Currencies

Special Report

Highlights Volatility subsided but we still think geopolitical risk is underrated in the near term. The new Biden administration faces critical tests on China/Taiwan and Iran. The Biden-Xi phone call did not resolve anything. We recommend investors hedge geopolitical risk by adding a tactical long CHF-USD. The medium-to-long-term macro backdrop is shifting in favor of frontier markets – but it is too soon to dive in. African frontier markets have not yet benefited from the global economic recovery – and may face more pain in the near term. The Ethiopian crisis will further destabilize the Horn of Africa region. Kenya is the relative beneficiary in geopolitical terms, though Kenyan stocks are expensive relative to other frontier markets. Feature Volatility subsided over the past two weeks, global stocks rallied, and bond yields rose. The US dollar bounce lost some of its steam. From a macro point of view, we understand investor exuberance. But from a geopolitical point of view, risks are now understated. President Joe Biden faces imminent tests from China, Iran, and Russia. Table 1 provides a checklist of what we need to see to conclude that a new US-China modus vivendi has been established. The phone conversation between Presidents Biden and Xi Jinping on February 10 is marginally positive but, judging by history, the call shows that tensions remain high.1 Until these conditions are met the two sides are hurtling toward a diplomatic crisis over the Taiwan Strait sometime after China emerges from its annual National People’s Congress. Incidentally, China’s ongoing policy shift toward slower and more disciplined growth will be the takeaway from this year’s legislative session, which is not positive for global cyclicals or China plays beyond the near term. China’s credit impulse has decisively rolled over and the combined fiscal-and-credit impulse is peaking now (Chart 1). Table 1First Biden-Xi Call Did Not Resolve US-China Tensions Chart 1China's Fiscal-And-Credit Stimulus Peaking Now A crisis is also brewing in the Middle East. Iran is not going to abandon its quest for nuclear weapons over the long run but it is willing to negotiate a deal in the short run that reduces US sanctions. Especially if lame duck President Hassan Rouhani gets it done before he steps down in August. The next Iranian president will not want to make the same mistake Rouhani made and bet his future on the unreliable United States. This requires Biden to rejoin the existing 2015 nuclear deal with a vague commitment to negotiate a better deal later. However, this outcome is precisely what Israeli officials have called a “calamity.” 2 The Biden team gives Iran three-to-four months before it has enough highly enriched uranium to make a bomb – it wants to move quickly on negotiations. Israel gives it a year – it wants to convince the Democrats to stick with Trump’s maximum pressure. Either way the first half of this year is crunch time. Otherwise Iran’s new administration will require a much longer negotiation. Negotiations will be checkered with attacks to demonstrate credible threats and red lines. Ultimately, since we expect Biden to forge a US-Iran détente, and since the China/Taiwan risk is negative for energy prices, we no longer express our Iran view in the form of a long oil position. Brent crude is close to our Commodity & Energy Strategy’s $63 per barrel target for this year’s average. The Saudis could abandon their production discipline when Iranian oil gets closer to coming online. Investors should distinguish these immediate geopolitical risks from the general, long-running US-China and US-Iran conflicts. These will wax and wane while global risk assets grind upward over the long haul. If China avoids over-tightening policy and the Biden administration passes early hurdles we will be more bullish. For now we recommend investors hedge their bets by increasing exposure to safe-haven assets. We remain long gold and Japanese yen. Tactically we recommend going long the Swiss franc versus the dollar as well. Finally, in what follows, we take a sojourn from these headline geopolitical risks to offer a special report on the Ethiopian crisis and implications for Africa, Europe, and frontier markets. Now is not the right time to dive headlong into African frontier markets given the risks outlined above but we do see an opportunity on the horizon. Is The Ethiopian Crisis Investment Relevant? Ethiopia is now in its fourth month of crisis. The country is grappling with internal conflict brought upon by political and ethnic differences among the former and current ruling elite. Over the past week, Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed spoke with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, French President Emmanuel Macron, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel about reports that Eritrean soldiers have entered the fray. East Africa will become increasingly unstable as conflict persists, threatening security, migration, and investment into the region. Investors looking to frontier markets in light of the global liquidity explosion should exercise caution. Peacemaking Abiy Goes On The Offensive Ethiopian government forces continue to battle a minority group, the Tigray People Liberation Front (TPLF), in the north of the country. Large-scale attacks, like those seen at the start of the conflict, have mostly diminished. However, both sides continue to maintain their offensive positions. With the recent entry of Eritrean forces into Ethiopia to support the government’s battle against the TPLF, conflict between government forces and the TPLF will continue at the very least. Tensions between the government of Prime Minister Abiy and the Tigray people have been in play for years. The Tigray largely dominated Ethiopia’s ruling coalition and security forces until the past decade. Public protests in 2015 were driven by frustration over laws that denied Ethiopians basic civil and political rights. In 2018, a popular uprising brought Abiy to power and he ushered in democratic reforms and an end to conflict with neighboring Eritrea. Abiy’s “reforms” are so far of limited relevance to investors. He released several high-profile political prisoners, lifted a draconian state of emergency, and planned to amend the constitution to institute term limits for prime ministers. Some civil liberties were restored. The investment-relevant aspect of the reforms were proposals to end government monopolies in key economic sectors, including telecommunications, energy, and air transport – but these have yet to happen. Abiy was most eager to dismantle Ethiopia's previous ruling party, the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), which was dominated by the Tigray and had run the country for 28 years. Abiy supplanted the EPRDF with a single national Prosperity Party, which was not organized on ethnic lines. Having controlled all facets of state power prior to its ouster in 2018, the TPLF views Abiy’s democratic reforms and proposals for economic liberalization with anxiety. Abiy’s interest in reforming the federalist structure of the Ethiopian state - which divides Ethiopia into nine self-governing ethnic territories - threatens to undermine the order that has historically permitted the small Tigrayan ethnic group to wield a power disproportionate to its population (Chart 2). Chart 2Major Ethnic Groups In Ethiopia Abiy is an Oromo by origin and thus a member of Ethiopia’s largest ethnic group. His espousal of a broader nationalist agenda over narrow ethnic priorities is viewed by many of the smaller ethnic groups as eroding the right to self-rule. This includes secession, which is granted by the Ethiopian Constitution to ethnically organized regions. The TPLF has also expressed unease with Abiy over his intentions to amend the Constitution, which provides the basis of the current ethnic federalism. In defiance, the TPLF broke away from the Prosperity Party and attempted to unite opposition forces under a new federalist coalition. Failing to do so led the TPLF to isolate itself from the country’s political process. Bottom Line: As is often the case in geopolitics, the media hype about the election of a young peacemaker and would-be reformer masked the reality that Ethiopia’s old regime was coming apart at the seams. Abiy And The TPLF Faceoff Since 2019, Abiy has accused the TPLF of trying to destabilize the country and suggested that the TPLF were responsible for several mass ethnic killings across Ethiopia. Matters worsened in March 2020, during the collapse of the global economy amid the COVID-19 pandemic, when Abiy postponed national and regional elections scheduled for August, causing