On Earnings? Chart 10Large Corporate Debts According to all measures, U.S. stocks are at or near their all-time valuation peaks. Investors have also priced in a significant amount of optimism for profit growth (Chart 11). These expectations would be subject to quick revision if our oil shock scenario plays out. In other words, investor expectations for profit margins are not sufficiently factoring the triple hit of higher oil prices, higher interest rates, and higher wages. Chart 11The Market Has High Hopes An additional geopolitical risk on the horizon for 2019 is the creeping "stroke of pen" risk from potential regulation of technology enterprises. This is unrelated to an oil price spike (other than that it would be an effect of U.S. policy) but could nonetheless combine with rising energy prices to sour investors' mood.9 Bottom Line: An oil price spike above $100 would produce negative consequences for the U.S. household and corporate sectors. Given the supply-side nature of the price shock, it would not be accompanied by the usual decline in USD, and could therefore hurt the foreign profits of U.S. corporations as well. If investors must also deal with mounting regulatory pressures on FAANG stocks, they could face a perfect storm. Given the high probability of such an oil price shock, why isn't a 2019 recession BCA's House View, rather than merely a risk to it? Because it is difficult to say how high oil prices need to rise to cause a recession. For example, 1973 both marked a permanent move up in oil prices and saw oil prices triple. In 2019 terms, that would mean an oil price above $200, a far less probable scenario than $100-$110. Nevertheless, the combination of elevated oil prices and the price impact on consumer goods of the U.S.-China trade war could combine to create a nightmare scenario for consumers. But it is impossible to gauge the level of both required to push the U.S. into a recession. Second, there are many ways in which today's macro environment is different from that in 1974. In the 1970s the inventory cycle was a key factor in the business cycle, with excesses building up ahead of recessions, forcing output cutbacks as demand weakened. That is no longer the case in today's world of just-in-time inventory management. Also, inflation was a much bigger problem back then, requiring tougher Fed action. On the other hand, debt burdens were much lower. Investment Implications To be clear, none of the usual recession indicators that BCA Research uses are flashing red at this time. The point of this analysis is to illustrate a credible, exogenous scenario that cannot be revealed through the usual data-driven recession forecasting methods. What happens if a recession does occur ahead of the 2020 election? How would President Trump react to a recession induced by his foreign policy adventurism in the Middle East? By doing what every other president would do: finding someone else to blame. In this case, we would put high odds on the Federal Reserve becoming the target of President Trump's fury. Ahead of 2020, the Fed and its independence may very well become an election issue.10 This could spell serious trouble for the Fed, which is at a massive disadvantage when it comes to explaining to voters why central bank independence is so important. The Fed had great difficulty managing public opinion regarding its extraordinary measures to combat the Great Recession - its attempts at public outreach largely failed. Compare the number of Trump's Twitter followers to that of the Fed's (Chart 12). Chart 12The Fed's PR Abilities Are Limited Though most of our clients and colleagues will probably disagree, we do not see central bank independence as a static quality. It was bestowed upon central banks by politicians following widespread inflation fears throughout the 1970s and 1980s, although in the U.S. the current tradition goes back to the 1951 Treasury Accord that restored the independence of the Fed. Our colleague Martin Barnes penned a report on the politicization of monetary policy in 2013.11 His conclusion is that political meddling in monetary affairs is less pernicious than economic performance. The Fed will incur Trump's ire, in other words, but it will be its failure to generate economic growth that causes a break in independence. We are not so sure. The next recession is likely to be a mild one for Main Street given the lack of real economic bubbles. But given the slow recovery in real wages over the past decade and the general angst of the populace towards governing elites, even a mild recession that merely reminds voters of 2008-2009 could produce deep anxiety and significant public reactions. Further, the idea of "independent," non-politically accountable institutions is going out of style. President Trump - and other policymakers in the developed world - have specifically targeted the "so-called experts" and "institutions." President Trump has attacked America's foreign policy architecture, NATO, the WTO, and a slew of supposedly outdated norms and practices for being "out of touch" with the electorate. This policy has served him well thus far. If our nightmare scenario of an oil price-induced recession plays out, the immediate implication for investors will be a sharp downturn in risk assets. As such, we are recommending that investors hedge their portfolios with a long Brent / short S&P 500 trade. Alternatively we would recommend going long U.S. energy / short technology stocks. A longer-term, and perhaps even more pernicious implication, would be the end of the era of central bank independence and a full politicization of the economy. Laissez-faire capitalist system would give way to dirigisme. In the process, the U.S. dollar and Treasuries would be doomed. Jim Mylonas, Global Strategist Daily Insights & BCA Academy jim@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research Special Report, "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession," dated March 7, 2017, and Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Timing Of The Next Recession," dated June 16, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy and Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report, "U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic," dated July 19, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize," dated May 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Fade The Midterms, Not Iraq Or Brexit," dated September 12, 2018 and "Iraq: The Fulcrum Of Middle East Geopolitics And Global Oil Supply," dated September 5, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "A Story Told Through Charts: The U.S. Midterm Election," dated September 19, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 The Strategic Petroleum Reserve currently covers 100 days of net crude imports, or 200 days of net petroleum imports, and can be tapped for reasons of political timing as well as international emergencies. 7 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Oil-Supply Shock, Rising U.S. Rates Favor Gold As A Portfolio Hedge," dated September 13, 2018, available at bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see the U.S. Federal Reserve, "Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2017," May 2018, available at federalreserve.gov. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Is The Stock Rally Long In The FAANG?" dated August 1, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Daily Insights, "Politics And Monetary Policy," dated August 22, 2018, and "The Battle Of The Press Conferences: Trump Versus Powell," dated September 27, 2018, available at dailyinsights.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Special Report, "The Politicization Of Monetary Policy: Should We Care?" dated April 15, 2013, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar