China

Executive Summary Russia Squeezes EU Natural Gas Major geopolitical shocks tend to coincide with bear markets, so the market is getting closer to pricing this year’s bad news. But investors are not out of the woods yet. Russia is cutting off Europe’s natural gas supply ahead of this winter in retaliation to Europe’s oil embargo. Europe is sliding toward recession. China is reverting to autocratic rule and suffering a cyclical and structural downshift in growth rates. Only after Xi Jinping consolidates power will the ruling party focus exclusively on economic stabilization. The US can afford to take risks with Russia, opening up the possibility of a direct confrontation between the two giants before the US midterm election. A new strategic equilibrium is not yet at hand. Tactical Recommendation Inception Date Return LONG GLOBAL DEFENSIVES / CYCLICALS EQUITIES 2022-01-20 18.3% Bottom Line: Maintain a defensive posture in the third quarter but look for opportunities to buy oversold assets with long-term macro and policy tailwinds. Feature 2022 is a year of geopolitics and supply shocks. Global investors should remain defensive at least until the Chinese national party congress and US midterm election have passed. More fundamentally, an equilibrium must be established between Russia and NATO and between the US and Iran. Until then supply shocks will destroy demand. Checking Up On Our Three Key Views For 2022 Our three key views for the year are broadly on track: 1.  China’s Reversion To Autocracy: For ten years now, the fall in Chinese potential economic growth has coincided with a rise in neo-Maoist autocracy and foreign policy assertiveness, leading to capital flight, international tensions, and depressed animal spirits (Chart 1). Related Report  Geopolitical StrategyWill China Let 100 Flowers Bloom? Only Briefly. Rising incomes provided legitimacy for the Communist Party over the past four decades. Less rapidly rising incomes – and extreme disparities in standards of living – undermine the party and force it to find other sources of public support. Fighting pollution and expanding the social safety net are positives for political stability and potentially for economic productivity. But converting the political system from single-party rule to single-person rule is negative for productivity. Mercantilist trade policy and nationalist security policy are also negative. China’s political crackdown, struggle with Covid-19, waning exports, and deflating property market have led to an abrupt slowdown this year. The government is responding by easing monetary, fiscal, and regulatory policy, though so far with limited effect (Chart 2). Economic policy will not be decisive in the third quarter unless a crash forces the administration to stimulate aggressively. Chart 1China's Slowdown Leads To Maoism, Nationalism​​​​​​ Chart 2Chinese Policy Easing: Limited Effect So Far​​​​​ Chart 3Nascent Rally In Chinese Shares Will Be Dashed Once General Secretary Xi Jinping secures another five-to-ten years in power at the twentieth national party congress this fall, he will be able to “let 100 flowers bloom,” i.e. ease policy further and focus exclusively on securing the economic recovery in 2023. But policy uncertainty will remain high until then. The party may have to crack down anew to ensure Xi’s power consolidation goes according to plan. China is highly vulnerable to social unrest for both structural and cyclical reasons. The US would jump to slap sanctions on China for human rights abuses. Hence the nascent recovery in Chinese domestic and offshore equities can easily be interrupted until the political reshuffle is over (Chart 3). If China’s economy stabilizes and a recession is avoided, investors will pile into the rally, but over the long run they will still be vulnerable to stranded capital due to Chinese autocracy and US-China cold war. If the Politburo and Politburo Standing Committee are stacked with members of Xi’s faction, as one should expect, then the reduction in policy uncertainty will only be temporary. Autocracy will lead to unpredictable and draconian policy measures – and it cannot solve the problem of a shrinking and overly indebted population. If the Communist Party changes course and stacks the Politburo with Xi’s factional rivals, to prevent China from going down the Maoist, Stalinist, and Putinist route, then global financial markets will cheer. But that outcome is unlikely. Hawkish foreign policy means that China will continue to increase its military threats against Taiwan, while not yet invading outright. Beijing has tightened its grip over Tibet, Xinjiang, and Hong Kong since 2008; Taiwan and the South China Sea are the only critical buffer areas that remain to be subjugated. Taiwan’s midterm elections, US midterms, and China’s party congress will keep uncertainty elevated. Taiwan has underperformed global and emerging market equities as the semiconductor boom and shortage has declined (Chart 4). Hong Kong is vulnerable to another outbreak of social unrest and government repression. Quality of life has deteriorated for the native population. Democracy activists are disaffected and prone to radicalization. Singapore will continue to benefit at Hong Kong’s expense (Chart 5). Chart 4Taiwan Equity Relative Performance Peaked​​​​​​ Chart 5Hong Kong Faces More Troubles​​​​​​ Chart 6Japan Undercuts China China and Japan are likely to engage in clashes in the East China Sea. Beijing’s military modernization, nuclear weapons expansion, and technological development pose a threat to Japanese security. The gradual encirclement of Taiwan jeopardizes Japan’s vital sea lines of communication. Prime Minister Fumio Kishida is well positioned to lead the Liberal Democratic Party into the upper house election on July 10 – he does not need to trigger a diplomatic showdown but he would not suffer from it. Meanwhile China is hungry for foreign distractions and unhappy that Japan is reviving its military and depreciating its currency (Chart 6). A Sino-Japanese crisis cannot be ruled out, especially if the Biden administration looks as if it will lose its nerve in containing China. Financial markets would react negatively, depending on the magnitude of the crisis. North Korea is going back to testing ballistic missiles and likely nuclear weapons. It is expanding its doctrine for the use of such weapons. It could take advantage of China’s and America’s domestic politics to stage aggressive provocations. South Korea, which has a hawkish new president who lacks parliamentary support, is strengthening its deterrence with the United States. These efforts could provoke a negative response from the North. Financial markets will only temporarily react to North Korean provocations unless they are serious enough to elicit military threats from Japan or the United States. China would be happy to offer negotiations to distract the Biden administration from Xi’s power grab. South Korean equities will benefit on a relative basis as China adds more stimulus. 2.  America’s Policy Insularity: President Biden’s net approval rating, at -15%, is now worse than President Trump’s in 2018, when the Republicans suffered a beating in midterm elections (Chart 7). Biden is now fighting inflation to try to salvage the elections for his party. That means US foreign policy will be domestically focused and erratic in the third quarter. Aside from “letting” the Federal Reserve hike rates, Biden’s executive options are limited. Pausing the federal gasoline tax requires congressional approval, and yet if he unilaterally orders tax collectors to stand down, the result will be a $10 billion tax cut – a drop in the bucket. Biden is considering waiving some of former President Trump’s tariffs on China, which he can do on his own. But doing so will hurt his standing in Rust Belt swing states without reducing inflation enough to get a payoff at the voting booth – after all, import prices are growing slower from China than elsewhere (Chart 8). He would also give Xi Jinping a last-minute victory over America that would silence Xi’s critics and cement his dictatorship at the critical hour. Chart 7Democrats Face Shellacking In Midterm Elections​​​​​​ Chart 8Paring Trump Tariffs Won't Reduce Inflation Much​​​​​​ Chart 9Only OPEC Can Help Biden - And Help May Come Late Biden is offering to lift sanctions on Iran, which would free up 1.3 million barrels of oil per day. But Iran is not being forced to freeze its nuclear program by weak oil prices or Russian and Chinese pressure – quite the opposite. If Biden eases sanctions anyway, prices at the pump may not fall enough to win votes. Hence Biden is traveling to Saudi Arabia to make amends with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. OPEC’s interest lies in producing enough oil to prevent a global recession, not in flooding the market on Biden’s whims to rescue the Democratic Party. Saudi and Emirati production may come but it may not come early in the third quarter. Lifting sanctions on Venezuela is a joke and Libya recently collapsed again (Chart 9). Even in dealing with Russia the Biden administration will exhibit an insular perspective. The US is not immediately threatened, like Europe, so it can afford to take risks, such as selling Ukraine advanced and long-range weapons and providing intelligence used to sink Russian ships. If Russia reacts negatively, a direct US-Russia confrontation will generate a rally around the flag that would help the Democrats, as it did under President John F. Kennedy in 1962 – one of the rare years in which the ruling party minimized its midterm election losses (Chart 10). The Cuban Missile Crisis counted more with voters than the earlier stock market slide. 3.  Petro-States’ Geopolitical Leverage: Oil-producing states have immense geopolitical leverage this year thanks to the commodity cycle. Russia will not be forced to conclude its assault on Ukraine until global energy prices collapse, as occurred in 2014. In fact Russia’s leverage over Europe will be greatly reduced in the coming years since Europe is diversifying away from Russian energy exports. Hence Moscow is cutting natural gas flows to Europe today while it still can (Chart 11). Chart 10Biden Can Afford To Take Risks With Russia​​​​​​ Chart 11Russia Squeezes EU's Natural Gas​​​​​​ Chart 12EU/China Slowdown Will Weigh On World Russia’s objective is to inflict a recession and cause changes in either policy or government in Europe. This will make it easier to conclude a favorable ceasefire in Ukraine. More importantly it will increase the odds that the EU’s 27 members, having suffered the cost of their coal and oil embargo, will fail to agree to a natural gas embargo by 2027 as they intend. Italy, for example, faces an election by June 2023, which could come earlier. The national unity coalition was formed to distribute the EU’s pandemic recovery funds. Now those funds are drying up, the economy is sliding toward recession, and the coalition is cracking. The most popular party is an anti-establishment right-wing party, the Brothers of Italy, which is waiting in the wings and can ally with the populist League, which has some sympathies with Russia. A recession could very easily produce a change in government and a more pragmatic approach to Moscow. The Italian economy is getting squeezed by energy prices and rising interest rates at the same time and cannot withstand the combination very long. A European recession or near-recession will cause further downgrades to global growth, especially when considering the knock-on effects in China, where the slowdown is more pronounced than is likely reported. The US economy is more robust but it will have to be very robust indeed to withstand a recession in Europe and growth recession in China (Chart 12). Russia does not have to retaliate against Finland and Sweden joining NATO until Turkey clears the path for them to join, which may not be until just before the Turkish general election due in June 2023. But imposing a recession on Europe is already retaliation – maybe a government change will produce a new veto against NATO enlargement. Russian retaliation against Lithuania for blocking 50% of its shipments to the Kaliningrad exclave is also forthcoming – unless Lithuania effectively stops enforcing the EU’s sanctions on Russian resources. Russia cannot wage a full-scale attack on the Baltic states without triggering direct hostilities with NATO since they are members of NATO. But it can retaliate in other ways. In a negative scenario Moscow could stage a small “accidental” attack against Lithuania to test NATO. But that would force Biden to uphold his pledge to defend “every inch” of NATO territory. Biden would probably do so by staging a proportionate military response or coordinating with an ally to do it. The target would be the Russian origin of attack or comparable assets in the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea, Ukraine, Belarus, or elsewhere. The result would be a dangerous escalation. Russia could also opt for cyber-attacks or economic warfare – such as squeezing Europe’s natural gas supply further. Ultimately Russia can afford to take greater risks than the US over Kaliningrad, other territories, and its periphery more broadly. That is the difference between Kennedy and Biden – the confrontation is not over Cuba. Russia is also likely to take a page out of Josef Stalin’s playbook and open a new front – not so much in Nicaragua as in the Middle East and North Africa. The US betrayal of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran opens the opportunity for Russia to strengthen cooperation with Iran, stir up the Iranians’ courage, sell them weapons, and generate a security crisis in the Middle East. The US military would be distracted keeping peace in the Persian Gulf while the Europeans would lose their long-term energy alternative to Russia – and energy prices would rise. The Iranians – who also have leverage during a time of high oil prices – are not inclined to freeze their nuclear program. That would be to trade their long-term regime survival for economic benefits that the next American president can revoke unilaterally. Bottom Line: Xi Jinping is converting China back into an autocracy, the Biden administration lacks options and is willing to have a showdown with Russia, and the Putin administration is trying to inflict a European recession and political upheaval. Stay defensive. Checking Up On Our Strategic Themes For The 2020s As for our long-term themes, the following points are relevant after what we have learned in the second quarter: 1.  Great Power Rivalry: The war in Ukraine has reminded investors of the primacy of national security. In an anarchic international system, if a single great nation pursues power to the neglect of its neighbors’ interests, then its neighbors need to pursue power to defend themselves. Before long every nation is out for itself. At least until a new equilibrium is established. For example, Russia’s decision to neutralize Ukraine by force is driving Germany to abandon its formerly liberal policy of energy cooperation in order to reduce Russia’s energy revenues and avoid feeding its military ambitions. Russia in turn is reducing natural gas exports to weaken Europe’s economy this winter. Germany will re-arm, Finland and Sweden will eventually join NATO, and Russia will underscore its red line against NATO bases or forces in Finland and Sweden. If this red line is violated then a larger war could ensue. Chart 13China Will Shift To Russian Energy Until Russia and NATO come to a new understanding, neither Europe nor Russia can be secure. Meanwhile China cannot reject Russia’s turn to the east. China believes it may need to use force to prevent Taiwan independence at some point, so it must prepare for the US and its allies to treat it the same way that they have treated Russia. It must secure energy supply from Russia, Central Asia, and the Middle East via land routes that the US navy cannot blockade (Chart 13). Beijing must also diversify away from the US dollar, lest the Treasury Department freeze its foreign exchange reserves like it did Russia’s. Global investors will see diversification as a sign of China’s exit from the international order and preparation for conflict, which is negative for its economic future. However, the Russo-Chinese alliance presents a historic threat to the US’s security, coming close to the geopolitical nightmare of a unified Eurasia. The US is bound to oppose this development, whether coherently or not, and whether alone or in concert with its allies. After all, the US cannot offer credible security guarantees to negotiate a détente with China or Iran because its domestic divisions are so extreme that its foreign policy can change overnight. Other powers cannot be sure that the US will not suffer a radical domestic policy change or revolution that leads to belligerent foreign policy. Insecurity will drive the US and China apart rather than bringing them together. For example, Russia’s difficulties in Ukraine will encourage Chinese strategists to go back to the drawing board to adjust their plans for military contingencies in Taiwan. But the American lesson from Ukraine is to increase deterrence in Taiwan. That will provoke China and encourage the belief that China cannot wait forever to resolve the Taiwan problem. Until there is a strategic understanding between Russia and NATO, and the US and China, the world will remain in a painful and dangerous transitional phase – a multipolar disequilibrium. Chart 14Hypo-Globalization: Globalizing Less Than Potential 2.  Hypo-Globalization: If national security rises to the fore, then economics becomes a tool of state power. Mercantilism becomes the basis of globalization rather than free market liberalism. Hypo-globalization is the result. The term is fitting because the trade intensity of global growth is not yet in a total free fall (i.e. de-globalization) but merely dropping off from its peaks during the phase of “hyper-globalization” in the 1990s and early 2000s (Chart 14). Hypo-globalization is probably a structural rather than cyclical phenomenon. The EU cannot re-engage with Russia and ease sanctions without rehabilitating Russia’s economy and hence its military capacity – which could enable Russia to attack Europe again. The US and China can try to re-engage but they will fail. Russo-Chinese alliance ensures that the US would be enriching not one but both of its greatest strategic rivals if it reopened its doors to Chinese technology acquisition and intellectual property theft. Iran will see its security in alliance with Russia and China. China has an incentive to develop Iran’s economy so as not to depend solely on Russia and Central Asia. Russia has an incentive to develop Iran’s military capacity so as to deprive Europe of an energy alternative. Both Russia and China wish to deprive the US of strategic hegemony in the Middle East. By contrast the US and EU cannot offer ironclad security guarantees to Iran because of its nuclear ambitions and America’s occasional belligerence. Thus the world can see expanding Russian and Chinese economic integration with Eurasia, and expanding American and European integration with various regions, but it cannot see further European integration with Russia or American integration with China. And ultimately Europe and China will be forced to sever links (Chart 15). Globalization will not cease – it is a multi-millennial trend – but it will slow down. It will be subordinated to national security and mercantilist economic theory. 3.  Populism/Nationalism: In theory, domestic instability can cause introversion or extroversion. But in practice we are seeing extroversion, which is dangerous for global stability (Chart 16). Chart 15Global Economic Disintegration​​​​​​ Chart 16Internal Sources Of Nationalism​​​​​​ Russia’s invasion of Ukraine derived from domestic Russian instability – and instability across the former Soviet space, including Belarus, which the Kremlin feared could suffer a color revolution after the rigged election and mass protests of 2020-21. The reason the northern European countries are rapidly revising their national defense and foreign policies to counter Russia is because they perceive that the threat to their security is driven by factors within the former Soviet sphere that they cannot easily remove. These factors will get worse as a result of the Ukraine war. Russian aggression still poses the risk of spilling out of Ukraine’s borders. China’s Maoist nostalgia and return to autocratic government is also about nationalism. The end of the rapid growth phase of industrialization is giving way to the Asian scourge: debt-deflation. The Communist Party is trying to orchestrate a great leap forward into the next phase of development. But in case that leap fails like the last one, Beijing is promoting “the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” and blaming the rest of the world for excluding and containing China. Taiwan, unfortunately, is the last relic of China’s past humiliation at the hands of western imperialists. China will also seek to control the strategic approach to Taiwan, i.e. the South China Sea. China’s claim that the Taiwan Strait is sovereign sea, not international waters, will force the American navy to assert freedom of passage. American efforts to upgrade Taiwan relations and increase deterrence will be perceived as neo-imperialism. The United States, for its part, could also see nationalism convert into international aggression. The US is veering on the brink of a miniature civil war as nationalist forces in the interior of the country struggle with the political establishment in the coastal states. Polarization has abated since 2020, as stagflation has discredited the Democrats. But it is now likely to rebound, making congressional gridlock all but inevitable. A Republican-controlled House will find a reason to impeach President Biden in 2023-24, in hopes of undermining his party and reclaiming the presidency. Another hotly contested election is possible, or worse, a full-blown constitutional crisis. American institutions proved impervious to the attempt of former President Trump and his followers to disrupt the certification of the Electoral College vote. However, security forces will be much more aggressive against rebellions of whatever stripe in future, which could lead to episodes in which social unrest is aggravated by police repression. If the GOP retakes the White House – especially if it is a second-term Trump presidency with a vendetta against political enemies and nothing to lose – then the US will return to aggressive foreign policy, whether directed at China or Iran or both. In short, polarization has contaminated foreign policy such that the most powerful country in the world cannot lead with a steady hand. Over the long run polarization will decline in the face of common foreign enemies but for now the trend vitiates global stability. Chart 17Germany And Japan Rearming It goes without saying that nationalism is also an active force in Iran, where 83-year-old Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei is attempting to ensure the survival of his regime in the face of youthful social unrest and an unclear succession process. If Khamenei takes advantage of the commodity cycle, and American and Israeli disarray, he can make a mad dash for the bomb and try to achieve regime security. But if he does so then nationalism will betray him, since Israel and/or the US are willing to conduct air strikes to uphold the red line against nuclear weaponization. If any more proof of global nationalism is needed, look no further than Germany and Japan, the principal aggressors of World War II. Their pacifist foreign policies have served as the linchpins of the post-war international order. Now they are both pursuing rearmament and a more proactive foreign policy (Chart 17). Nationalism may be very nascent in Germany but it has clearly made a comeback in Japan, which exacerbates China’s fears of containment. The rise of nationalism in India is widely known and reinforces the trend. Bottom Line: Great power rivalry is intensifying because of Russia’s conflict with the West and China’s inability to reject Russia. Hypo-globalization is the result since EU-Russia and US-China economic integration cannot easily be mended in the context of great power struggle. Domestic instability in Russia, China, and the US is leading to nationalism and aggressive foreign policy, as leaders find themselves unwilling or unable to stabilize domestic politics through productive economic pursuits. Investment Takeaways BCA has shifted its House View to a neutral asset allocation stance on equities relative to bonds (Chart 18). Chart 18BCA House View: Neutral Stocks Versus Bonds Geopolitical Strategy remains defensively positioned, favoring defensive markets and sectors, albeit with some exceptions that reflect our long-term views. Tactically stay long US 10-year Treasuries, large caps versus small caps, and defensives versus cyclicals. Stay long Mexico and short the UAE (Chart 19). Strategically stay long gold, US equities relative to global, and aerospace/defense sectors (Chart 20). Among currencies favor the USD, EUR, JPY, and GBP. Chart 19Stay Defensive In Q3 2022​​​​​​ Chart 20Stick To Long-Term Geopolitical Trades​​​​​​ Chart 21Favor Semiconductors But Not Taiwan​​​​​ Chart 22Indian Tech Will Rebound Amid China's Geopolitical Risks​​​​​ Chart 23Overweight ASEAN Go long US semiconductors and semi equipment versus Taiwan broad market (Chart 21). While we correctly called the peak in Taiwanese stocks relative to global and EM equities, our long Korea / short Taiwan trade was the wrong way to articulate this view and remains deeply in the red. Similarly our attempt to double down on Indian tech versus Chinese tech was ill-timed. China eased tech regulations sooner than we expected. However, the long-term profile of the trade is still attractive and Chinese tech will still suffer from excessive government and foreign interference (Chart 22). Go long Singapore over Hong Kong, as Asian financial leadership continues to rotate (see Chart 5 above). Stay long ASEAN among emerging markets. We will also put Malaysia on upgrade watch, given recent Malaysian equity outperformance on the back of Chinese stimulus and growing western interest in alternatives to China (Chart 23).     Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix

    Executive Summary At our monthly view meeting on Monday, BCA strategists voted to change the House View to a neutral asset allocation stance on equities, with a slight plurality favoring an outright underweight. The view of the Global Investment Strategy service is somewhat more constructive, as I think it is still more likely than not that the US will avoid a recession; and that if a recession does occur, it will be a fairly mild one. Nevertheless, the risks to my view have increased. I now estimate 40% odds of a recession during the next 12 months, up from 20% a month ago. In The Past, When Unemployment Has Started Rising In The US, It Has Kept On Rising Bottom Line: With the S&P 500 down 27% in real terms from its highs at the time of the meeting, the view of the Global Investment Strategy service is that a modest overweight is appropriate. However, investors should refrain from adding to equity positions until more clarity emerges about the path for inflation and growth. Heading For Recession? Every month, BCA strategists hold a view meeting to discuss the most important issues driving the macroeconomy and financial markets. This month’s meeting, which was held yesterday, was especially pertinent as it comes on the heels of a substantial decline in global equities. The key issue that we grappled with was whether the Fed could achieve a proverbial soft landing or whether the US and the rest of the global economy were spiraling towards recession (if it wasn’t already there). I began the meeting by showing one of my favorite charts, a deceptively simple chart of the US unemployment rate (Chart 1). The chart makes three things clear: 1) The US unemployment rate is rarely stable; It is almost always either rising or falling; 2) Once it starts rising, it keeps rising. In fact, the US has never averted a recession when the 3-month average of the unemployment rate has risen by more than a third of a percentage point; and 3) As a mean-reverting series, the unemployment rate is most likely to start rising when it is very low. Chart 1In The Past, When Unemployment Has Started Rising In The US, It Has Kept On Rising Taken at face value, the chart paints a damning picture about the economic outlook. The US unemployment rate is near a record low, which means that it has nowhere to go but up. And once the unemployment rate starts going up, history suggests that a recession is inevitable. Five Caveats Despite this ominous implication, I did highlight five caveats. First, the observation that even a modest increase in the unemployment rate invariably heralds a recession is based on a limited sample of business cycles from the US. Across the G10, soft landings have occurred, Canada being one example (Chart 2). Second, unlike the unemployment rate, the employment-to-population ratio is still 1.1 percentage points below its pre-pandemic level, and 4.6 percentage points below where it was in April 2000. A similar, though less pronounced, pattern holds if one focuses only on the 25-to-54 age cohort (Chart 3). Chart 2G10 Economies Sometimes Manage To Avoid A Recession Amid Rising Unemployment Chart 3The Employment-To-Population Ratio Remains Below Pre-Pandemic Levels   While the number of people not working either because they are worried about the pandemic, or because they are still burning through their stimulus checks, has been trending lower, it is still fairly high in absolute terms (Chart 4). As my colleague Doug Peta discussed in his latest report, one can envision a scenario where job growth remains positive, but the unemployment rate nonetheless edges higher as more workers rejoin the labor force. Chart 4ALabor Supply Should Increase As Covid Fears Continue To Abate And More Workers Burn Through Their Stimulus Savings (I) Chart 4BLabor Supply Should Increase As Covid Fears Continue To Abate And More Workers Burn Through Their Stimulus Savings (II)     Third, the job vacancy rate is extremely high today – much higher than a pre-pandemic “Beveridge Curve” would have predicted (Chart 5). This provides the labor market with a wide moat against an increase in firings. As Fed governor Christopher Waller has emphasized, the main effect of the Federal Reserve’s efforts to cool labor demand could be to push down vacancies rather than to push up unemployment. Fourth, as we have highlighted in past research, the Phillips curve is kinked at very low levels of unemployment (Chart 6). This means that a decline in unemployment from high to moderate levels may do little to spur inflation, but once the unemployment rate falls below its full employment level, then watch out! Chart 5The Fed Hopes That Its Tightening Policy Will Bring Down Job Openings More Than It Pushes Up The Unemployment Rate Chart 6The Phillips Curve Is Kinked At Very Low Levels Of Unemployment   The converse is also true, however. If a small decrease in unemployment can trigger a large increase in inflation, then a small increase in unemployment can trigger a large decrease in inflation, provided that long-term inflation expectations remain reasonably well anchored in the meantime. In other words, it is possible that the so-called “sacrifice ratio” — the amount of output that has to be sacrificed to reduce inflation — may be quite low. Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, there is a lot of variation from one recession to the next in how much unemployment rises. In general, the greater the financial and economic imbalances going into a recession, the deeper it tends to be. US household balance sheets are in reasonably good shape these days. Households are sitting on $2.2 trillion in excess savings (Chart 7). Yes, most of those savings belong to relatively well-off households. But as Chart 8 illustrates, even rich people spend well over half of their income. Chart 7Households Have Only Just Begun To Draw Down Their Accumulated Savings Chart 8Even The Rich Spend The Majority Of Their Income     The ratio of household debt-to-disposable income in the US is down by a third since its peak in 2008. Despite falling equity prices, the ratio of household net worth-to-disposable income is still up nearly 50 percentage points since the end of 2019, mainly because home prices have risen (Chart 9). As is likely to be the case in many other countries, home prices in the US will level off and quite possibly decline over the next few years. In and of itself, that may not be such a bad outcome for equity markets since lower real estate prices will cool aggregate demand, thus lowering inflation without the need for much higher interest rates. The danger, of course, is that we could see a replay of the GFC. This risk cannot be ignored but is probably quite small. The quality of mortgage lending has been very strong over the past 15 years. Moreover, unlike in 2007, when there was a large glut of homes, the homeowner vacancy rate today is at a record low. Tepid homebuilding has pushed the average age of the US residential capital stock to 31 years, the highest since 1948 (Chart 10). Chart 9The US Household Debt Burden Has Come Down Significantly Since 2008, While Net Worth Is Still Higher Than Before The Pandemic Chart 10Tight Supply Conditions In The Housing Market Argue Against A Repeat Of The GFC   A Bleaker Picture Outside The US The situation is admittedly dicier outside the US. Putin’s despotic regime continues to wage war on Ukraine. While European natural gas prices are still well below their March peak, they have recently surged as Russia has begun to throttle natural gas exports (Chart 11). The euro area manufacturing PMI clocked in a respectable 54.6 in May but is likely to drop over the coming months as higher energy prices restrain production. The only saving grace is that fiscal policy in Europe has turned more expansionary. The IMF’s April projection foresaw the structural primary budget balance easing from a surplus of 1.2% of GDP between 2014 and 2019 to a deficit of 1.2% of GDP between 2022 and 2027, the biggest swing among the major economies (Chart 12). Even the IMF’s numbers probably underestimate the fiscal easing that will transpire considering the need for Europe to invest more in energy independence and defense. Chart 11The European Economy Is Threatened By Rising Gas Prices Chart 12Euro Area Fiscal Policy Is Expected To Be More Expansionary In The Years To Come Than Before The Pandemic   The Chinese economy continues to suffer from the “triple threat” of renewed Covid lockdowns, a shift of global demand away from manufactured goods towards services, and a floundering property market. We expect the Chinese property market to ultimately succumb to the same fate that befell Japan 30 years ago. Chart 13Chinese Stocks Are Cheap Unlike Japanese stocks in the early 1990s, however, Chinese stocks are trading at fairly beaten down valuations – 10.9-times earnings and 1.4-times book for the investable index (Chart 13). With the Twentieth Party Congress slated for later this year and the population jaded by lockdowns, the political incentive to shower the economy with cash and loosen the reins on regulation will intensify. A Scenario Analysis For The S&P 500 Corralling all these moving parts is no easy matter. We would put the odds of a US recession over the next 12 months at 40%. This is double what we would have said a month ago when we tactically upgraded stocks after the S&P 500 fell below the 4,000 mark. The May CPI report was clearly a shocker, both to the Fed and the markets. The median dot in the June Summary of Economic Projections sees the Fed funds rate rising to 3.8% next year, smack dab in the middle of our once highly out-of-consensus estimate of 3.5%-to-4% for the neutral rate of interest. With interest rates potentially moving into restrictive territory next year, equity investors are right to be concerned. Yet, as noted above, if a recession does occur, it is likely to be a fairly mild one. At the time of the BCA monthly view meeting, the S&P 500 was already down 23% in nominal terms and 27% in real terms from its peak in early January. We assume that the S&P 500 will fall a further 10% in real terms over the next 12 months in a “mild recession” scenario (30% odds) and by 25% in a “deep recession” scenario (10% odds). Conversely, we assume that the S&P 500 will be 20% higher in 12 months’ time in a “no recession” scenario (60% odds). Note that even in a “no recession” scenario, the real value of the S&P 500 would still be down 12% in June 2023 from its all-time high. On a probability-weighted basis, the expected 12-month real return across all three scenarios works out to 6.5%, or 8% with dividends (Table 1). That is enough to justify a modest overweight in my view – but given the risks, just barely. Investors focused on capital preservation should consider a more conservative stance. Table 1S&P 500 Drawdowns Depending On Whether The US Will Enter A Recession And How Severe It Will Be Most of my colleagues were more cautious than me, as they generally thought that the odds of a recession were greater than 50%. They voted to shift the BCA house view to a neutral asset allocation stance on equities, with a slight plurality favoring an outright underweight (10 for underweight; 9 for neutral; and 6 for overweight). Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores  

Dear Client, In lieu of our weekly report next week, I will be hosting two webcasts with my colleague Arthur Budaghyan, Chief Emerging Market Strategist: Time To Buy EM/China? June 23, 2022 9:00 AM EDT (2:00 PM BST, 3:00 PM CEST) and June 24, 2022 9:00 AM HKT (11:00 AM AEST). We will discuss the implications of the global macro environment on EM economies and assets, and whether it is time to buy EM/Chinese equities. I look forward to answering any questions you might have. Kind regards, Jing Sima China Strategist Executive Summary Chinese Households Leverage Ratio Fell The Most Since The GFC China’s households may be entering a deleveraging mode.  The level of newly increased household medium- to long-term loans declined in two out of the first five months of this year. The household leverage ratio has also been falling. The deleveraging is driven by both cyclical and structural forces. Depressed economic growth, home prices as well as jobs and incomes, have all curbed borrowing. Structurally, China’s demographic shift and a decline in the working-age population will lead to a steady decrease in the demand for housing and mortgages. The experience in Japan and the US suggests that when households start deleveraging, the trend will likely progress into a decade-long cycle.  The household deleveraging cycle may lead to a structural downshift in real estate investment, consumption of durable goods and money supply in China. As an offset, interest rates in China will shift down. A low interest rate environment may be positive for China’s financial asset valuations. Bottom Line: Both cyclical and structural forces are prompting Chinese households to reduce debt. A prolonged deleveraging cycle will lead to a slump in the demand for housing and consumer durable goods. However, a deleveraging cycle, coupled with a decline in total population, may lead to a structurally lower interest rate environment, which may be positive for Chinese equity valuations in the long run. Feature China’s newly increased consumer medium- to long-term (ML) loans turned negative in February and April this year, the first negative readings since data collection started in 2007. The reading indicates that households are paying off more ML loans than borrowing (Chart 1).  Chart 1Chinese Household New ML Loans Dropped Below Zero Twice This Year In the near term, a slowing economy and uncertainties surrounding job and income prospects, coupled with stagnating housing prices, will curb households’ propensity to take on debt. In the longer term, China’s working-age population peaked in 2015 and its total population is set to decline beginning in 2025. This unfavorable demographic trend will drive down the demand for housing and ML loans. Japan's experience shows that when the working-age population falls along with the household leverage ratio, the growth in real estate investment, consumption of consumer durable goods and money supply M2 will structurally shift to a lower range. Although a weakening demographic profile and deleveraging households are negative factors for economic growth, interest rates in China will likely move down structurally. Lower borrowing costs will make corporate debt-servicing cheaper and increase corporate profitability, thus providing tailwinds to Chinese stocks and government bonds in the long run. An Inflection Point In Chinese Households’ Leverage? Chart 2Chinese Households Leverage Ratio Fell The Most Since The GFC Several signs suggest that Chinese household debt, after more than a decade of rapid expansion, may have reached an inflection point. Newly increased household ML loans, which are mostly mortgage debt, turned negative this year. Although household ML loans were slightly positive in May, the number was one of the weakest in the past 15 years. China’s household leverage ratio (measured by household debt versus disposable income) rolled over, the first such plunge since the 2008/09 Global Financial Crisis (Chart 2). Chinese households’ reluctance to take on debt reflects current dire economic conditions, which have been damaged by the pandemic and collapse in the housing market. Furthermore, structural forces, such as the nation’s unfavorable demographic shifts, will likely drive the ongoing cyclical deleveraging into a sustained secular trend. Related Report  Emerging Markets StrategyA Whiff Of Stagflation? The pandemic and frequent city lockdowns in the past two years in China have significantly reduced households’ income growth, which has increased debt repayment burdens on families. Even though the central bank and more than 100 cities in China recently slashed mortgage rates, the average cost of mortgage loans remains higher than income growth per capita.  In other words, the current mortgage rates in China are not low enough to reverse the downward trend in households’ ML loans (Chart 3). The investment appeal of real estate has also diminished. Prior to 2018, home prices often appreciated faster than the prevailing mortgage rates. Since late 2019, however, the rate of housing price appreciation in China’s 70 medium and large cities has been falling below the average interest rate on mortgage loans (Chart 4). Home price appreciation has stalled since the second half of last year, whereas mortgage rates are currently about 5.5%. As such, housing’s carry has become negative, discouraging investment purchases of residential properties. Chart 3Mortgage Rates Have Dropped But Still Higher Than Income Growth Chart 4Returns On Leveraged Property Investment Have Diminished In order for consumer ML loans to pick up strongly in the next 6 to 12 months, either the household income growth must significantly improve and/or mortgage rates will have to drop well below home price appreciation. Recent surveys suggest that both will probably not happen in the near term (Chart 5). Chart 5Chinese Households' Income And Investment Outlooks Are Dim Chart 6Demand For Housing Will Dwindle Along With Smaller Labor Force In a previous report we indicated that China’s falling birthrate and working-age population will lead to less demand for housing from a structural point of view. Home sales have fluctuated in a downward trend in the past five years along with a peak in the working-age population in 2015 (Chart 6). Moreover, the sharp deterioration in China’s birthrate will reduce the demand for housing even more significantly in the next 15-20 years. This unfavorable demographic trend will exert powerful downward pressures on the country’s household credit demand. Bottom Line: While the ongoing economic slowdown and housing market slump are curbing ML loans, China’s household loan demand may be entering a structural downturn due to the country’s demographic headwinds. The Economic Impact Of Household Deleveraging The experience in both Japan and the US suggests that when households begin to reduce their debt, the trend may spiral into a secular cycle that lasts up to a decade (Chart 7). A prolonged deleveraging cycle can push the growth in residential real estate investment, consumption of durable goods and money supply to much lower levels.  In Japan’s case, the household debt-to-income ratio rolled over in the late 1990s when the country’s working-age population peaked and began a nose-dive in the early 2000s.  The country’s growth in residential investment fell along with households’ debt reduction, from a 13% average annual rate (nominal) in the 1980s to about 3% in the 2000s (Chart 8). Chart 7Deleveraging Can Spiral Into A Decade##br## Long Cycle Chart 8Japan's Real Estate Investment Growth Slowed Along With Falling Household Leverage... Consumption growth, particularly in consumer durable goods, also dropped from more than 10% in the 1980s to around 0-2% in the late 1990s. It subsequently fell into a prolonged contraction in the 2000s when the household leverage ratio declined (Chart 9). Real estate credit is a major source for China’s money origination. Therefore, a lack of household loan demand will depress the country’s overall credit and money growth. Japan’s money supply grew by less than 4% in the 2000s in nominal terms, compared with a nearly 10% increase in the years prior to the household deleveraging cycle (Chart 10). Chart 9...So Did Demand For Consumer Durable Goods Chart 10Money Supply Growth Also Slowed Bottom Line: Without an imminent and significant improvement in the economy, household deleveraging can progress into a secular trend. A prolonged household deleveraging cycle will drive down the growth in residential property investment, consumption and money supply. Investment Conclusions The combination of declining household debt and total population will weigh on the demand for housing, consumption and investment growth, generating deflationary headwinds for China’s economy. Thus, China’s interest rate regime will likely follow Japan’s example and downshift structurally (Chart 11). A lower interest rate environment will at margin be positive for China’s financial asset valuations in the long run. Related Report  China Investment StrategyExpect A Much Weaker Economy In Q2 Weaker prices on capital will make corporate debt-servicing cheaper and increase corporate profitability. China will likely maintain a very accommodative fiscal policy in the next decade to offset less demand from households and to help implement industrial policies aimed at achieving self-sufficiency in technology and energy. Furthermore, Chinese households may bump up their savings while reducing debt. As returns on residential property investment diminish and yields on risk-free assets shift lower, Chinese households may be increasingly willing to invest in financial assets. This trend could provide tailwinds to Chinese equities in the long term (Chart 12). Chart 11Interest Rates In China Will Likely ##br##Structurally Downshift Chart 12Chinese Households May Shift Their Investment Preference From Properties To Financial Assets   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Strategic Themes Cyclical Recommendations

Special Report

Executive Summary Autocracy Hurts Productivity Over the next six-to-18 months, the Xi Jinping administration will “let 100 flowers bloom” – i.e., relax a range of government policies to secure China’s economic recovery from the pandemic. The first signs of this policy are already apparent via monetary and fiscal easing and looser regulation of Big Tech. However, investors should treat any risk-on rally in Chinese stocks with skepticism over the long run. Political risk and policy uncertainty will remain high until after Xi consolidates power this fall. Xi is highly likely to remain in office but uncertainty over other personnel – and future national policy – will be substantial. Next year China’s policy trajectory will become clearer. But global investors should avoid mistaking temporary improvements for a change of Xi’s strategy or China’s grand strategy. Beijing is driven by instability and insecurity to challenge the US-led world order. The result will be continued economic divorce and potentially military conflicts in the coming decade. Russia’s reversion to autocracy led to falling productivity and poor equity returns. China is also reverting to autocratic government as a solution to its domestic challenges. Western investors should limit long-term exposure to China and prefer markets that benefit from China’s recovery, such as in Southeast Asia and Latin America. Bottom Line: The geopolitical risk premium in Chinese equities will stay high in 2022, fall in 2023, but then rise again as global investors learn that China in the Xi Jinping era is fundamentally unstable and insecure. Feature Chart 1Market Cheers China's Hints At Policy Easing In 1957, after nearly a decade at the helm of the People’s Republic of China, Chairman Mao Zedong initiated the “Hundred Flowers Campaign.” The campaign allowed a degree of political freedom to try to encourage new ideas and debate among China’s intellectuals. The country’s innovative forces had suffered from decades of foreign invasion, civil war, and repression. Within three years, Mao reversed course, reimposed ideological discipline, and punished those who had criticized the party.  It turned out that the new communist regime could not maintain political control while allowing liberalization in the social and economic spheres.1 This episode is useful to bear in mind in 2022 as General Secretary Xi Jinping restores autocratic government in China. In the coming year, Xi will ease a range of policies to promote economic growth and innovation. Already his administration is relaxing some regulatory pressure on Big Tech. Global financial markets are cheering this apparent policy improvement (Chart 1). In effect, Xi is preparing to let 100 flowers bloom. However, China’s economic trajectory remains gloomy over the long run – not least because the US and China lack a strategic basis for re-engagement. Chinese Leaders Fear Foreign Encroachments Mao’s predicament was not only one of ideology and historical circumstance. It was also one of China’s geopolitics. Chinese governments have always struggled to establish domestic control, extend that control over far-flung buffer territories, and impose limits on foreign encroachments. Mao reversed his brief attempt at liberalization because he could not feel secure in his person or his regime. In 1959, the Chinese economy remained backward. The state faced challenges in administration and in buffer spaces like Tibet and Taiwan. The American military loomed large, despite the stalemate and ceasefire on the Korean peninsula in 1952. Russia was turning against Stalinism, while Hungary was revolting against the Soviet Union. Mao feared that the free exchange of ideas would do more to undermine national unity than it would to promote industrialization and technological progress. The 100 flowers that bloomed – intellectuals criticizing government policy – revealed themselves to be insufficiently loyal. They could be culled, strengthening the regime. However, what followed was a failed economic program and nationwide famine. Fast forward to today, when circumstances have changed but the Chinese state faces the same geopolitical insecurities. Xi Jinping, like all Chinese rulers, is struggling to maintain domestic stability and territorial integrity while regulating foreign influence. Although the People’s Republic is not as vulnerable as it was in Mao’s time, it is increasingly vulnerable – namely, to a historic downshift in potential economic growth and a rise in international tensions (Chart 2). The Xi administration has repeatedly shown that it views the US alliance system, US-led global monetary and financial system, and western liberal ideology as threats that need to be counteracted. Chart 2China: Less Stable, Less Secure In addition, Russia’s difficulties invading Ukraine suggest that China faces an enormous challenge in attempting to carve out its own sphere of influence without shattering its economic stability. Hence Beijing needs to slow the pace of confrontation with the West while pursuing the same strategic aims. Xi Stays, But Policy Uncertainty Still High In 2022  2022 is a critical political juncture for China. Xi was supposed to step down and hand the baton to a successor chosen by his predecessor Hu Jintao. Instead he has spent the past decade arranging to remain in power until at least 2032. He took a big stride toward this goal at the nineteenth national party congress in 2017, when he assumed the title of “core leader” of the Communist Party and removed term limits from its constitution. This year’s Omicron outbreak and abrupt economic slowdown have raised speculation about whether Xi’s position is secure. Some of this speculation is wild – but China is far less stable than it appears. Structurally, inequality is high, social mobility is low, and growth is slowing, forcing the new middle class to compromise its aspirations. Cyclically, unemployment is rising and the Misery Index is higher than it appears if one focuses on youth employment and fuel inflation (Chart 3). The risk of sociopolitical upheaval is underrated among global investors. Chart 3AStructurally China Is Vulnerable To Social Unrest Chart 3BCyclically China Is Vulnerable To Social Unrest Yet even assuming that social unrest and political dissent flare up, Xi is highly likely to clinch another five-to-ten years in power. Consider the following points: The top leaders control personnel decisions. The national party congress is often called an “election,” but that is a misnomer. The Communist Party’s top posts will be ratified, not elected. The Politburo and Politburo Standing Committee select the members of the Central Committee; the national party congress convenes to ratify these new members. The Central Committee then ratifies the line-up of the new Politburo and Politburo Standing Committee, which is orchestrated by Xi along with the existing Politburo Standing Committee (Diagram 1). Xi is the most important figure in deciding the new leadership. Diagram 1Mechanics Of The Chinese Communist Party’s National Congress There is no history of surprise votes. The party congress ratifies approximately 90% of the candidates put forward. Outcomes closely conform to predictions of external analysts, meaning that the leadership selection is not a spontaneous, grassroots process but rather a mechanical, elite-driven process with minimal influence from low-level party members, not to mention the population at large.2  The party and state control the levers of power: The Communist Party has control over the military, state bureaucracy, and “commanding heights” of the economy. This includes domestic security forces, energy, communications, transportation, and the financial system. Whoever controls the Communist Party and central government exerts heavy influence over provincial governments and non-government institutions. The state bureaucracy is not in a position to oppose the party leadership. Xi has conducted a decade-long political purge (“anti-corruption campaign”). Upon coming to power in 2012, Xi initiated a neo-Maoist campaign to re-centralize power in his own person, in the Communist Party, and in the central government. He has purged foreign influence along with rivals in the party, state, military, business, civil society, and Big Tech. He personally controls the military, the police, the paramilitary forces, the intelligence and security agencies, and the top Communist Party organs. There may be opposition but it is not organized or capable. Chart 4China: Big Tech Gets Relief ... For Now There are no serious alternatives to Xi’s leadership. Xi is widely recognized within China as the “core” of the fifth generation of Chinese leaders. The other leaders and their factions have been repressed. Xi imprisoned his top rivals, Bo Xilai and Zhou Yongkang, a decade ago. He has since neutralized their followers and the factions of previous leaders Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin. Premier Li Keqiang has never exercised any influence and will retire at the end of this year. None of the ousted figures have reemerged to challenge Xi, but potential rivals have been imprisoned or disciplined, as have prominent figures that pose no direct political threat, such as tech entrepreneur Jack Ma (Chart 4).  Additional high-level sackings are likely before the party congress. China’s reversion to autocracy grew from Communist Party elites, not Xi alone. China’s slowing potential GDP growth and changing economic model raise an existential threat to the Communist Party over the long run. The party recognized its potential loss of legitimacy back in 2012, the year Xi was slated to take the helm. The solution was to concentrate power in the center, promoting Maoist nostalgia and strongman rule. In essence, the party needed a new Mao; Xi was all too willing to play the part. Hence Xi’s current position does not rest on his personal maneuvers alone. The party has invested heavily in Xi and will continue to do so. Characteristics of the political elite underpin the autocratic shift. Statistics on the evolving character traits of Politburo members show the trend toward leaders that are more rural, more bureaucratic, and more ideologically orthodox, i.e. more nationalist and communist (Chart 5). This trend underpins the party’s behavior and Xi’s personal rule. Chart 5China: From Technocracy To Autocracy Chart 6China: De-Industrialization Undermines Stability Xi has guarded his left flank. By cornering the hard left of the political spectrum Xi has positioned himself as the champion of poor people, workers, farmers, soldiers, and common folk. This is the political base of the Communist Party, as opposed to the rich coastal elites and westernizing capitalists, who stand to suffer from Xi’s policies. Ultimately de-industrialization – e.g. the sharp decline in manufacturing and construction sectors (Chart 6) – poses a major challenge to this narrative. But social unrest will be repressed and will not overturn Xi or the regime anytime soon. Xi still retains political capital. After centuries of instability, Chinese households are averse to upheaval, civil war, and chaos. They support the current regime because it has stabilized China and made it prosperous. Of course, relative to the Hu Jintao era, Xi’s policies have produced slower growth and productivity and a tarnished international image (Chart 7). But they have not yet led to massive instability that would alienate the people in general. If Chinese citizens look abroad, they see that Xi has already outlasted US Presidents Obama and Trump, is likely to outlast Biden, and that US politics are in turmoil. The same goes for Europe, Japan, and Russia – Xi’s leadership does not suffer by comparison.  Chart 7China’s Declining International Image External actors are neither willing nor able to topple Xi. Any outside attempt to interfere with China’s leadership or political system would be unwarranted and would provoke an aggressive response. The US is internally divided and has not developed a consistent China policy. This year the Biden administration has its hands full with midterm elections, Russia, and Iran, where it must also accept the current leadership as a fact of life. It has no ability to prevent Xi’s power consolidation, though it will impose punitive economic measures. Japan and other US allies have an interest in undermining Xi’s administration, but they follow the US’s lead in foreign policy. They also lack influence over the political rotation within the Communist Party. The Europeans will keep their distance but will not try to antagonize China given their more pressing conflict with Russia. Russia needs China more than ever and will lend material support in the form of cheaper and more secure natural resources. North Korean and Iranian nuclear provocations will help Xi stay under the radar.  There is no reason to expect a new leader to take over in China. The Xi administration’s strategy, revealed over the past ten years, will remain intact for another five-to-ten years at least. The real question at the party congress is whether Xi will be forced to name a successor or compromise with the opposing faction on the personnel of the Politburo and Politburo Standing Committee. But even that remains to be seen – and either way he will remain the paramount leader. Bottom Line: Xi Jinping has the political capability to cement another five-to-ten years in power. Opposing factions have been weakened over the past decade by Xi’s domestic political purge and clash with the United States. China is ripe for social unrest and political dissent but these will be repressed as China goes further down the path of autocracy. Foreign powers have little influence over the process. Policy Uncertainty Falls In 2023 … Only To Rise Again What will Xi Jinping do once he consolidates power? Xi’s administration has weighed heavily on China’s economy, foreign relations, and financial markets. The situation has worsened dramatically this year as the economy struggles with “A Trifecta Of Economic Woes” – namely a rampant pandemic, waning demand for exports, and a faltering housing market (Chart 8). In response the administration is now easing a range of policies to stabilize expectations and try to meet the 5.5% annual growth target. The money impulse, and potentially the credit impulse, is turning less negative, heralding an eventual upturn in industrial activity and import volumes in 2023. These measures will give a boost to Chinese and global growth, although stimulus measures are losing effectiveness over time (Chart 9).  Chart 8China's Trifecta Of Economic Woes Chart 9More Stimulus, But Less Effectiveness This pro-growth policy pivot will continue through the year and into next year. After all, if Xi is going to stay in power, he does not want to bequeath himself a financial crisis or recession at the start of his third term. Still, investors should treat any rally in Chinese equity markets with skepticism. First, political risk and uncertainty will remain elevated until Xi completes his power grab, as China is highly susceptible to surprises and negative political incidents this year (Chart 10). For example, if social unrest emerges and is repressed, then the West will impose sanctions. If China increases its support of Russia, Iran, or North Korea, then the US will impose sanctions.     