mass discontent among the TPLF. Abiy claimed he postponed the election because of the pandemic, citing the risks involved in mass in-person voting. But Tigray leaders feared a power grab. This is because the 2020 election was to serve as a litmus test on Abiy. Furthermore, opposition parties believe the Prosperity Party has achieved little economic policy cooperation and support among other parties, which would weaken the prospect of Abiy forming a coalition government if need be. In essence they hoped to claw back some power during the election and its deferral sent them into revolt. Relations soured further in September 2020 when the TPLF went forward with elections in Tigray, despite the rest of the country holding out for the delayed 2021 elections. The TPLF reported an overwhelming victory in the popular vote. The newly installed regional legislators in Tigray immediately declared that Abiy’s government lacked legitimacy to govern the country and refused to recognize it. The national assembly countered by annulling Tigray’s election results and refusing to acknowledge the newly elected leadership. Federal funding to the region was slashed significantly, limiting the flow of resources only to local governments to keep basic services running. The leadership in Mekele, the capital of Tigray, called the cessation of funding a declaration of war. Tensions boiled over into physical violence between government troops and the TPLF in November 2020. Widespread military attacks had been reported almost weekly between November and December often with many casualties of military personnel, TPLF members, and civilians. In 2021, attacks have significantly decreased, but TPLF resistance remains strong and intact in the North of the country. While the local economy was hard-hit by the fighting, it is not clear how long the local economy can sustain the state of resistance by both government forces and the TPLF. Bottom Line: Violence and war will continue between Abiy and the TPLF for the foreseeable future. Peace is hard to see happening at the current juncture, as Abiy looks to increase the power of his government and the TPLF fights to retain vestiges of its former power. Conflict Derails Economic Progress Ethiopia has averaged double-digit growth over the past decade, driven by large-scale fiscal spending and foreign direct investment. The country’s consumer base is also rising – 110 million people make the country the second most populous in Africa, with 50% of working age. But COVID-19 has put the brakes on future growth expectations, now penned at levels last seen in the early 2000s (Chart 3). Post 2021, growth is expected to rise significantly, but protracted mass social unrest brought about by internal conflict will see the economy grow at much lower levels. Offering a reprieve to the country’s economic woes is coffee bean production, Ethiopia’s chief export, which is mostly to the east of the country. Futures markets have priced in rising risk since the onset of the conflict. Transporting coffee beans would have to move through the north east of the country to the nearest port for export, in Djibouti. Moving through this part of the country raises the risk of encountering sporadic conflict. Chart 3Ethiopia Economic Growth Chart 4Horn Of Africa Output Per Head In 2000, Ethiopia was the third-poorest country in the world. More than 50% of the population lived below the global poverty line—the highest poverty rate in the world. Just two decades later, Ethiopia almost doubled GDP per capita wealth – a noteworthy achievement. But the country is still only comparable to Uganda, a much smaller, less developed economy to the southwest (Chart 4). Whilst income shared across the country has been rising, Abiy’s government runs the risk of eroding several years of economic gains that have been felt throughout the population by maintaining its battle against the TPLF. An economic crisis now would exacerbate the conflict and pull Ethiopia’s economy further into recession and poverty. Bottom Line: The Ethiopian conflict will persist in the coming years, resulting in the deterioration of many years of hard-earned economic development. The TPLF’s military and economic resources may be fast declining, but the conflict is domiciled on home ground – the Tigray region – and is widely backed by the Tigray people. International criticism is unlikely to deter Abiy from trying to minimize the TPLF’s political prowess. His popularity will allow him to keep his hard line. Yet Abiy will have to deal with an economy that will further decline as fighting continues. Regional Stability At Risk? The Horn of Africa is a gateway to the Suez Canal and as such a strategically important region. Its coastal opening on the Red Sea positions it along the critical maritime trade artery linking Europe and Asia. The Horn of Africa is also a fragile region that has seen severe conflict over the past decades: a civil war in Somalia and continued attacks by Al-Shabaab; piracy off the coast of Somalia; civil war in Darfur and South Sudan; proximity to the civil war in Yemen; ethnic unrest in Ethiopia; and the securitization of the Red Sea, as exemplified by Djibouti, which now hosts more foreign military bases than any other country in the world. Ethiopia is the African linchpin of the region’s long-term stability. The country runs a successful peacekeeping mission in neighboring Somalia. This will end if conflict with the TPLF continues to escalate. The country contributes around 4,000 of the 17,000 troops under the African Union’s mission and has around 15,000 additional soldiers in Somalia on its own — more than any other nation. If need be, troops will be pulled from Somalia to fight the TPLF, creating a security vacuum in Somalia where Al-Shabaab would revive. To make matters worse, US troops began withdrawing from two bases in Somalia in October. Though former President Trump failed to pull all US troops from the country, and President Biden is ostensibly in favor of maintaining US global engagement, it remains to be seen whether the US will put real pressure on Ethiopia to halt the conflict, such as threatening to cut its roughly $1 billion in annual aid. Many of the 700-odd US forces in Somalia train and support Somali special forces (Danab), who seek to contain the Al-Shabaab insurgency. Considering that Al-Shabaab has carried out deadly attacks on civilians throughout the East African region, such as the Westgate shopping mall attack in Kenya eight years ago and an attack on a US military base in Kenya that killed 3 Americans in January 2020, terrorism will pick up if regional security efforts are reduced. Bottom Line: Neither Ethiopia nor international terrorism are high on the Biden administration’s list of things to do. At home Biden is focused on domestic legislation to handle the pandemic and economic recovery. Abroad he is focused on restoring the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal and countering China’s and Russia’s regional ambitions. The Europeans, for their part, will react with lukewarm punitive economic measures toward Ethiopia, as they are not wishing to destabilize the region any further. Migration Will Follow After Conflict For global investors a more pertinent concern may be the rise in displaced persons, asylum seekers, and refugee populations in the region. At the end of 2019, Sub-Saharan Africa had 16.5 million internally displaced persons and 6.5 million refugees. Of this, the Horn of Africa hosts 8.1 million internally displaced persons and 4.5 million refugees and Ethiopia hosts 1.7 million displaced persons and 700,000 refugees. Note that these numbers come from the year before Ethiopia’s tensions boiled over – Ethiopian refugees will surge in 2020-21. In terms of migrants outside of Africa and originating from Ethiopia, there were 170 000 refugees and asylum seekers at the end of 2019 (Chart 5). Refugees, asylum seekers, and displaced persons will multiply as conflict rages. Neighboring countries like South Sudan, Sudan, Eritrea, and Somalia, which are already stretched in their capacity to hold such persons, will be overwhelmed. Already, these four countries alone account for approximately 4.4 million refugees, making up more than half of Africa’s total number of refugees (Chart 6). While Ethiopia’s contribution to the continent’s migrant base (both refugees and asylum seekers) is small (2.2%) in comparison to its neighbors, it is this very reason that suggests destabilization will add significant numbers to the growing crisis on the continent. Chart 5Ethiopian Refugees And Asylum Seekers Chart 6African Refugees And Asylum Seekers Europe and the Middle East are the two preferred regions for Ethiopian migrants. Europe received approximately 22% of Ethiopian-born refugees and asylum seekers in 2019, again, prior to the outbreak of civil war (Chart 7).   Chart 7Ethiopian And African Refugees In The EU With reports suggesting that an additional 600,000 displaced persons have emerged due to this year’s conflict, and another 40,000 refugees, the EU could see an additional 10,000 migrants from Ethiopia alone over the next year. On top of that would be counted any increase in refugees and asylum seekers resulting from increasing instability in the Horn of Africa. A more intense conflict will drive the numbers up dramatically. Bottom Line: The effects resulting from conflict in the region’s most populous and stable economy will carry over into neighboring countries, such as Somalia, exacerbating the refugee and economic crises in the Horn of Africa and ultimately increasing the risk of greater immigration into Europe. In comparison to the Syrian refugee crisis, Ethiopia is not in a state of utter collapse like Syria but if it did collapse it would pose a larger risk to Europe. Ethiopia’s population is four times larger than that of Syria’s in 2011. Syria counted 6 million internally displaced persons and almost 5 million refugees (approximately 25% of the population) at the start of the civil war. From the 5 million refugees, 2% made their way into Europe. A civil war of a similar magnitude in Ethiopia would result in almost 28 million refugees (25% of 110 million population), and 600 000 refugees heading toward Europe, by the same metrics. Surrounding Markets Will Benefit From Re-Directed Investment Direct investment flows from the country’s primary benefactor, China, have helped to spur Ethiopia’s growth and development. The country has received approximately 67% of all Chinese direct investment funds into the Horn of Africa since 2005 and 8% of the total in Sub-Saharan Africa (Chart 8). Chart 8China Slows Investment In Africa The trend has turned down over the past couple of years, with Chinese officials citing over-exposure to Ethiopia as a reason for lower outward investment into the country. In this sense China appears to have recognized a growing problem in Ethiopia in recent years. Infrastructure projects such as the Addis Ababa-Djibouti railway have resulted in large losses for Chinese firms due to insecurity and liability risks. For example, parts of railway have at times been rendered inoperable due to infrastructure theft or sabotage, or by intentional accidents by civilians to claim liability against the railway line’s constructor and operators. Rising conflict in Ethiopia will squeeze Chinese interests out of the country and redirect them to more stable markets, such as Kenya, to expand its Belt and Road Initiative along the East African coast (Chart 9). Kenya has at times received more direct investment from China than Ethiopia. China’s various problems with investment projects in Kenya pale in comparison to Ethiopia’s general instability. A nudge toward a more sustained flow of funds to Kenyan projects is now on the horizon. China could build further economic interest in neighboring Uganda but political risk continues to rise in the country after a contested election saw the country’s ruler for the past 35 years, Museveni, win his sixth term in office. The same holds for other foreign investment flows into Ethiopia. On a net basis, foreign direct investment into Ethiopia has been declining since 2016, while neighboring Uganda and Kenya have recorded upticks over the same period (Chart 10). Chart 9China’s Investment In East Africa Chart 10Kenya And Uganda Will Get More Investment Bottom Line: Foreign direct investment into Ethiopia and the region has been declining, even from China and even prior to the 2020 crisis. Investors and foreign flows will look to relatively more stable markets, such as Uganda and Kenya, to take on longer-term risk. Where To From Here? The longer Abiy drags out military operations, the likelier the Tigray conflict could metastasize into an humanitarian crisis and ultimately civil war. While political survival is at the forefront of Abiy’s considerations, he has broadly staked his international reputation on being a reform-minded innovator who will usher in needed change to Ethiopia. A key question is whether Abiy will now move to de-escalate the conflict – to bring military operations to a close and turn his attention to reconciliation. The Ethiopian army’s convincing victory in Mekelle provides Abiy with a valuable off-ramp to enter negotiations and pivot back to his reform agenda. If Abiy does not take advantage of this moment, he risks undermining Ethiopia’s fledgling economy, fostering a prolonged humanitarian crisis, getting stuck in a protracted armed conflict, and destroying his international reputation. The EU has already delayed payment of 90 million euros in aid in the wake of the conflict, and is threatening to withhold more from the 2 billion euro aid package that the EU agreed to disperse to Ethiopia over several years. However, at present, Abiy remains defiant, stating that the offensive toward the TPLF is warranted and arguing that Ethiopia’s sovereignty is not “for sale” to international donors. Abiy will continue to put pressure on the TPLF unless they concede to federal supremacy. As the larger force in this battle, Abiy’s government will not back down. He has the backing of the military and neighboring forces such as the Eritrean military. His popularity has remained intact through the course of this latest conflict. With an upcoming national election, he is looking at the conflict as a way to consolidate control. Bottom Line: Abiy has the political capital to wait out the TPLF’s surrender, while the economy takes a knock from ongoing conflict. Investment Takeaways A major wave of immigration from the Horn of Africa into Europe would not have predictable financial consequences. The Syrian refugee crisis, which peaked in 2015, did not have a discernible impact on the Turkish lira, or Greek, Italian, or Turkish relative equity performance. It might have contributed to investor preference for the dollar over the euro but the real driver of euro weakness at that time stemmed from the European Central Bank’s quantitative easing and US relative growth and interest rates. A bounce in USD-EUR during the spike in refugees in mid-2016 cannot be attributed to interest rate differentials but it is brief (Chart 11). Thus the significance of any major wave of immigration in the post-COVID era will be found elsewhere – in politics and geopolitics. Chart 11Syrian Refugee Crisis A Political, Not Financial Event The geopolitical consequence of the Syrian refugee crisis was ultimately a rise in European populism or anti-establishment politics. The political establishment mostly blunted this trend by cracking down on migrant inflows. That could change in future if border controls are relaxed or the magnitude of migration increases. Falling GDP per capita in Africa over the past decade alongside superior quality of life in Europe will continue to motivate immigration, especially if Africa’s growth disappoints expectations in the aftermath of the crisis (Chart 12). Conflicts such as in Ethiopia will generate more emigration. What about African frontier markets? Ostensibly the global backdrop is as bullish for frontier markets and specifically African frontier markets. Valuations are deeply depressed after a decade of strong dollar and weak commodity prices. Now global central banks are flooding the world with liquidity, the dollar is falling, and commodity prices are rising. China, Europe, and the US have stabilized their economies. However, it should be noted that Sub-Saharan Africa’s exports have lagged and therefore the economic pain is not yet over for this region even though improvement is on the horizon (Chart 13). If growth returns to trend then Sub-Saharan Africa’s real GDP should grow in line with emerging markets at a little less than 5% per year. This is better than Latin America, which also has a slightly smaller stock of gross domestic savings, though both regions are savings-poor and struggling to form fixed capital. Chart 12Disparity Between Europe And Africa Chart 13Global Commodity Prices And African Exports Soaring Chart 14Sovereign Credit Spreads Emerging and frontier markets stand to benefit from low global interest rates and rising commodity prices but they need to see global economic stabilization first. Sovereign credit spreads have come down across the frontier markets, with African markets leading the way (Chart 14). However, debt levels are high in a number of these markets. Credit default swap rates are rising after their steep fall over the second half of last year (Chart 15). Emerging market equities have rallied sharply relative to developed markets and this trend should continue as the pandemic subsides and the global recovery gains steam. But frontier markets have underperformed emerging markets since mid-2019 and South Africa specifically since COVID-19, with no sign yet of reversing. Within frontier markets, African equities have outperformed since the first vaccines heralded a recovery in the global economy (Chart 16). Chart 15Credit Default Swaps The COVID-19 crisis has affected emerging and frontier markets differently than developed markets given that youthful populations are least susceptible to dying from the disease. However, the economic impact has required monetary easing and currency depreciation. EM and FM central banks have undertaken unprecedented and unorthodox easing actions – similar to what is seen in the developed world – to cushion the blow. Chart 16Emerging Markets Vs Frontier Markets Vs African Markets Not only have EM and FM central banks cut rates but they have also cut reserve requirements for banks, intervened in foreign exchange markets, and launched government bond purchases. South Africa has begun quantitative easing while Ghana has monetized debt. Table 2 provides a glimpse at equity performance, volatility, and relative valuations and momentum in frontier markets, including African frontier markets. Returns are paltry over the course of the COVID-19 crisis. African markets have generated a negative return during this period. The table shows valuations and momentum on a relative basis – that is, relative to other markets in the table. We include South Africa, a major emerging market, by comparison to indicate that frontier markets are not necessarily more volatile even though they are far cheaper. All of these stocks other than South Africa are cheap on a price-to-earnings basis and African markets look even better on a cyclically adjusted P/E basis. Table 2African Frontier Markets: Valuations, Momentum, Volatility Chart 17Hold Off From Frontier Markets Nigerian stocks are extremely cheap, they have benefited from the recovery in global oil prices, and they offer half as much volatility as South African stocks. They are even cheap relative to other African frontier markets like Kenya. However, the geopolitical situation is not stable. An incident of brutality from security forces last year did not lead to wider spread social unrest but the rapid growth of the population combined with the resource curse is not favorable for socio-political stability over the long term. Even in the short term Nigeria’s rally could be upset by a reversal in oil prices, which is possible if OPEC 2.0 fails to coordinate in the face of the eventual US-Iran deal. Moreover capital controls make risks excessive for most investors, as our Emerging Markets Strategy observes. Kenya is a geopolitical beneficiary of the Ethiopian crisis. It should receive greater foreign direct investment as a result of Ethiopia’s destabilization. However, this crisis is not a driver for Kenya’s equity markets. Rather, Kenya trades in line with the trade-weighted dollar. It is not a commodity play but a telecoms play. This has been a huge benefit over the past decade. Kenya is diversified and has a large manufacturing sector. It will eventually benefit from a revival of tourism. Kenyan stocks are cheap from a global point of view but not relative to frontier markets. The long-term trend of Kenyan stocks is flat whereas most African equities are falling (Chart 17). Our Emerging Markets Strategy team has highlighted that conditions will improve in the wake of material currency depreciation. From a tactical standpoint now is not the best time to dive into frontier markets or African frontier markets but an opportunity is around the corner. African exports have not recovered, several countries are pursuing monetary easing (thus weakening currencies), the US dollar is bouncing, and China’s credit impulse is rolling over. But the long-term global trends are supportive as long as China avoids over-tightening, interest rates stay low, and the dollar resumes its weakening path as we expect. Therefore we will devote more attention to frontier opportunities going forward as they offer the attraction of large capital gains and diversification.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Guy Russell Research Analyst GuyR@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The absence of a Biden-Xi call would have been market-negative but the call itself does not suggest that tensions have declined yet. The American account shows Biden lecturing Xi Jinping. He kept the Trump administration’s language regarding a "free and open Indo-Pacific," chastised Xi for "coercive and unfair economic practices, crackdown in Hong Kong, human rights abuses in Xinjiang, and increasingly assertive actions in the region, including toward Taiwan." Cooperation will be "results-oriented" and based on the "interests" of the US. All of this, in diplomatic language, is fairly tough. The Chinese account consisted of Xi giving Biden an even longer lecture about the importance of cooperation over confrontation, equality of nations, and non-interference in domestic affairs, including core interests like Hong Kong, Xinjiang, and Taiwan. See "Readout of President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Call with President Xi Jinping of China," the White House, February 10, 2021, whitehouse.gov; and "Xi speaks with Biden on phone," Xinhua, February 11, 2021, Xinhuanet.com. 2 See Yoav Limor, "IDF Crafting New Options To Counter Iranian Threat," Israel Hayom, January 14, 2021, israelhayom.com.

Highlights For the month of February, our trading model recommends shorting the US dollar versus the euro and Swiss franc. While we agree a barbell strategy makes sense, we would rather hold the yen and the Scandinavian currencies. In the near term, we recommend trades at the crosses, given the potential for the dollar rally to run further. An opportunity has opened up to short the AUD/MXN cross. We are tightening the stop on our short EUR/GBP position to protect profits. We believe EUR/CHF still has upside. While the US has been labelling Switzerland  a currency manipulator, the real culprit is Europe. Precious metals remain a buy. We are placing a limit sell on the gold/silver ratio at 70, after our initial target of 65 was touched. Platinum should also outperform in 2021. Remain long AUD/NZD, as the key drivers (relative terms of trade and cheap valuation) remain intact. Feature Currency markets are at a crossroads. On the one hand, news on the vaccine front continues to progress, raising the specter that we might return to normalcy sometime in the second half of this year. On the other hand, the current lockdowns are slowing down economic activity across the developed world, which is bullish for the dollar. With the DXY index up 1.4% this year, it appears near-term economic weakness is dominating the currency market narrative. Our long-term trade basket is centered on a dollar-bearish theme, but we have been shifting much focus in the near term to non-US dollar opportunities. Central to this has been our conviction that the dollar is due for a countertrend bounce, in an order of magnitude of 2%-4%.1 It appears we are already halfway there (Chart I-1). For the month of January, our trade recommendations outperformed the model allocation. Notable trades were being short gold versus silver and being short EUR/GBP. Silver in particular was a big winner in January (Chart I-2). Most emerging market currencies saw weakness, especially the Korean won, Russian ruble, and Brazilian real Chart I-1The Dollar Has Been Strong In 2021 Chart I-2Our FX Portfolio Did Well In January For the month of February, our trading model recommends shorting the US dollar, mostly versus the euro and Swiss franc (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). The model gets its signal from three variables: Relative interest rates (both levels and rates of change), valuation, and sentiment.2 While some of these variables have moved in favor the dollar, the magnitude of these moves has not been sufficient to trigger a model shift. We agree a barbell strategy makes sense. That said, we would rather hold the yen (as the safe haven, compared to the CHF) and the Scandinavian currencies (compared to the EUR). These are our two strategic positions, and we made the case for yen long positions last week. Chart I-3Our FX Model Remains ##br##Short USD... Chart I-4...Especially Versus The Euro And Swiss Franc Circling back to our trades at the crosses, we maintain that they should continue to perform well in February and beyond. We revisit the rationale behind these trades, as well as introduce a new idea: Short the AUD/MXN cross. Go Short AUD/MXN A tactical opportunity has opened up to go short the AUD/MXN cross. Central to this thesis are three catalysts: relative economic activity, valuation, and sentiment. The Australian PMI has rebounded quite strongly relative to that in Mexico, driven by the performance of the Chinese economy, versus that of the US economy. Australia exports mostly to China, while Mexico is heavily tied to the US economy. With the Chinese credit impulse rolling over, the US economy has been outperforming of late. If past is prologue, this will herald a lower AUD/MXN exchange rate (Chart I-5). Correspondingly, oil prices are outperforming metals prices. China is the biggest consumer of metals, while the US is the biggest consumer of oil. A higher oil-to-metal ratio is negative for AUD/MXN. Terms of trade between Australia and Mexico have been an important driver of the exchange rate (Chart I-5). China had a massive restocking of metals last year, much more than oil and natural gas. This implies that the destocking phase (should it occur) will be most acute among metal inventories (Chart I-6), suggesting oil imports into China could fare better than metals. On a real effective exchange rate basis, the Aussie is expensive relative to the Mexican peso. Historically, this has heralded a lower exchange rate (Chart I-7). Chart I-5AUD/MXN And Terms Of Trade   Chart I-6Chinese Destocking: From Crude Oil To Metals? Chart I-7AUD/MXN Is ##br##Expensive Back in 2020, when everyone was short the Aussie and long the MXN, being a contrarian paid off handsomely. Now, speculators are roughly neutral both crosses. Should the trends we are highlighting carry on into the next few months, this will be a powerful catalyst for speculators to jump on the bandwagon. We recommend opening a short AUD/MXN trade today, with a stop loss at 16.50 and an initial target of 13. Stay Short EUR/GBP Chart I-8An Asymmetry In Pricing Our short EUR/GBP position is performing well, amidst a more hawkish Bank of England this week. Technically, there remains room for much downside on the cross. Real interest rates in the UK are rising relative to those in the euro area. The Brexit discount has not been fully priced out of the EUR/GBP cross, whereas broad US dollar weakness has eroded the discount in cable (Chart I-8). From a technical perspective, speculators are still very long the EUR/GBP, even though our intermediate-term indicator is nearing bombed-out levels (Chart I-9). Chart I-9EUR/GBP Still Has Downside Finally, short EUR/GBP tends to benefit from an outperformance of oil prices. We will be revisiting the fair value of the pound in upcoming reports given the fundamental shifts that are happening in the post-EU relationship. For now, we are tightening stops on our short EUR/GBP position to 0.89, in order to protect profits. Remain Long NOK And SEK Chart I-10NOK Follows Oil Prices The Scandinavian currencies are  extremely cheap and an attractive bet for 2021. As such, we believe the recent relapse in their performance provides an opportunity for fresh long positions. For the NOK, a rising oil price is bullish, both against the EUR and USD (Chart I-10). Meanwhile, superior handling of the pandemic has buoyed domestic economic data in Norway. Both retail sales and domestic inflation have been perking up, pushing the Norges Bank to dial forward expectations of a rate lift-off. Sweden is also holding up relatively well this year. Part of the reason for this is that over the years, the drop in the Swedish krona, both against the US dollar and euro, has made Sweden very competitive. With our models showing the Swedish krona as undervalued by 13% versus the USD, there is much room for currency appreciation before financial conditions tighten significantly. The bottom line is that both Norway and Sweden are well positioned  to benefit from a global economic recovery, with much undervalued currencies that will bolster their basic balances. We expect both the SEK and NOK to remain the best performers versus the USD in the coming year.  Stay Long EUR/CHF While the US has been labelling Switzerland  a currency manipulator, the real culprit is the euro area. To be clear, the SNB has been actively intervening in the currency markets. However, when one looks at relative monetary policy, the expansion in the ECB’s balance sheet far outpaces that of the SNB (Chart I-11). With the correlation between balance sheet policy and the exchange rate shifting, it may embolden Switzerland to intervene even more strongly in currency markets. Historically, the Swiss franc was buffeted by the global environment (improving global trade) and rising productivity in Switzerland. As a result, the SNB had no alternative but to try to recycle those excess savings abroad by lifting its FX reserves, or see even stronger appreciation of its currency. With global trade much more muted, intervention in the FX market could be a more potent headwind for the franc. Chart I-11The SNB Is More Hawkish Than The ECB Chart I-12EUR/CHF And The Global Cycle In the near-term, the risk to this trade is that safe-haven flows  reaccelerate, as investors re-price risk. However, this will be a short-term hiccup. EUR/CHF is a procyclical cross and will benefit from improvement in the Eurozone economy relative to the rest of the world (Chart I-12). Meanwhile, by many measures, the Swiss franc remains expensive versus the euro. Stay Long AUD/NZD Chart I-13RBA QE Will Hurt AUD/NZD The rally in the kiwi has provided an exploitable opportunity to lean against it. We remain long the AUD/NZD cross, despite the RBA stepping up the pace of QE at its latest meeting. The rationale is as follows: The balance sheet of the RBA was already lagging that of the RBNZ, so the latest move is simply  catch up (Chart I-13). It has no doubt been negative for the cross, as Australia-New Zealand rates have compressed. However, when the program expires, the AUD will be subject to external forces once again.  The Australian bourse is heavy in cyclical stocks, notably banks and commodity plays, while the New Zealand stock market is the most defensive in the G10. Should value outperform growth, this will favor the AUD/NZD cross. The kiwi has benefited from rising terms of trade, as agricultural prices have catapulted higher. Should a correction ensue, as we expect, this will favor NZD short positions. Our conviction on long AUD/NZD has clearly been hit with the RBA’s latest move. As such, we are tightening stops to 1.05 for risk management purposes. Stay Long Precious Metals, Especially Silver And Platinum We are placing a limit sell on the gold/silver ratio at 70, after our initial 65 target was hit. The rationale for the trade remains intact: In a world of ample liquidity and a falling US dollar, gold and precious metals are bound to benefit. However, silver has underperformed the rise in gold. The long-term mean for the gold/silver ratio is 50, providing ample alpha for this trade (Chart I-14). Chart I-14The Case For Short Gold Versus Silver Silver is heavily used in the electronics and renewable energy industries, which are capturing the new manufacturing landscape. Silver faced resistance near $30/oz. However, this will be a temporary hiccup. The next important level for silver will be the 2012 highs near $35/oz. After this, silver could take out its 2011 highs that were close to $50/oz, just as gold did.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see our Foreign Exchange Strategy report, "Sizing A Potential Dollar Bounce," dated January 15, 2021. 2 Please see our Foreign Exchange Strategy report, "Introducing An FX Trading Model," dated April 24, 2020. Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

Highlights US inflation expectations will continue to grind higher as commodity markets tighten, and financial markets price to an ultra-accommodative Fed over the next 2-3 years. The US stock-market rally is reducing equity yields and squeezing equity risk premiums, which acts as a drag on gold prices.  Higher earnings, lower stock prices or both are needed to reduce this effect. Pandemic uncertainty continues to fuel safe-haven demand for the USD, which remains a headwind for gold and silver.  Vaccination availability needs to reach a level that convinces markets global contagion risk has been minimized.  Until then, this remains the dominant downside risk to gold and commodities. The balance of risks continues to favor gold: US real rates will remain weak as the Fed remains behind the inflation-vs-rates curve, and the USD will be pushed lower (Chart of the Week).  We continue to expect gold prices to push to $2,000/oz. We remain bullish silver, and view the recent retail-spec price blip as transitory.  Fundamentally, silver supply growth is weakening, and demand is strengthening as the renewable-energy buildout accelerates and consumer spending revives.  We expect silver's price to trade back to $30/oz.  Feature US inflation expectations will continue to grind higher, as tightening markets for industrial commodities push oil and base metals prices higher (Chart 2).1 As is apparent in Chart 2, these real-economy factors feed directly into five-year inflation expectations, which are important to policy makers and portfolio managers managing risk in trading markets.2 Continued Fed accommodation of massively expansive US fiscal policy also will stoke inflation expectations, and keep real rates negative or weak at low positive levels as realized inflation and inflation expectations increase. These real and financial effects will be positive for gold prices, as the Chart of the Week illustrates. Chart of the WeekRising Inflation Expectations vs. Falling Risk Premiums Restrain Gold Chart 2Tightening Commodity Markets Push Inflation Expectations Higher Battling against this tailwind is the historic US equity rally, which has crushed stock yields and the equity risk premium vs bond yields.3 Gold prices are positively correlated with equity risk premiums – the positive economic forces that push dividend yields higher also tend to push gold and commodity prices higher – which means the falling risk premiums are acting as a headwind to gold prices (Chart 3).4 If, as the global economy recovers, the rate of growth in earnings is greater than that of equity prices, stock yields will expand, which will be supportive of gold prices. That said, we do not expect the contraction of the equity risk premium to dominate the evolution of gold prices. Tightening fundamentals in the real economy and continued monetary accommodation at the Fed will dominate gold- and silver-pricing dynamics. Chart 3Falling Stock Yields Pressure Equity Risk Premiums Balance of Risks Favors Gold Fed policy pronouncements point to continued accommodation of massive fiscal stimulus in the US, with the central bank strongly indicating it will, as a matter of policy, remain behind the inflation-vs-rate-hikes curve for at least another 2-3 years. Taking the Fed at its word, this means US real rates will remain weak, and the USD will be pushed lower as the central bank continues to accommodate higher US budget deficits at the federal level. However, as we have repeatedly noted, the broad trade-weighted USD has found strong support at current levels following a precipitous fall from its COVID-19-induced highs in 1Q20: As pandemic uncertainty feeds into global policy uncertainty, USD safe-haven demand remains elevated (Chart 4).5 While we concentrate on five-year inflation expectations in our modeling, indications of price pressures are showing up in the manufacturing sector in the US (Chart 5), as our colleagues in BCA Research’s US Bond Strategy note in their report this week.6 This confirms that the price strength seen in commodity markets for raw materials used in manufacturing are showing up in the economy as a whole. Chart 4Lower USD, Stronger GDP Bullish For Copper Prices Chart 5Inflation Indicators Hook Up Our price target for gold remains $2,000/oz. The sooner vaccines are deployed globally – so that markets can reasonably assign lower odds to a resurgence of COVID-19 and its more insidious variants forcing new lockdowns – the sooner the pandemic uncertainty keeping the USD well bid will dissipate as a fundamental factor restraining a continuation of gold’s rally. Silver Is Not GameStop The Reddit-powered surge in retail silver trading this past week, which lifted silver prices some ~ 11% on Monday to $30/oz, is all but a memory now that the white metal is again pricing in line with fundamentals. We turned bullish silver in July of last year, arguing fundamentals suggested silver could outperform gold in 2H20, which it did.7 Supportive fundamentals remain in place, with total supply (mine output and recycling) falling, demand rising and balances tightening (Chart 6). We expect the supply side of the market to remain under pressure this year and the next, given the physical deficits we are forecasting for the copper market over the next two year: The supply side of silver is a function of copper, zinc and lead mine output (i.e., silver largely is a byproduct). On the demand side, continued recovery of consumer spending and the decade-long buildout of renewable-energy generation – which is heavily reliant on copper and silver to a lesser degree – will force prices higher. We remain bullish silver. However, given our expectation its price will trade again to $30/oz, we do not expect any dramatic tightening of the gold/silver ratio this year (Chart 7). Chart 6Silver Market Tightens, Along With Other Commodities Chart 7Expect Gold/Silver Ratio To Continue To Narrow Bottom Line: Tightening commodity fundamentals and continued monetary accommodation at the Fed will dominate gold- and silver-pricing dynamics this year and the next. The contraction of the equity risk premium will not dominate the evolution of gold prices. At the margin, if earnings growth exceeds  equity-price increases, equity yields will expand, which will support gold prices. We expect gold and silver to trade to $2,000/oz and $30/oz this year – i.e., close to ~ 10% gains for both. Therefore, we do not expect much movement in the gold/silver ratio this year   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish OPEC 2.0’s Joint Technical Committee (JTC) lowered its estimated demand growth for 2021 to 5.6mm b/d from its 5.9mm b/d estimate last month, at its Tuesday meeting. The JTC also is expecting the oil market to be in a deficit this year, which will, by the Committee’s estimate, peak at 2mm b/d in May 2021, according to reuters.com. This is in line with our maintained hypothesis that the producer coalition led by Saudi Arabia and Russia will continue to calibrate production in line with demand to keep global storage levels drawing. The JTC was not expected to recommend any change in production policy to oil ministers on Wednesday when they met. We expect OECD oil inventories to hit their rolling five-year average in 1H21, largely because of OPEC 2.0’s production discipline and production losses outside the coalition (Chart 8). Base Metals: Bullish Battery-grade lithium carbonate soared 40% y/y in January in China to $9,450/MT, according to mining.com. The reporting service noted strong demand for lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries used to power subsidized short-range autos, public transport infrastructure electrification, and power generation. Precious Metals: Bullish COVID-19-induced demand destruction pushed gold demand down 14% y/y in 2020, to just under 3,760 tons, according to the World Gold Council’s 2020 supply-demand tallies.  At 4,633 tons, gold supply lost 4% y/y, the most since 2013, according to the WGC.  Supplies were disrupted by COVID-19 as well.   (Chart 9). Ags/Softs: Neutral Despite poor weather conditions in South America, US farmers are beginning to worry about record or near-record crops in the current growing season, according to farmprogress.com. grains are trading lower following recent rallies on concerns the upcoming harvest could be better than expected. Tomorrow’s USDA WASDE report will be eagerly awaited for the Department’s latest assessments. Chart 8OPEC 2.0 Keeps Supply Growth Below Demand Growth Chart 9Gold Below 200 Day Moving Average     Footnotes 1     Our most recent reports on copper and oil prices – Copper's Supply Challenges and Brent Forecast: $63 This Year, $71 Next Year published 10 December 2020 and 21 January 2021 – highlight the tightening of industrial-commodity markets globally. 2     While we do find strong relationships between gold prices and 5- and 10-year US real rates, we do not find any relationship with the slope of the US rates forward curve. 3    For a discussion of equity risk premiums, please see Asness, Clifford S. (2000) “Stocks versus Bonds: Explaining the Equity Risk Premium.” Financial Analysts Journal. March/April 2000: pp. 96-113. 4    In the post-GFC period 2010-2020, the S&P 500 equity risk premium is borderline insignificant in a cointegrating regression that includes other real and financial variables (i.e., copper prices, US Fed Funds, and global economic policy uncertainty). We therefore to not treat it as determinant to the evolution of gold prices in the same way as the real and financial variables we use as regressors. 5    We expect this pandemic uncertainty to break, but not until markets are convinced sufficient supplies of vaccines will be available globally to control COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations and deaths. Please see Pandemic Uncertainty Will Fall, Weakening USD, Boosting Metals, which we published last week, for further discussion. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6    For the first time 2011, the Prices Paid component in last month’s ISM Manufacturing PMI came in above 80, signaling for the first time since 2011. Please see No Tightening In 2021, published by BCA’s US Bond Strategy 2 February 2021. It is available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 7     Please see Silver Likely Outperforms Gold In 2H20, which we published 2 July 2020. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. We recommended a long silver position then at $18.51/oz and closed it 23 September 2020 at $26/oz. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights We are hesitant to call a top to the volatility spike just yet. The US dollar is experiencing a counter-trend bounce. We also see political and geopolitical risks flashing yellow. House Democrats are drafting a reconciliation bill that will remind financial markets of looming tax hikes. President Biden faces imminent tests on China/Taiwan and Iran. The tech sector has bounced amid the setback to the reflation trade. Over the long run the Biden administration’s reflationary agenda suggests tech will no longer outperform. Biden’s regulatory risk to the tech sector is not immediate but still a downside risk. No major piece of bipartisan legislation is forthcoming but the Department of Justice, FCC, and FTC can bring negative surprises. We are hitting pause on our S&P trades until Biden passes some early hurdles. Feature Volatility has room to run, judging by past post-crisis periods (Chart 1), and this time we are especially concerned with brewing geopolitical risks, namely the US-China tensions over the Taiwan Strait. This geopolitical risk comes on top of the short squeezes and battles that retail investors are having against hedge funds all over the market. China is reminding the world of its red line against Taiwanese independence while testing the newly seated Joe Biden administration over whether it will seek a technological blockade against the mainland. Economic and trade policy uncertainty have collapsed but they would surge in the event of a crisis incident (Chart 2). While war is not likely, it is possible, so we need to see the Biden administration defuse the situation and pass this first test before we are willing to take on more risk on a tactical three-to-six-month time frame. Chart 1Volatility Can Go Higher Still Chart 2Uncertainty Down But Beijing Testing Biden Chart 3Biden's Approval Starts At 55% President Biden’s average approval rating in his first two weeks in office is 55%, right where former President Trump’s disapproval rating would have suggested (Chart 3). This is a significant but not extravagant improvement in political capital for the White House. Our Political Capital Index shows Biden’s position as moderate-to-strong (Table 1). Table 1Biden’s Political Capital Moderate-To-Strong The implication is that he still has a chance of passing his $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan as a bipartisan bill with 10 Republican senators, a feat that would likely lower the topline value to around $1.3 trillion (Republicans proposed $618 billion) and exclude an increase in the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour. There is also a strong swing of independents in favor of Democrats in the opinion polling, in the wake of the incident on Capitol Hill on January 6, despite the fact that Republican and Democratic party identification are both stuck at around 30% — meaning that the Biden administration does have something to gain by appearing bipartisan (Chart 4).1 Republicans might cooperate to staunch the bleeding of their own support. Even Republicans approve of stimulus amid the pandemic and they would later be able to oppose Biden’s more controversial proposals with better optics having demonstrated bipartisan intent at the outset. However, House Democrats are already proceeding with a budget resolution, the first step in the budget reconciliation process that enables them to bypass Republicans entirely and get almost everything they want (Diagram 1). Chart 4Will Independents Keep Breaking Toward Democrats? Diagram 1Timeline Of Impeachment, Budget Reconciliation, And Regular Legislation Biden’s political capital should strengthen over the next year as the vaccine rollout improves and the economy comes roaring back. Official economic projections suggest that growth will glide solidly above potential until 2026 and that the output gap will close by 2024 (Chart 5). These estimates will be disappointed in various ways, of course, but in the near-term the risk is to the upside as they do not include Biden’s proposed $1.9 trillion rescue plan or his remaining, post-COVID agenda afterwards, which could cost anywhere from $3.7-$6.4 trillion over a ten-year period.2 The economy will be at less risk of relapsing than of overheating. This is especially true given the Federal Reserve’s new average inflation targeting strategy, which will discourage rate hikes till next year at the very earliest (and, from a political point of view, we would think 2023). Looking at the chart, Biden’s economic backdrop is far more propitious than that of his former boss Barack Obama’s back in 2009. Biden’s political momentum is therefore sustainable when it comes to the two budget reconciliation bills he wants to pass this year and next year. Republican internal divisions will help him. These were highlighted this week by Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel’s criticism of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s claims of voter fraud after the election and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s recent scathing criticism of controversial pro-Trump freshman House member Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. Republicans are only beginning their internal struggle and it is not certain that it will be resolved in time for the 2022 midterm elections. This is another reason to think that Biden’s political capital will be sustained and that moderate Republicans might assist with some Democratic legislation. The risks to Biden’s momentum stem from foreign policy (China, Iran, Russia), rapidly emerging financial instability, his party’s attempts at social control, and any major (not minor) negative developments involving the still-running pandemic and vaccine rollout. Chart 5US Economic Outlook Over Biden’s Term Macro Reflation Says Stay Underweight Tech The tech sector experienced a manic phase last year when COVID-19 struck and lockdowns kept consumers at home with nothing to do but work, shop, and stare at their phones. The big five companies – Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Facebook – together witnessed an extraordinary run up relative to the other 495 companies in the S&P index that has since peaked and dropped off (Chart 6). Chart 6Fade The Big Tech Bounce Over Long Run Tech stock market capitalization accounts for 34% of American economic output – an extreme sign of over-concentration at a time when the market is generally inflated, according to the Buffett Index of stock market cap relative to GDP (Chart 7). Tech outperformance rests on strong earnings growth – supercharged due to the COVID crisis – as well as the secular fall in bond yields as a result of the global backdrop of excessive savings, low inflation, and scarce growth. Tech stocks are especially sensitive to bond yields because markets are projecting their earnings far into the future, as our colleague Mathieu Savary explained back in August. Ultra-dovish monetary policy with zero interest rates for longer and longer time frames is a perennial gift to these companies (Chart 8). Chart 7Buffett Indicator Says Big Tech Too Big Chart 8Big Tech Maxing Out As Bond Yields Rise? The catch is when and if growth and inflation expectations pick up. Even during the Dotcom bubble in the 1990s, the tech sector could not withstand rising interest rates (Chart 9). Eventually higher inflation will translate into central bank hikes and rising real interest rates – which should be very bad for tech as future cash flows lose value. Rising rates increase the cost of capital, while cyclical industries perform better in high growth environments with rising commodity prices. A recovery of inflation is becoming a more visible risk to investors over the coming few years. Even though unemployment is still