China

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

As is tradition, during client visits in Europe last week, I had the pleasure of reconnecting with Ms. Mea, a long-term BCA client.1 It was our third encounter and, as always, Ms. Mea was eager to delve into our reasoning, challenge our views and strategy, as well as gauge our conviction level. We devote this week's report to key parts of our dialogue. I hope clients find it insightful and beneficial. Ms. Mea: Isn't the EM selloff and underperformance already overextended? I am afraid you will overstay your negative view on EM risk assets as happened in 2016. What are you watching to ensure you alter your stance as and when appropriate? Answer: I am very cognizant of not overstaying my negative stance on EM. I viewed the EM/China rally from their 2016 lows as a mid-cycle outperformance in a structural downtrend.2 Consequently, I argued the rally was not sustainable and that it was a matter of time before EMs and China-plays entered into a new bear market. Barring perfect timing, it was difficult to make money during that rally. Investors who averaged in EM stocks and local bonds over the past three years (including late 2015/early 2016 lows) and did not sell early this year have not made money. The current down-leg in EM financial markets may be the last phase of the bear market/underperformance that began in 2011, and it will eventually create a major buying opportunity. That said, this bear market will likely last much longer and be larger in magnitude than many investors expect. In the recent report titled EMs Are In A Bear Market, I elaborated on why this is a bear market and not just a correction. We also discussed how much further it might go.3 Big-picture macro themes - such as China/EM credit excesses and misallocation of capital - have informed my core views in recent years. Notwithstanding, I am watching various market signals that often lead economic data and are typically early in signaling a reversal in financial markets. Just a few examples of market signals and indicators I am following closely: Turns in EM corporate bond yields often coincide with reversals in EM stocks. For now, EM corporate bond yields are rising, and hence they do not signal a bottom in EM share prices (Chart I-1, top panel). Chart I-1EM/Asian Corporate Bonds Signal Downside Risks To Share Prices The same holds true for Emerging Asian markets: surging corporate bond yields are heralding further declines in Asian share prices (Chart I-1, bottom panel). Our Risk-on versus Safe-Haven (RSH) currency ratio positively correlates with EM equity prices. The RSH ratio has recently rebounded but has not broken above its 200-day moving average (Chart I-2). Hence, there is no meaningful buy signal as of yet. Chart I-2Our Market Risk Indicator The annual rate of change of this indicator leads the global trade cycles and entails further slowdown in global trade (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Global Trade Slowdown Is Not Over Finally, a number of EM equity indexes - small-caps and an equal-weighted index - have broken below their 3-year moving averages (Chart I-4). This entails that the selloff in EM stocks is very broad-based. It could also entail that the overall EM index will likely break below its 3-year moving average as well (Chart I-4, bottom panel). Chart I-4EM Equity Selloff Has Been Broad-Based Apart from market signals, I am also monitoring economic data, and so far, there are few signs of a revival in global trade or EM growth. The EM manufacturing PMI is falling (Chart I-5, top panel). Manufacturing output growth in Asia and Germany are decelerating sharply (Chart I-5, bottom panel). When global trade growth underwhelms, EM risk assets and currencies fare poorly. Chart I-5Global Growth And EM Credit Spreads Remarkably, both panels of Chart I-5 corroborate that the key reason for the EM selloff this year has not been the Federal Reserve tightening but the deceleration in global trade. We do not foresee a reversal in global trade and China/EM growth deceleration in the coming months. This heralds maintaining our negative view on EM risk assets and currencies for now. Ms. Mea: It is true that China is slowing, but policymakers are also stimulating and a lot of bad news may already be priced into China-related markets. Why do you believe there is more downside in China-related markets and EM risk assets from today's levels? Answer: Indeed, China is easing policy, but policy stimulus has so far been limited. It also works with a time lag. First, the bottoms in the money and the combined credit and fiscal spending impulses preceded the trough in EM and commodities by 6 months at the bottom in 2015 and by about 15 months at the top in 2017 (Chart I-6). Even if the money as well as credit and fiscal impulses bottom today it could take several more months before the selloff in EM financial markets and commodities prices abates. Chart I-6China: Money, Credit And Fiscal Impulses And Financial Markets Second, the stimulus has so far been limited. The recently increased issuance of special bonds by local governments was already part of this year's budget. Simply, it was delayed early this year and has been pushed into the third quarter. In addition, there are reports that 42% of this recent special bond issuance will be used for rural land purchases rather than infrastructure spending.4 The former will not boost economic activity and demand for raw materials and industrial goods. Additionally, the ongoing regulatory tightening of banks and non-bank financial institutions will hinder these institutions' willingness and ability to extend credit, despite lower interest rates. We discussed in a recent report5 that both the effectiveness of the monetary transmission mechanism and the time lag between policy easing and a bottom in the business cycle are contingent on the money multiplier (creditors' willingness to lend and borrowers' readiness to borrow) and the velocity of money (marginal propensity to spend among households and companies). On both accounts, odds are that the transmission mechanism will be slower and somewhat impaired this time around than in the past. Chart I-7 illustrates that the marginal propensity to spend/invest by companies is diminishing, and it has historically defined the primary trend in industrial metals prices. Chart I-7China: Companies Are Turning More Cautious On Capex Third, most of the fiscal stimulus - tax cuts and income tax deductions - are designed to raise household incomes. This will primarily help spending on some consumer goods and services. Yet, there will be little help for property sales, construction and infrastructure spending. These three types of spending drive most of the demand for commodities, materials and industrial goods. In turn, industrial goods, machinery, commodities and materials account for about 80% of total Chinese imports. Hence, the channels by which China affects the rest of the world are via imports of capital goods, materials and commodities. Overall, China's tax reforms will have little bearing on its imports from other countries. The latter are heavily exposed to the mainland's construction and infrastructure spending, which in turn are driven by the Chinese credit cycle. This is why we spend so much time analyzing mainland money and credit cycles. Finally, the significance of U.S. import tariffs for the Chinese economy should be put into perspective. China's exports to the U.S. make up only 3.6% of its GDP. This compares with the mainland's total exports of 20% and capital spending of 42% of GDP (Chart I-8). Chart I-8What Drives China's Growth Consequently, capital spending is much more important to the Middle Kingdom's growth than its shipments to the U.S. That said, the trade confrontation between the U.S. and China is likely already negatively affecting overall business and consumer confidence in China (Chart I-9). Chart I-9China: Service Sector Is Moderating In addition, Chart I-10 illustrates that China's manufacturing PMI for export orders have plunged, signifying an imminent slump in its exports. This could be due to its shipments not only to the U.S. but also to developing economies, which account for a larger share of total exports than shipments to the U.S. and EU combined. Considerable depreciation in EM currencies has made their imports more expensive, dampening their capacity to import. Chart I-10Chinese Exports Are At Risk In brief, China's growth will continue to disappoint, weighing on China plays in financial markets. Ms. Mea: Why has strong U.S. growth not helped global trade, China and EM in general? How do U.S. economic and financial markets enter into your analysis about the world and EM? Answer: One common mistake that many commentators make is to form a view on the U.S. growth outlook and then extrapolate it to the rest of the world. The U.S. economy is still the largest, but it is no longer the sole dominant force in the global economy. Chart I-11 shows that U.S. and EU annual imports are equal to $2.5 and $2.2 trillion, respectively. Combined annual imports of China and the rest of EM amount to $6 trillion - hence, they are much larger than the aggregate imports of U.S. and EU. This is why global trade can deviate from time to time from U.S. domestic demand cycles. Chart I-11EM Imports Are Larger Than U.S. And EU Imports Together That said, due to their sheer size, U.S. financial markets have a much larger impact on global markets than U.S. imports do on global trade. EM financial markets are greatly influenced by their counterparts in the U.S. In this respect, we have a few observations: U.S. growth is robust, the labor market is tight and core inflation is rising. Barring a major deflation shock from EM, the path of least resistance for U.S. bond yields and the fed funds rate is up. Continued rate hikes by the Fed constitute a major menace to EM risk assets. For now, the growth divergence between the U.S. and rest of the world will continue to be manifested in a stronger U.S. dollar. This is a bad omen for EMs. Chart I-12A Risk To U.S. Share Prices Rising U.S. corporate bond yields have historically been associated with lower U.S. share prices, and presently portend a further drop in American equities (Chart I-12). Finally, the surge in equity market leaders - specifically, new economy stocks - has been on par with previous bubbles, as shown in Chart I-13. Chart I-13History Of Financial Bubbles It is impossible to know whether or not this is a bubble that has already reached its top. But the magnitude and speed of the rally, at minimum, warrant a consolidation phase. On the whole, Fed tightening, rising corporate bond yields, a strong dollar and elevated valuations warrant further correction in U.S. share prices. This will reinforce the downtrend in EM risk assets. Ms. Mea: Are fundamentals in many EM countries not better today than they were amid the taper tantrum in 2013? Specifically, current account balances in many developing nations have improved and their currencies have cheapened. Answer: Your observation is correct - current account deficits have improved and currencies have become much cheaper than before. Nevertheless, these are necessary but not sufficient conditions to turn bullish: First, marginal shifts in balance of payments drive exchange rates. Even though current account deficits are currently smaller and currencies are moderately cheap in many EMs, a deterioration in their current accounts due to weakening exports in general and falling commodities prices in particular will depress their currencies. In this context, China's imports are critical. As they decelerate, EM ex-China's current account balances will deteriorate and their exchange rates will depreciate. Second, current account surpluses do not always preclude currency depreciation. Chart I-14 shows that the Korean won, the Taiwanese dollar and the Malaysian ringgit experienced bouts of depreciation, despite running current account surpluses. Chart I-14Current Account Surpluses And Exchange Rates Third, emerging Asian currencies are at a risk from another spell of RMB depreciation. Chart I-15 illustrates that CNY/USD exchange rate correlates with the interest rate differential between China and the U.S. As the Fed hikes rates further and the People's Bank of China (PBoC) keep interest rates stable, the yuan will likely depreciate against the greenback. Chart I-15CNY/USD And Interest Rates Despite capital controls, it seems the interest rate differential affects the exchange rate in China too. Given the ongoing growth slowdown and declining return on capital in China, there are rising pressures for capital to exit the country. If the authorities push up interest rates to make the yuan attractive to hold, it will hurt the already overleveraged and weak economy. If the PBoC reduces interest rates further to help the real economy, the RMB will come under depreciation pressure. Given the constraints Chinese policymakers are facing, reducing interest rates and allowing the yuan to depreciate further is the least-worst outcome for the nation. Yet, this will rattle Asian currencies and risk assets. Finally, EM currency valuations are but particularly cheap, except Argentina, Turkey and Mexico as depicted in Chart I-16A & Chart I-16B. When currency valuations are not at an extreme, they usually do not matter for the medium-term outlook. Chart I-16AEM Currency Valuations Chart I-16BEM Currency Valuations As to the EM fixed-income market, exchange rates are the key driver of their performance. Currencies depreciation causes a selloff in high-yielding local currency bonds and typically leads to credit spread widening. The latter occurs because U.S. dollar debt becomes more difficult to service when the value of local currency declines. Besides, EM currencies usually weaken amid a global trade slowdown and falling commodities prices. The latter two undermine issuers' revenues and their capacity to service debt, warranting wider credit spreads. Ms. Mea: What about equity valuations? Aren't they cheap? Chart I-17EM Equity Multiples Answer: EM stocks are not very cheap. Our composite valuation indicator based on a 20% trimmed mean of trailing and forward P/Es, PBV, price-to-cash earnings and price-to-dividend ratios denotes a slightly attractive valuation (Chart I-17). According to our cyclically-adjusted P/E ratio, EM equities are also moderately cheap (Chart I-18). Chart I-18EM Equities: Cyclically-Adjusted P/E Ratio In short, EM equity valuations are modestly cheap. As with currencies, however, unless valuations are at an extreme (say, one or two-standard deviations from their mean), they may not matter for a while. Barring extreme over- or undervaluation, share prices are typically driven by profit cycles. Importantly, EM corporate earnings are set to decelerate further and probably contract in the first half of 2019 (Chart I-19). If this scenario transpires, share prices will drop further, regardless of valuations. Chart I-19EM Corporate Earnings Are At Risk Ms. Mea: Why don't you write about risks to your view? And, I would like to use this opportunity to ask what are the risks to your view presently? Answer: The basis of why I do not write about the risks to my view is as follows: The risks to a view are often the cases when the key pillars of analysis do not play out. It follows that in these cases, the risks to the view are obvious and there is no need to write about them. To sum up our discussion today, the key pillars of my view are: China's policy stimulus has so far been moderate and the stimulus usually works with a time lag. Additionally, the combination of the regulatory tightening on banks and non-bank financial organizations and the lingering credit and property market excesses in China will generate a growth slowdown that will be longer and deeper than the markets currently expect. The Fed will continue ratcheting up rates as U.S. core inflation is grinding higher. The combination of the above three will produce weaker global growth, a stronger U.S. dollar, and lower commodities prices. All in all, these are bearish for EM risk assets. It is evident that if these themes and assumptions are incorrect, the view will be wrong. Hence, writing that the risks to my view are that my assumptions and themes are mistaken is nothing other than tautology. That said, there are seldom cases when the underlying economic themes and the assumptions are valid, yet the investment recommendations are amiss. These are, in fact, true risks to the view and they are worthy of discussion. Yet, identifying in advance what could go wrong when the analysis and assumption are accurate is very difficult. Presently, I can think of one reason why my investment recommendations could be erroneous even if my economic themes end up being largely valid: It is the shortage of investable assets worldwide relative to capital that is looking to be invested. Quantitative easing programs in the advanced economies have shrunk the size of investable assets. As a result, too much money is chasing too few assets. Consequently, the risk to my view is that EM assets never become sufficiently cheap and that fundamentals do not matter that much. In other words, investors could rush back into EM risk assets despite the poor growth backdrop and not-so-cheap valuations. This is akin to a game of musical chairs where the number of participants is greater than the number of chairs. To complicate things, some chairs are broken, i.e., some assets are of bad quality. As a result, game participants (i.e., investors) are now facing a tough choice between (1) being somewhat prudent and risking being left without a chair; or (2) rushing in and getting either a good chair or a broken chair (depending on luck). Applying this musical chairs analogy, buying EM risk assets at the current juncture is similar to rushing in and hoping to get a good chair. It is a very high-risk bet and success is contingent on luck. In my subjective assessment, there is about a 30% chance that this strategy - buying EM risk now - will be successful with 70% odds favoring being risk averse for the time being. The latter entails staying with a defensive strategy in EM and underweighting/shorting EM versus DM. Ms. Mea: What is your recommended country allocation currently? Answer: In the EM equity space, our overweights are Korea, Thailand, Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Chile, Russia, and central Europe. Our underweights, on the other hand, are India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Hong Kong, South Africa and Peru. Chart I-20 demonstrates the performance of our fully invested EM equity portfolio versus the EM MSCI benchmark. This portfolio is constructed based on our country recommendations. Hence, it is a measure of alpha that clients could derive from our country calls and geographical equity allocations. Chart I-20EMS's Fully-Invested Model Equity Portfolio Performance This fully invested equity model portfolio has outperformed the MSCI EM equity benchmark by about 65% with very low volatility since its initiation in May 2008. This translates into 500-basis-points of compounded outperformance per year. In the currency space, we continue recommending shorting a basket of the following EM currencies versus the dollar: ZAR, IDR, MYR, KRW and CLP. The full list of our country recommendations for equity, local fixed-income, credit and currency markets are available below. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Reports, "Where Are EMs In The Cycle?" dated May 3, 2018 and "Ms. Mea Challenges The EMS View," dated October 19, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Understanding The EM/China Cycles," dated July 19, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EMs Are In A Bear Market," dated October 18, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-21/china-s-195-billion-debt-splurge-has-less-bang-than-you-think 5 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EMs Are In A Bear Market," dated October 25, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights China's old economy continues to slow in the leadup to the negative effect of U.S. import tariffs on Chinese export growth. Weaker trade data over the coming few months is likely to weigh further on investor sentiment. Our Li Keqiang leading indicator has risen off of its low, but not in a broad-based fashion. While the RMB depreciation has caused Chinese monetary conditions indexes to move sharply higher, money and credit growth remain weak. The recent breakdown in Chinese consumer staples stocks is an exception to the broad trend of low-beta sector outperformance. Fears have risen that the Chinese consumer is faltering, a concern that we will address in a Special Report next week. Feature Tables 1 and 2 highlight key developments in China's economy and its financial markets over the past month. On the growth front, the September update to Bloomberg's measure of the Li Keqiang index (LKI), and our newly created alternative LKI, makes it clear that China's economy continues to slow in the leadup to the negative shock from the external sector. The fact that both LKIs peaked early in 2017 highlights that the slowdown was precipitated by monetary tightening, which has only recently reversed. This easing in monetary conditions has likely improved the liquidity situation in China, but it remains to be seen whether it will prompt any meaningful acceleration in credit growth. Table 1The Trend In Domestic Demand, And The Outlook For Trade, Is Negative Table 2Financial Market Performance Summary From an investment strategy perspective, our recommendations remain unchanged. Despite deeply oversold conditions in China's stock markets, investors should avoid outright long positions for now due to the high odds of additional negative catalysts over the coming few months. We expect further weakness in the RMB, and expect USD-CNY to break through 7, suggesting that investors trading within the Chinese equity universe should only favor domestic stocks in currency-hedged terms for now. Finally, we continue to recommend an overweight stance towards low-beta sectors within the investable market, and believe that onshore corporate bonds are a buy despite pervasive default concerns. In reference to Tables 1 and 2, we provide several detailed observations concerning developments in China's macro and financial market data below: Bloomberg's measure of the Li Keqiang index (LKI) fell in September, confirming that activity in China's old economy is trending lower. A downtrend in industrial activity is even more apparent in our alternative LKI (Chart 1), which is constructed using total freight (instead of railway freight) and secondary industry electricity consumption (instead