Geopolitics

Highlights We cannot predict how China will manage Evergrande precisely but we have a high conviction that it will do whatever it takes to prevent contagion across the property sector. However, China’s stimulus tools are losing their effectiveness over time. The country is due for a prolonged struggle with financial and economic instability regardless of whether Evergrande defaults. A messy default would obviously exacerbate the problem. China’s regulatory crackdowns target private companies and will continue to weigh on animal spirits in the private sector. The government will be forced to use fiscal policy to compensate. The US’s and China’s switch from engagement to confrontation poses a persistent headwind for investor sentiment toward China. The new consensus that investors should buy into China’s “strategic sectors” to avoid arbitrary regulatory crackdowns is vulnerable to its own logic and to sanctions by the US and its allies. Feature China poses a unique confluence of domestic and foreign political risks and global markets are now pricing them. Property giant Evergrande could default on $120 million in onshore and offshore interest payments as early as September 23, or next month, prompting investors to run for cover. Is this crisis fleeting or part of a larger systemic failure? It is a larger systemic failure. We expect a slow-motion, Japanese-style crisis over the coming decade, marked with periodic bailouts and stimulus packages. We recommend investors stay the course: steer clear of China and stay short the renminbi and Taiwanese dollar. Tactically, stick with large caps, defensive sectors, and developed markets within the global equity universe. Strategically, prefer emerging markets that benefit from forthcoming Chinese (and American) stimulus. 1. A “Minsky Moment” Cannot Be Ruled Out The chief fear is whether the approaching default of Evergrande marks China’s “Minsky Moment.” Hyman Minsky’s financial instability hypothesis held that long periods of stable revenues lead to risky financial deals and large accumulations of systemic risk that are underpriced. When revenues cannot cover interest payments, a crash ensues followed by deleveraging. Minsky’s hypothesis speaks to debt crises in an entire economy, yet nobody knows for sure whether China’s economy has reached such a breaking point. China’s national savings rate stands at 45.7% of GDP and nominal growth exceeds the long-term government bond yield. However, a sharp drop in asset prices, especially in the property sector, could change everything, as it could lead to balance sheet recession among corporates and a fall in national income. Evergrande is supposed to make an $84 million interest payment on offshore debt and a $36 million payment on onshore debt this week, and after 30 days it would default. It owes $37 billion in debt payments over the next 12 months but only has $13 billion cash on hand (as of June 30, 2021). Authorities can opt for a full bailout or a partial bailout, in which the company defaults on offshore bonds but not onshore. They could even let the company fail categorically, though that would produce exactly the kind of precipitous drop in property asset prices that would lead to wider financial contagion. State intervention to smooth the crisis is more likely – and the government can easily pressure other companies into acquiring Evergrande’s assets and business divisions. Chart 1Yes, This Could Be China's Minsky Moment Chart 1 shows that China’s corporate debt-to-GDP ratio stands head and shoulders above other countries that experienced financial crises in recent decades, courtesy of our Emerging Markets Strategy. While China can undoubtedly bear large debts due to its savings, the implication is that China has large enough financial imbalances to suffer a full-fledged financial crisis, even if the timing is hard to predict. Household credit is also elevated at 61.7% of GDP, and the household debt-to-disposable-income ratio is now higher than in the United States. About two-thirds of China’s corporate debt is held by state-owned or state-controlled entities, prompting some investors to dismiss the gravity of the risk. However, financial crises often involve the transfer of debt from the state to private sector or vice versa. 59% of bond defaults in H1 2021 have involved state companies. Total debt is the main concern. Don’t take our word for it: China’s Communist Party has warned for the past decade about the danger of “implicit guarantees” and “moral hazard” that encourage financial excesses in the corporate sector. The Xi Jinping administration has tried to induce a deleveraging process since it came to power in 2012-13. Xi’s “three red lines” for the property sector precipitated the current turmoil. Even if Evergrande’s troubles are managed, China’s systemic risks will continue to boil over as its potential growth rate slows and the government continues trying to wring out financial excesses. Chart 2Policy Uncertainty, Financial Stress Can Rise Higher More broadly China is experiencing an unprecedented overlap of economic and political crises: The population is aging and labor force is shrinking; The economic model since 2009 has been changing from export-manufacturing to domestic-oriented, investment-driven growth; Indebtedness is spreading from corporates to households and ultimately the government; The governance model is shifting from “single-party rule” to “single-person rule” or autocracy; The population is reaching middle class status and demanding better quality of life; The international trade environment is turning from hyper-globalization to hypo-globalization; The geopolitical backdrop is darkening with the US and its allies attempting to contain China’s ambitions of regional supremacy. Almost all of these changes bring more risks than opportunities to China over the long haul. The need for rapid policy shifts provides the ostensible reasoning for President Xi Jinping’s decision not to step down but to remain president for the foreseeable future. He will clinch this position at the twentieth national party congress in fall 2022. The implication is that policy uncertainty will continue climbing up to at least 2019 peaks while offshore equity markets will continue to trend lower, as they have done since the onset of the US trade war (Chart 2). Credit default swap rates have so far been subdued but they are showing signs of life. A sharp rise in policy uncertainty and property sector stress would pull them up. Domestic equities (A-shares) have rallied since 2019 but we would expect them to fall back given China’s historic confluence of structural and cyclical challenges, which will create further negative surprises (Chart 2, bottom panel). 2. Beijing Will Provide Bailouts And Stimulus Ad Nauseum Evergrande’s future may be in doubt but Beijing will throw all its power at stopping nationwide financial contagion. True, a policy miscalculation is possible. A tardy or failed intervention cannot be ruled out. However, investors should remember that a clear pattern of bailouts and stimulus has emerged over the course of the Xi Jinping administration whenever a “hard landing” or financial collapse loomed. The government tightens controls on bloated sectors until the financial fallout threatens to undermine general economic and social stability, at which point the government eases policy. It is often forced to stimulate the economy aggressively. Chart 3 shows these cycles in two ways: China’s control of credit through the state-controlled banks, and the frequency of news stories mentioning important terms associated with financial and economic distress: defaults, layoffs, and bankruptcies. These three terms used to be unheard of among China watchers. Under the Xi administration, a higher tolerance of creative destruction has served as the way to push forward reform. The current rise in distress is not extended, suggesting that more bad news is coming, but it also shows that the government has repeatedly been forced to provide stimulus even under the Xi administration. Chart 3Xi Jinping Has Bailed Out System Three Times Already Could this time be different? Not likely. The American experience and the pandemic will also force China’s government to ease policy: China learns from US mistakes. The US lurched from Lehman’s failure into a financial crisis, an impaired credit channel, a sluggish economic recovery, a spike in polarization, policy paralysis, a near-default on the national debt, a surge in right- and left-wing populism, the tumultuous Trump presidency, widespread social unrest, a contested leadership succession, and a mob storming the nation’s capitol (Chart 4). This is obviously the nightmare of any Chinese leader and a trajectory that the Xi administration will avoid at any cost. Chart 4Lehman Brothers A Powerful Disincentive For China To Let Evergrande Fail Chinese households store their wealth in the property sector, so any attempt at policy restraint or austerity faces a massive constraint. Only a few countries are comparable to China with respect to the share of non-financial household wealth (property and land) within total household wealth. All of them are hosts of property sector bubbles, including the bubbles in Spain and Ireland back in 2007 (Chart 5). A property collapse would destroy the savings of the Chinese people over four decades of prosperity. Chart 5Property Is The Bedrock Of Chinese Households Social instability is already flaring up. Almost all China experts agree that “social stability” is the Communist Party’s bottom line. But note that the Evergrande saga has already led to protests, not only at the company’s headquarters in Shenzhen but also in other cities such as Shenyang, Guangzhou, Chongqing. Protests were filmed and shown on social media (posts have been censored). Protesters demanded repayment for wealth management products gone sour and properties they are owed that have not been built. This is only a taste of the cross-regional protests that would emerge if the broader property sector suffered. The lingering COVID-19 pandemic is still relevant. Investors should not underrate the potential threat that the pandemic poses to the regime. Severe epidemics have occurred about 11% of the time over the course of China’s history and they often have major ramifications. Disease has played a role in the downfall of six out of ten dynasties – and in four cases it played a major role. It would be suicidal for any regime to add self-inflicted economic collapse to a lingering pandemic (Table 1). Table 1Disease Threatens Chinese Dynasties – Not A Time To Self-Inflict A Recession Easing policy does not necessarily mean bringing out the “bazooka” and splurging on money and credit growth, though that is increasingly likely as the crisis intensifies. Notably the July Politburo statement specifically removed language that said China would “avoid sharp turns in policy.” In other words, sharp turns might be necessary. That can only mean sharp reflationary turns, as there is very little chance of doubling down on policy tightening. A counterargument holds that the Chinese government is now exclusively focused on power consolidation to the neglect of financial and economic stability. Perhaps the leadership is misinformed, overconfident, or thinks a financial collapse will better purge its enemies – along the lines of the various political purges under Chairman Mao Zedong. Wealthy tech magnates and property owners could conceivably challenge the return of autocracy. After all, the US political establishment almost “fell” to a rich property baron – why couldn’t China’s Communist Party? Political purges should certainly be expected ahead of next year’s party congress. But not to the point of killing the economy. The government would not be trying to balance policy tightening and loosening so carefully if it sought to induce chaos. It must be admitted, however, that the change to autocracy means that the odds of irrational or idiosyncratic policy have gone up substantially and permanently. Of course, the high likelihood that Beijing will provide bailouts and stimulus should not be read as a bullish investment thesis, even though it would create a pop in oversold assets. The Chinese system is saturated with money and credit, which have been losing their effectiveness in driving growth. Financial imbalances get worse, not better, with each wave of credit stimulus. Beijing is caught between a rock and a hard place. Hence stimulus comes only reluctantly and reactively. But it does come in the end because a financial crash would threaten the life of the regime and preclude all other policy priorities, domestic and foreign. 3. Yes, China’s Regulatory Crackdown Targets The Private Sector Global growth and other emerging economies will get most of the benefit once China stimulates, since China’s own firms will still face a negative domestic political backdrop. Bullish investors argue that the government’s regulatory tightening is misunderstood and overblown. The claim is that China is not targeting the private sector generally but only isolated sectors causing social problems. Costs need to be reduced in property, education, and health to improve quality of life. China shares the US’s and EU’s desire to rein in tech giants that monopolize their markets, abuse consumer data and privacy, and benefit from distorted tax systems. Most of these arguments are misleading. China does not have a strong record on data privacy, equality, social safety nets, rule of law, or “sustainable” growth (as opposed to “unsustainable,” high-debt, high-polluting growth). China actively encourages state champions that monopolize key sectors. Many developed markets have better records in these areas, notably in Europe, yet China is eschewing these regulatory models in preference for an approach that is arbitrary and absolutist, i.e. negative for governance. As for the private sector, animal spirits have been in a long decline throughout the past decade. This is true whether judging by money velocity – i.e. the pace of economic activity relative to the increase in money supply – or by households’ and businesses’ marginal propensity to save (Chart 6). The 2015-16 period shows that even periodic bouts of government stimulus have not reversed the general trend. Regulatory whack-a-mole and financial turmoil will not improve the situation. Chart 6Private Sector Animal Spirits Depressed Throughout Xi Era Chart 7Even Official Data Shows Consumer Confidence Flagging Surveys of sentiment confirm that the latest developments will have a negative effect (Chart 7). Cumulatively, the changes in China’s domestic and international policy context are being interpreted as negative for business, entrepreneurship, and economic freedom – notwithstanding the government’s claims to expand opportunity in its “common prosperity” plan. 4. The Withdrawal Of US Friendship Is A Headwind For China Chart 8Other Asians Sought US Friendship, Not Conflict, When Export Models Expired All of the successful Asian economies – including China for most of the past forty years of prosperity – have tried to stay on the good side of the United States. By contrast, China and the US today are shifting from engagement to confrontation and breaking up their economic ties (Chart 8). This is a problem for China because the US and to some extent its allies will seek to undermine China’s economy and its autocratic model as part of this great power competition. The rise in geopolitical risk is underscored by the Australia-UK-US (AUKUS) agreement, by which the US will provide Australia with nuclear submarines over the next decade. This was a clear demonstration of the US’s “pivot to Asia” and the fact that the US and China are preparing for war – if only to deter it. China’s return to autocracy and clash with the US and Asian neighbors is also leading to a deterioration of its global image, particularly over issues of transparency and information sharing. The dispute over the origins of COVID-19 is a major source of division with the US and other countries. Transparency is important for investors. The World Bank has discontinued its “Ease of Doing Business” rankings after a scandal was revealed in which China’s ranking was artificially bumped up. The last-published trend is still downward (Chart 9). Most recently China has stepped up censorship of its financial news media amid the current market turmoil, which makes it harder for investors to assess the full extent of property and financial risks.1 The US political factions agree on China-bashing if nothing else. The Biden administration has little political impetus to eschew tariffs and export controls. One important penalty will come from the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is likely to ban Chinese firms from US stock exchanges unless they conform to common accounting standards. Hence the dramatic fall in the share prices of Chinese companies listed via American Depository Receipts (ADRs), in both absolute and relative terms (Chart 10, top panel). This threat prompted China’s recent crackdown on its own firms that were attempting to hold initial public offerings on US exchanges. Chart 9US Conflict Exposes China’s Global Influence Campaign The Quadrilateral Forum – the US, Japan, Australia, and India – has agreed to link the semiconductor supply chain to human rights standards, foreclosing China’s participation in that supply chain. US semiconductor firms are among the most exposed to China but they have not suffered over the course of the US-China tech war, suggesting that US vulnerabilities are limited (Chart 10, bottom panel). Chart 10US Regulators Will Kick Chinese Firms While They Are Down The point is not to exaggerate the strength of the US and its allies but rather the costs to China of actively opposing them. The US has a difficult enough time cobbling together a coalition of states to impose sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, not to mention forming any coalition that would totally exclude and isolate China. China is far more important to US allies than Iran – it is irreplaceable in the global economy (Chart 11). The EU and China’s Asian neighbors will typically restrain the US’s more aggressive impulses so as not to upset the global recovery or end up on the front lines of a war.2 Chart 11No Substitute For China In Global Economy This diplomatic constraint on the US is probably positive for global growth but not for China per se. American allies are still able to increase the costs on China for pursuing its own state-backed development path and geopolitical sphere of influence. Japan, Australia, and others are likely to veto China’s application to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), while the UK and eventually the US are likely to join it. Investors should view US-China ties as a headwind at least until the two powers manage to negotiate a diplomatic thaw, i.e. substantial de-escalation of tensions. A thaw is unlikely in the lead-up to Xi Jinping’s consolidation of power and the US midterm elections in fall 2022. Presidents Biden and Xi are still working on a bilateral summit, not to mention a more substantial improvement in ties. We doubt a diplomatic thaw would be durable anyway but the important point is that until it happens China will face periodic bouts of negative sentiment from the emerging cold war. Other Asian economies thrived under US auspices – China is sailing in uncharted waters. 5. Global Investors Cannot Separate Civilian From State And Military Investments The word on Wall Street is that investors should align their strategies with those of China’s leaders so as not to run afoul of arbitrary and draconian regulators. For example, instead of “soft tech” or consumer-oriented companies – like those that give people rides, deliver food, or make creative video games – investors should invest in “hard tech” or strategic companies like those that make computer chips, renewable energy, biotechnologies, pharmaceuticals, and capital equipment. There is no question that the trend in China – and elsewhere – is for governments to become more active in picking winners and losers. Industrial policy is back. Investors have no choice but to include policy analysis in their toolbox. However, for global investors, an investment strategy of buying whatever the government says is far from convincing. The most basic investment strategy in keeping with the Xi administration’s goals would be to invest in state-owned enterprises in domestic equity markets. So SOEs should have outperformed the market, right? Wrong. They were in a downtrend prior to the 2015 bubble, the burst of which caused a further downtrend (Chart 12, top panel). Similarly, the preference for “hard tech” over “soft tech” is promising in theory but complicated in practice: hard tech is flat-to-down over the decade and down since COVID-19 (Chart 12, middle panel). It has underperformed its global peers (Chart 12, bottom panel). China’s policy disposition should be beneficial for industrials, health care, and renewable energy. First, China is doubling down on its manufacturing economy. Second, the population is aging and health care is a critical part of the common prosperity plan. Third, green energy is a way of diversifying from dependency on imported oil and natural gas. However, the profile of these sectors relative to their global counterparts is only unambiguously attractive in the case of industrials, which began to outperform even during the trade war (Chart 13). Chart 12State Approved' Trades Still Bring Risks Chart 13Beware 'State Approved' Trades In Table 2 we outline the valuations and political risks of onshore equity sectors. Valuations are not cheap. Domestic and foreign risks are not fully priced. Table 2China Onshore Equities, Valuations, And (Geo)Political Risks There is a bigger problem for global investors, especially Americans: investing in China’s strategic sectors directly implicates investors in the Communist Party’s domestic human rights practices, state-owned enterprises, and national security goals. “Civil-military fusion” is a well-established doctrine that calls for the People’s Liberation Army to have access to the cutting-edge technology developed by civilians and vice versa. These investments will eventually be subject to punitive measures since the US policy establishment believes it can no longer afford to let US wealth buttress China’s military and technological rise. Investment Takeaways China may or may not work out a partial bailout for Evergrande but it will definitely provide state assistance and fiscal stimulus to try to prevent contagion across the property sector and financial system. Bad news in the coming weeks and months will be replaced by good news in this sense. However, the fact that China will eventually be forced to undertake traditional stimulus yet again will increase its systemic financial risks, in a well-established pattern. The best equity opportunities will lie outside of China, where companies will benefit from global recovery yet avoid suffering from China’s unique confluence of domestic and foreign political risks. We prefer developed markets and select emerging markets in Latin America and Asia-ex-China. Chinese households and businesses are downbeat. This behavior cannot be separated from the historic changes in the economy, domestic politics, and foreign policy. It is hard to see an improvement until the government boosts growth and the 2022 political reshuffle is over. American opposition is a bigger problem for China than global investors realize. Not only are the two economies divorcing but other democracies will distance themselves from China as well – not because of US demands but because their own manufacturing, national security, and ideological space is threatened by China’s reversion to autocracy and assertive foreign policy. Investing in China’s “hard tech” and strategic sectors with government approval is not a simple solution. This approach will directly funnel capital into China’s state-owned enterprises, domestic security forces, and military. As such the US and West will eventually impose controls. Investments may not be liquid since China would suffer if capital ever fled these kinds of projects. Both American and Chinese stimulus is looming this winter but the short run will see more volatility. We are closing our long JPY-KRW tactical trade for a gain of 4.4%   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 We have often noted in these pages over the past decade that multilateral organizations overrated improvements in China’s governance based on policy pronouncements rather than structural changes. 2 Still, tensions among the allies should not be overrated since they share a fundamental concern over China’s increasing challenge to the current global order. The EU is pursuing trade talks with Taiwan, and there are ways that the US can compensate France over the nullification of its submarine sales to Australia (most of which are detrimental to China’s security).

Highlights The House Ways and Means Committee’s tax proposals are a slight positive surprise for investors. They envision raising $1.5 trillion in new revenue, down from expectations of $2.6 trillion. The House’s tax plans would see the corporate rate at 26.5%, creating a likely range of 25%-26.5%, confirming our view that the proposal would be closer to Biden’s 28% than Trump’s 21%. Combining the Senate spending proposals with the House tax proposals, our updated scenarios for the budget reconciliation bill point to a net deficit impact of $1.2-$1.6 trillion over ten years. We still assign 80% subjective odds of passage to the bipartisan infrastructure bill and, if it passes, 65% odds to the reconciliation bill’s passage. We still expect the debt ceiling showdown to create only temporary volatility as Democrats have the power to raise or suspend the ceiling unilaterally. The major risk to our cyclically bullish view comes from Chinese corporate debt defaults, not a default on the US national debt. We are closing our consumer discretionary trade for a 9% gain to mitigate risks ahead of looming increase in volatility but we expected cyclical plays on Biden’s forthcoming stimulus bills to grind higher this fall. Feature President Biden’s big budget battle is upon us. The House Ways and Means Committee unveiled its tax proposals for the Democrats’ nominal $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill this fall. Spending proposals are soon to follow. The House tax proposals help to define the range of tax hikes that US businesses and investors face next year. An updated timeline of this fall’s budget battle is shown in Diagram 1. The various House committees are supposed to complete their proposals by September 15, just after we go to press. We will update the spending side next week. After that, on September 27, Democratic lawmakers will have a chance to vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill that the Senate has already passed. Diagram 1Timeline Of Biden’s Big Budget Battles This Fall Bipartisan infrastructure will pass sometime this fall even if there are delays. Pelosi and other Democratic leaders will be forced to de-link this bipartisan bill from their partisan reconciliation bill that expands social welfare. Republicans cannot be associated with reconciliation so any linkage of the two bills could scupper the bipartisan infrastructure bill. But neither President Biden nor moderate Democrats can afford to let the infrastructure deal fail. Table 1 shows the nine House moderates who delayed the passage of the House budget resolution in August to demand a separate vote on bipartisan infrastructure. Five are true centrists, with narrow margins of victory in districts that Biden narrowly won. This is more than the three votes that Pelosi can spare. Table 1Moderate Democrats In Competitive Districts Need the Infrastructure Deal Therefore Pelosi will have to separate the two bills. Senator Bernie Sanders and the progressive Democrats cannot afford to let both bills fail – that is merely a progressive bluff. This means we still give an 80% subjective chance that infrastructure will pass. The reconciliation bill has a subjective 65% chance of passing, assuming infrastructure passes. However, it will be greatly modified from current proposals. The $3.5 trillion headline price tag is too high for Senate moderates while the $1-$1.5 trillion price tag outlined by the Moderate-in-Chief, West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, is too low for progressives. Other points of negotiation and the net deficit impact will be discussed below. Moderate Senate Democrats like Manchin and Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema will pass the reconciliation bill because it is the least bad option both for them and their party. They have four main options: Vote to abolish the Senate filibuster, making way for Democrats to push through their controversial voting rights bill. Vote in favor of Biden’s signature reconciliation bill. Vote against both initiatives, thwarting their party and the Biden presidency without necessarily saving their seat in future elections. Vote for both initiatives and face the wrath of their more moderate voter base in their home state. The least bad option is to refrain from abolishing the filibuster but vote in favor of Biden’s reconciliation – they will then save their skin with both their constituents and the Democratic Party. The concessions they extract from party leaders can be sold as victories on the campaign trail back home, along with the bipartisan infrastructure bill. Thus while all kinds of twists and turns can happen this fall, the base case is that the moderate senators fall in line over the reconciliation bill, enabling it to pass by Christmas. Update On The Debt Ceiling September will see a showdown over keeping the government running (avoiding a shutdown) and raising or suspending the national debt ceiling, or the government’s credit card limit. The showdown will cause equity market volatility but it will be temporary – not a compelling reason to sell stocks but rather a possible buying opportunity. This is because a US default on the national debt will be averted. A continuing resolution must be passed by September 30, end of the fiscal year, to avoid a government shutdown. This stop-gap measure is expected to last until December 10, when a new solution on regular budget appropriations will be required. The Democratic tactic is to link the continuing resolution with $24 billion in disaster relief for the Gulf of Mexico and $6.4 billion in emergency funds for Afghan refugees. Republicans would have trouble voting against these worthy causes only to suffer the opprobrium of shutting down the government during a lingering pandemic. Even if this gambit fails, there is little chance the US will default on the national debt. There are four key aspects to this view: 1.   Neither party wants to be blamed for causing a default, which would trigger a financial crisis and deprive seniors and veterans of their federal checks, among other politically intolerable consequences. 2.   The 46 Republicans who signed a letter pledging not to raise the debt ceiling specifically said they will not actively vote to raise or increase the ceiling. They did not explicitly rule out a suspension or delay of the debt ceiling, nor did they say they would filibuster any attempt to raise it.1 Suspending the debt ceiling is the more politically palatable alternative these days because it does not require specifying a certain new dollar amount of debt to which the limit will be raised. It merely suspends or delays the operation of the debt limit for a period of time. In other words, some Republicans could vote for a suspension in the eleventh hour to avoid a national default. You would need six of them to do so (in addition to four Republicans who did not sign the letter, and all 50 Democrats), if there were a Republican filibustering the debt ceiling suspension. But then again, Republicans will likely refuse to filibuster. Any senator who filibusters a suspension of the debt ceiling would personally be responsible for a national default. A senator who goes rogue would encourage his moderate colleagues to break ranks and join the Democrats to reach the 60-vote threshold. Otherwise Democrats plus four Republican moderates are more than enough to meet the 51-seat simple majority requirement. The bipartisan infrastructure bill cannot even function if the debt ceiling is not raised to authorize new spending. So Republicans will be twice the fools if they vote for infrastructure but refuse to suspend the debt limit (as well as natural disaster and Afghan refugee relief). And really thrice the fools, because they are already unpopular as they are tainted with the accusation of inciting an insurrection on January 6 at the Capitol. 3.   Republicans do not control the House or the Senate, so Democrats have the means at their disposal to suspend the debt ceiling unilaterally. 4.   If all options fail, Democrats have the ability to revise the budget resolution so as to include a suspension of the debt ceiling in the reconciliation bill. This point is controversial because it is not certain that the Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, will allow Democrats to revise the budget resolution to include the debt ceiling. Democrats are already making several demands of her on what can be included in reconciliation, and she has already shot them down once earlier this year over the minimum wage. Our view is that MacDonough would allow the budget resolution to be modified to suspend the debt ceiling if the country were immediately at risk of debt default.2 Moreover the President of the Senate, Vice President Kamala Harris, could always overrule the parliamentarian. This is a key point both for the debt ceiling and the contents of the reconciliation bill. Still, there is