Chart 10China: Policy Uncertainty And Geopolitical Risk To Stay High In 2022, Might Improve In 2023 Chart 11China Needs To Court Europe The regime will be extremely vigilant and overreact to any threats this year, real or perceived. Political objectives will remain paramount, above the economy and financial markets, and that means new economic policy initiatives will not be reliable. Investors cannot be confident about the country’s policy direction until the leadership rotation is complete and new policy guidance is revealed, particularly in December 2022 and March 2023. Second, after consolidating power, investors should interpret Xi’s policy shift as “letting 100 flowers bloom,” i.e., a temporary relaxation that aims to reboot the economy but does not change the country’s long-term policy trajectory. Economic reopening is inevitable after the pandemic response is downgraded – which is a political determination. Xi will also be forced to reduce foreign tensions for the sake of the economy, particularly by courting Europe, which is three times larger than Russia as a market (Chart 11). However, China’s declining labor force and high debt levels prevent its periodic credit stimulus from generating as much economic output as in the past. And the administration will not ultimately pursue liberal structural reforms and a more open economy. That is the path toward foreign encroachment – and regime insecurity. The US’s sanctions on Russia have shown the consequences of deep dependency on the West. China will continue diversifying away from the US. And, as we will see, the US cannot provide credible promises that it will reduce tensions. US-China: Re-Engagement Will Fail The Biden administration is focused on fighting inflation ahead of the midterm elections. But its confrontation with Russia – and likely failure to freeze Iran’s nuclear program – increases rather than decreases oil supply constraints. Hence some administration officials and outside observers argue that the administration should pursue a strategic re-engagement with China.3  Theoretically a US-China détente would buy both countries time to deal with their domestic politics by providing some international stability. Improved US-China relations could also isolate Russia and hasten a resolution to the war in Ukraine, potentially reducing commodity price pressures. In essence, a US-China détente would reprise President Richard Nixon’s outreach to China in 1972, benefiting both countries at the expense of Russia.4  This kind of Kissinger 2.0 maneuver could happen but there are good reasons to think it will not, or if it does that it will fall apart in one or two years. In 1972, China had nowhere near the capacity to deny the US access to the Asia Pacific region, expel US influence from neighboring countries, reconquer Taiwan, or project power elsewhere. Today, China is increasingly gaining these abilities. In fact it is the only power in the world capable of rivaling the US in both economic and military terms over the long run (Chart 12). Secretary of State Antony Blinken recently outlined the Biden administration’s China policy and declared that China poses “the most serious long-term challenge” to the US despite Russian aggression.5  Chart 12US-China Competition Sows Distrust, Drives Economic Divorce While another decade of US engagement with China would benefit the US economy, it would be far more beneficial to China. Crucially, it would be beneficial in a strategic sense, not just an economic one. It could provide just the room for maneuver that China needs – at this critical juncture in its development – to achieve technological and productivity breakthroughs and escape the middle-income trap. Another ten-year reprieve from direct American competition would set China up to challenge the US on the global stage. That would be far too high of a strategic price for America to pay for a ceasefire in Ukraine. Ukraine has limited strategic value for the US and it does not steer US grand strategy, which aims to prevent regional empires from taking shape. In fact Washington is deliberately escalating and prolonging the war in Ukraine to drain Russia’s resources. Ending the war would do Russia a strategic favor, while re-engaging with China would do China a strategic favor. So why would the defense and intelligence community advise the Biden administration to pursue Kissinger 2.0? Chart 13US Unlikely To Revoke Trump Tariffs Biden could still pursue some degree of détente with China, namely by repealing President Trump’s trade tariffs, in order to relieve price pressures ahead of the midterm election. Yet even here the case is deeply flawed. Trump’s tariffs on China did not trigger the current inflationary bout. That was the combined Trump-Biden fiscal stimulus and Covid-era supply constraints. US import prices are rising faster from the rest of the world than they are from China (Chart 13). Tariff relief would not change China’s Zero Covid policy, which is the current driver of price spikes from China. And while lifting tariffs on China would not reduce inflation enough to attract voters, it would cost Biden some political credit among voters in swing states like Pennsylvania, and across the US, where China’s image has plummeted in the wake of Covid-19 (Chart 14).   Chart 14US Political Consensus Remains Hawkish On China If Biden did pursue détente, would China be able to reciprocate and offer trade concessions? Xi has the authority to do so but he is unlikely to make major trade concessions prior to the party congress. Economic self-sufficiency and resistance to American pressure have become pillars of his support. Promises will not ease inflation for US voters in November and Xi has no incentive to make binding concessions because the next US administration could intensify the trade war regardless.  Bottom Line: The US has no long-term interest, and a limited short-term interest, in easing pressure on China’s economy. Continued US pressure, combined with China’s internal difficulties, will reinforce Xi Jinping’s shift toward nationalism and hawkish foreign policy. Hence there is little basis for a substantial US-China re-engagement that improves the global macroeconomic environment over the coming years. Investment Takeaways Chart 15Autocracy Hurts Productivity Xi Jinping will clinch another five-to-ten years in power this fall. To stabilize the economy, he will “let 100 flowers bloom” and ease monetary, fiscal, regulatory, and social policy at home. He will also court the West, especially Europe, for the sake of economic growth. However, he will not go so far as to compromise his ultimate aims: self-sufficiency at home and a sphere of influence abroad. The result will be a relapse into conflict with the West within a year or two. Ultimately a closed Chinese economy in conflict with the West will result in lower productivity, a weaker currency, a high geopolitical risk premium, and low equity returns – just as it did for Russia (Chart 15). Any short-term improvement in China’s low equity multiples will ultimately be capped. Over the long run, western investors should hedge against Chinese geopolitical risk by preferring markets that benefit from China’s periodic stimulus yet do not suffer from the break-up of the US-China and EU-Russia economic relationships, such as key markets in Latin America and Southeast Asia (Charts 16 & 17). Chart 16China Stimulus Creates Opportunity For … Latin America Chart 17China Stimulus Creates Opportunity For … Southeast Asia     Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     Modern scholarship has shown that Mao intended to entrap the opposition through the 100 Flowers Campaign. For a harrowing account of this episode, see Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, Mao: The Unknown Story (New York: Anchor Books, 2006), pp. 409-17. 2     “At least 8% of CPC Central Committee nominees voted off,” Xinhua, October 24, 2017, english.www.gov.cn. 3    Christopher Condon, “Yellen Says Biden Team Is Looking To ‘Reconfigure’ China Tariffs,” June 8, 2022, www.bloomberg.com. 4       Niall Ferguson, “Dust Off That Dirty Word Détente And Engage With China,” Bloomberg, June 5, 2022, www.bloomberg.com. 5    See Antony J Blinken, Secretary of State, “The Administration’s Approach to the People’s Republic of China,” George Washington University, Washington D.C., May 26, 2022, state.gov. Additionally, see President Joe Biden’s third assertion of US willingness to defend Taiwan against China, in a joint press conference with Japan’s Prime Minister Kishida Fumio, “Remarks by President Biden and Prime Minister Kishida Fumio of Japan in Joint Press Conference,” Akasaka Palace, Tokyo, Japan, May 23, 2022, whitehouse.gov.