of overall electricity production). Chart 1China's Old Economy Is Slowing, Before The Trade Shock Hits Our BCA Li Keqiang leading indicator has risen somewhat from its June low, driven by the two monetary conditions indexes (MCIs) included in the indicator. Both of these MCIs have, in turn, been driven by the substantial weakness in the RMB over the past four months. This sharp improvement has not been matched by the other components of the indicator: Chart 2 illustrates that the low end of the component range remains quite weak, in contrast to mid-2015 when both the high and low ends of the range were in a clear uptrend. Chart 2A Narrow Pickup In Our LKI Leading Indicator Nearly all of the housing market indicators included in Table 1 are above their 12-month moving average, with the exception of pledged supplementary lending by the PBOC. Pledged supplementary lending itself sequentially increased quite meaningfully in October, underscoring that policymakers are keen to avoid the risk of overtightening the economy at a time when external demand is likely to weaken considerably. Still, smoothed residential sales volume growth has ticked down for two months in a row, suggesting that the extremely stretched pace of floor space started is likely to moderate over the coming months. Chinese export growth remains buoyant, despite several manufacturing and general business condition surveys showing a substantial deterioration over the past few months. As we go to press, China's October trade data has not yet been released, but we expect exports to weaken considerably in the coming few months. This could further weigh on investor sentiment if the slowdown exceeds the market's expectations. Within China's equity market universe, both domestic and investable stocks are deeply oversold in absolute terms, having declined 30% and 28% from their late-January peaks, respectively. Our technical indicators for both markets suggest that Chinese stocks have actually reached 1 standard deviation oversold, a level that has historically served as a platform for a rebound. Still, this speaks merely to the odds of a rebound, not when one will occur, and we can identify further negative catalysts for the equity over the coming 3 months. Avoid outright long positions for now. Despite having fallen significantly themselves, Taiwan and Hong Kong's equity markets have materially outperformed Chinese investable stocks since the beginning of the year (Chart 3). However, Taiwan's outperformance trend has recently moved in the opposite direction, as global investors begin to price in the fact that tensions between the U.S. and China are strategic and long-term in nature, not merely focused on trade.1 Taiwan is extremely exposed to this rivalry, warranting a higher equity risk premium. Chart 3Taiwan's Recent Outperformance Is Likely Reversing Within Chinese investable stocks, low-beta equity sectors have in general continued to outperform over the past month. Our long MSC China low-beta sectors / short MSCI China trade is up 10% since initiation on June 27, and we expect further gains in the near-term. One exception to this trend is the relative performance of domestic and investable consumer staples stocks, which have recently underperformed their respective broad markets (Chart 4). The selloff has been sharp in the case of the domestic market, and has been in response to heightened fears that household consumption is weakening, a sector of the economy that heretofore had been reliably strong. In response to these developments, please note that BCA's China Investment Strategy service will be publishing a Special Report outlook detailing the outlook for the Chinese consumer next week. Chart 4Fears About Chinese Consumers Are Growing The Chinese government bond yield curve has bull steepened considerably since the middle of the year, although it has oscillated without a trend over the past month. To the extent that traditional interpretations of the yield curve apply similarly to China, this suggests that domestic investors are pessimistic about the growth outlook, and expect monetary policy to remain easy. For now, this supports our recommendation to avoid outright long positions in Chinese stocks. Domestic Chinese and global investors remain deeply averse to Chinese corporate bonds, and we continue to disagree that aversion is warranted. Chart 5 highlights that the ChinaBond Corporate Bond total return index remains in a solid uptrend, even for bonds rated AA-. Incredibly, panel 2 of Chart 5 illustrates that global investors who have access to onshore corporate bonds have not lost money this year in unhedged terms, despite the material weakness in the RMB since the middle of the year. We continue to recommend onshore corporate bond positions over the coming 6-12 months.2 Chart 5Chinese Corporate Bonds: A Contrarian Long CNY-USD rose materially last week, in response to speculation that the U.S. is readying a possible trade deal with China. Our geopolitical strategists recommend fading the odds of a near-term trade truce, implying that the odds of USD-CNY breeching 7 over the coming months are substantial. While economically meaningless in and of itself, the threshold is psychologically important and its failure to hold could spark meaningful renewed fears of uncontrolled capital outflow from China. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "EMs Are In A Bear Market," published October 18, 2018. Available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Investing In The Middle Of A Trade War," published September 19, 2018. Available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Special Report

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