serious problem of timing mismatch between the debt ceiling and the reconciliation bill. The government’s technical debt default could happen “during the month of October,” according to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, whereas the reconciliation bill may not be ready to pass by Thanksgiving or Christmas. It is very hard to speed up a historic multi-trillion reconciliation bill to meet a much narrower statutory requirement of suspending the debt ceiling. Therefore suspending the debt ceiling via reconciliation, even if we are correct that it is legal, would be very difficult in execution – and hence very volatility-inducing for equities. The Democrats’ refusal to suspend the debt ceiling on their own is the weak link in the chain and will break under pressure if the Republicans unite in opposition. But the latter is not a foregone conclusion since the GOP would take the blame for a national default. If Republicans regain the House but not the Senate after the November 2022 midterm elections then our assessment of the debt ceiling risk may change. But for 2021, financial markets should view national default as a passing risk. Comparing The House Tax Plan To Previous Expectations The House Ways and Means Committee released tax proposals for the nominal $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill. These proposals will change significantly in the House, and in conference with the Senate, but the new proposals help to determine the range of policies under negotiation. Table 2 outlines the “tax expenditures” or tax breaks that the Democrats propose. The key features are tax breaks for households (e.g. a large and fully refundable child tax credit, an expanded earned income tax credit and dependent tax credit) and tax breaks for corporations to switch to renewable energy and electric vehicles. Table 3 high lights the “revenue raisers” or new taxes. The top marginal corporate rate would be set at 26.5%. While Senate moderates prefer 25%, which has determined consensus expectations, the implicit range is now between these two numbers. This is a confirmation of our prediction that it would be about 26%-27%. The new rate will thus be closer to the 21% rate established by the Trump administration than the previous 35% status quo, which was the highest in the OECD (Chart 1). Table 2House Ways & Means Tax Expenditure Plan Table 3House Ways & Means Tax Revenue Plan Indeed that is the common thread across these tax hikes: the Biden administration, in a nod to the median voter, is only partially reversing President Trump’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Chart 1Corporate Tax Rate Under House Plan Chart 2Individual Tax Rate Under House Plan   The top marginal individual rate would be 39.6% — no surprise to anyone (Chart 2). The long-term capital gains tax rate would be set at 25%. In addition, a new 3% surtax would be levied on incomes greater than $5 million. These, combined with the Obamacare surtax of 3.8%, would yield a top marginal rate of 31.8%, close to our expected 32% (Chart 3). The international minimum corporate rate would be set at 16.6%, which, when various tax breaks are included, will end up close to the nominal 15% minimum that Biden agreed with a range of other countries this summer (Chart 4). Putting it all together, the House is projecting a hike in taxes worth $1.5 trillion in total revenue, about 58% of the $2.6 trillion previously envisaged (Table 4). Chart 3Capital Gains Tax Rates Under House Plan Chart 4Minimum Corporate Rate Under House Plan  Table 4Comparison Of House And Senate Tax Plan For Reconciliation Bill This news constitutes a slight positive surprise for investors relative to expectations earlier this year. Senate tax writers will probably propose more ambitious taxes but Senate moderates will constrain them when it comes to what can gain 51 votes. So the final bill is unlikely to hike taxes more aggressively. However, we still expect the news of rising taxes to be negative in absolute terms – i.e. to create a one-off knock against corporate earnings that investors will have to digest. The historical record shows that there is no correlation between corporate tax rates and economic growth. However, it is not only corporate rates that are rising. The Biden administration is hiking taxes across the board, which could combine to weigh on business sentiment if growth or earnings disappoint.. A look at tax rates over the long run shows that these hikes are not insignificant, though they are moderate (Chart 5). Chart 5The Long View Of US Tax Rates Going forward, however, investors must consider that the political environment in the US suggests that the median voter has shifted to the left due to generational, ethnic, geopolitical, and ideological shifts affecting the electorate. Tax hikes are more likely to become the norm over the long run than tax cuts, the opposite of the case during the long Reagan era. Hence our expectation is that investors will “buy the rumor, sell the news” of the reconciliation bill. The bill will stimulate economic growth – it increases the budget deficit over the coming ten years relative to expectations. But by the time the Senate passes the bill, this effect may be priced in, whereas any unintended consequences of across-the-board tax hikes will have to be accounted for later. And not only will 2022 see tax hikes but it will also see the Federal Reserve preparing for interest rate hikes. The budget deficit will shrink in 2022 but grow over the coming 10 years under Biden’s legislation. Until the House releases its spending plans, we must combine the House tax plan with the Senate spending plan to update our deficit projections. Table 5 provides descriptions of the various legislative scenarios and Table 6 provides the results in terms of revenue, expenditure, and net deficit impact. Note that these tables include the bipartisan infrastructure bill. Table 5Scenario Descriptions For Budget Deficit Under House Ways And Means Tax Proposals (Sept 2021) Table 6Scenario Results For Budget Deficit Under House Ways And Means Tax Proposals (Sept 2021) The deficit impact falls into the same general range we highlighted in the past albeit a bit larger: the Baseline Scenario would amount to a $1.6 trillion net expansion of the deficit over the 10-year budget window, , while the moderate/compromise Scenario 6 would amount to a $1.2 trillion net expansion. Previously we estimated $1-$1.6 trillion, so the difference is a drop in the bucket but the point is that Democrats cannot afford to let tax ambitions sink the entire bill or the economic recovery. The risk to the deficit lies to the upside given that several of the “pay-fors,” or revenue offsets, are chimerical. For example, doubling the size of the Internal Revenue Service may not yield the $140 billion that is projected in higher tax collections, as the Congressional Budget Office pointed out in its scoring of the bipartisan infrastructure bill. The use of “dynamic scoring” to project higher tax revenues from putatively faster economic growth is the favorite gimmick of the US political parties. Investment Takeaways Higher taxes – and a higher labor share of national income via rising wages and social transfers – will weigh on the net profit margins of business. If interest rates rise along with wages and taxes, in a context of hypo-globalization, the result will be a squeeze on margins (Chart 6). The one-off impact of the corporate tax hike on earnings could range from 5%-8%, according to our Global Investment Strategy. President Trump’s Tax Cut and Jobs Act created a 16% gap in the growth of earnings after tax relative to pre-tax earnings growth (Chart 7). A partial reversal of Trump’s hikes could produce half of this effect in the opposite direction. Our US Investment Strategy and US Equity Strategy still expect positive earnings growth in 2022. Chart 6Drivers Of Profit Margins Chart 7Gauging The Tax Hit To Earnings The sectors that pay the lowest effective taxes in the US are the ones that stand to suffer most from broadening the corporate tax base, raising rates, and tightening enforcement. This would include Big Tech as well as health care and utilities (although we are bullish on health care in general). Sectors like tech that gain a large share of earnings from abroad also stand to suffer. These low-tax sectors will especially suffer on a relative basis if Biden’s stimulus pushes up growth and inflation expectations and hence interest rates. Companies that pay high effective rates, such as energy, industrials, and materials, could also lose out. But as long as the pandemic continues to wane and the global economy recovers, some of these high-tax firms should still perform well, as will companies with a high share of earnings from abroad. The relative performance of these different baskets suggests that markets are still much more concerned about global recovery than about higher taxes (Chart 8). Cyclical and “value” stocks surged on the advent of the coronavirus vaccines despite the political result in the US indicating that tax hikes were coming. This was a key signal and we would expect something similar, on a smaller scale, as the pandemic recedes. Chart 8Higher Taxes Will Hit The Trump Winners American populism is visible in that the Biden administration is coopting Trump’s agenda in various areas despite outward acrimony (e.g. infrastructure, China, trade protectionism). It is only partially reversing Trump’s legacy even in the areas of greatest disagreement, such as taxes. When all is said and done this Christmas, the United States will likely be left with a net tax cut relative to the levels seen under President Obama’s administration. We would not be surprised if across-the-board tax hikes caused or contributed to an equity market correction sometime in the wake of the bill’s passage. But that would not be a reason to grow cyclically bearish. Instead, the fate of China’s economic growth is the big risk to the cyclical view. While we expect equities to grind higher, we are booking a 9% gain on our consumer discretionary trade to mitigate risks ahead of the looming volatility this fall. Fundamentally we remain bullish on this sector due to economic recovery, fiscal stimulus, income redistribution, and the relative costs of the upcoming tax hikes.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Appendix Table A1USPS Trade Table Table A2Political Risk Matrix Chart A1Presidential Election Model Chart A2Senate Election Model Table A3Political Capital Index Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Footnotes 1     See Senator Shelley Moore Capito, “Debt Ceiling Letter,” United States Senate, August 10, 2021, capito.senate.gov. 2     Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said “We have a number of different ways we’re going to look at getting the debt ceiling done. We must get it done,” in the context of whether Democratic leaders would revise the budget resolution’s reconciliation instructions to lift the debt ceiling. See Jennifer Shutt, “Yellen: Treasury could hit debt ceiling in October without congressional action,” Roll Call, September 8, 2021, rollcall.com.  For the parliamentarian’s role, see James Wallner, “Parliamentarian’s Guidance Contradicts Budget Rules,” Legislative Procedure, June 21, 2021, legislativeprocedure.com.