elevated, and the output gap negative, the sea change in fiscal policy is likely to close this gap quickly and put upward pressure on expectations and prices. It will still take time to close the gap but each new dose of government spending on top of what is needed to plug the gap in demand due to the pandemic-stricken service sector will accelerate the time frame in which the labor market will tighten and price pressure will return. Investors are increasingly wary of this inflation risk as it is the logical consequence of the new combination of extreme monetary and fiscal accommodation. Earnings in the tech sector relative to the rest of the market have also peaked – and did not exceed their previous high point in 2010 despite the uniquely favorable backdrop (Chart 10). The big five have nearly saturated a lot of markets which raises the possibility that if the policy backdrop darkens, then they will see earnings disappointments. The Biden administration’s plan to raise the corporate tax rate to 28% and impose a 15% minimum tax on company book income would come as a double whammy for tech earnings, as they are relatively more exposed to increases in effective tax rates than other sectors. Chart 9Big Tech Wants Deflation, Big Government Wants Reflation Chart 10Big Tech Earnings Outperformance Hit Ceiling Amid Pandemic Finally, there is the long building problem of regulatory risk, as Americans have clearly become more concerned about Big Tech’s power and influence over their daily lives and politics. Here we do not think the Biden administration poses an immediate threat of frontal legislative assault, but we do think the end game is greater regulation, including tougher enforcement from antitrust agencies. Combined with geopolitical risk from Europe and other countries also seeking to tax and regulate these companies, the recent global semiconductor shortage, and the potential for a Taiwanese tech blockade, the political risk is clearly to the downside. Bottom Line: The macro backdrop has darkened for the tech sector. With governments turning more reflationary via a sea change in fiscal policy on top of ultra-easy monetary policy, inflation expectations should recover and inflation-sensitive sectors like tech should underperform. This risk is clear despite the fact that inflation requires the labor market to heal first. Any political, geopolitical, or regulatory risks would only further undermine the case for tech sector outperformance. Tech, Polarization, And Disinflation A critical question for investors is the relationship between US political polarization, the tech sector, and the disinflationary macroeconomic context that has proven so beneficial for Big Tech’s stock market performance. If polarization leads to gridlock, austerity, and disinflation, then tech can continue to enjoy the policy environment. But if polarization subsides, or if it coexists with a reflationary backdrop – as is the case today – then tech faces a new risk. It is fair to hypothesize that the rise of Silicon Valley and especially of social media has something to do with the explosion in US polarization over the past three decades. A simple chart of the S&P 500 alongside our polarization proxy – which measures the difference in presidential approval based on party – suggests that polarization could have some connection with tech sector outperformance (Chart 11). This is not a coincidence but the causality may work differently than some assume. The first period of tech sector outperformance, which rested on the “peace dividend” period of hyper-globalization, strong growth, strong dollar, low inflation, and technical innovation, occurred during the explosion of US polarization in the wake of the Cold War, when the US’s common enemy fell and the country’s political parties turned to do battle with each other for global supremacy. The structural changes of Reaganomics and NAFTA coincided with the political battles of the Republican revolution of 1994 and Bill Clinton’s sex scandal and impeachment. This heady period came to a peak in 2000 when the dotcom bubble burst and the US suffered its first contested election since 1876. Essentially globalization led to a deflationary backdrop that favored tech but also triggered the political struggle within the US for the spoils of victory in the Cold War. Chart 11Big Tech Likes Polarization And Gridlock The second period of tech sector outperformance emerged from the Great Recession, still higher wealth inequality, and the slow-burn economic recovery of the 2010s. The disinflationary environment and dollar bull market proved beneficial to the tech companies. In this case globalization’s deflationary effects continued but were compounded with US household deleveraging, which was far more malicious for the American middle class. Crucially, polarization created gridlock in Congress from 2010, preventing the US from pursuing a robust fiscal policy in the wake of the crisis that might have led to a more rapid recovery. Instead an extended disinflationary environment fed into social unrest and populism. While public animus naturally turned against Wall Street and the Big Banks in the wake of the financial crisis, the Dodd-Frank financial reform helped to pacify the public’s anger (though not entirely – and financial regulation is gradually reemerging as a relevant political risk). As the financial crisis faded from memory, but the low-growth, disinflationary environment continued to take a toll on households, an angry electorate began to freely express itself in the digital realm. Tech companies were happy to ride this wave and outperformed other sectors. As the backlash continued mounting, tech companies failed to rein in the angry userbase they had cultivated, and now they are staring at massive regulatory and legal risks from policymakers. Both Barack Obama and Donald Trump used Twitter and social media as a tool to establish direct engagement with their political base, much as Franklin Delano Roosevelt had used the radio and the fireside chat. This rising political heft ultimately made the companies conspicuous as conservatives blamed them for supporting the Obama administration (and Clinton campaign) while liberals especially blamed them for getting Trump elected. The Trump saga in particular gave rise to the so-called “tech-lash,” or backlash, as the companies’ core base of young, urbanized, cosmopolitan, and international users called on the tech companies to stop the spread of Russian propaganda, or other propaganda they disagreed with, and undertake socially progressive causes. Meanwhile the older, conservative, and rural population doubted that Russian interference caused the 2016 election result and sensed that the tech companies’ content moderators might not be all that scrupulous regarding the difference between conservative views and Russian information warfare (Chart 12, top panel). In combination with the heated election year campaigning, the pandemic and the backlash against lockdown, tension in the virtual world came to a peak last year and spilled out into the real world. This all came to a head with Twitter and Facebook first censoring and then banning President Trump from their platforms amid his claims of voter fraud and the riot on Capitol Hill. Chart 12Big Tech Not The Chief Driver Of Polarization Two major policy changes have occurred that threaten to reverse this macro backdrop. First, as a result of the 2020 crisis the Democrats won control of the White House and Congress and can now pass their mammoth spending agenda, which goes beyond pandemic relief to expanding the role of government in American economy and society – including by reflating the economy and imposing higher taxes on corporations, both of which threaten to undermine the tech sector’s outperformance. Second, China’s secular slowdown, reduction of trade dependency, and divorce from the US economy have undermined hyper-globalization. The Biden administration is pursuing on-shoring and China restrictions albeit to a lesser extent than its predecessor. If technological advance and social media cause political polarization, then these policy shifts may not last long or have a durable macro effect. But technology and communication tools have advanced throughout history regardless of whether polarization in any given country was rising or falling. Older people are the most partisan in the US yet they are the least enthusiastic users of social media (Chart 12, bottom panel). Tech and social media have proliferated across the world and yet polarization has fallen in Germany, Australia, Sweden, and other economies even as it has risen in the United States and arguably the United Kingdom (Chart 13). If social media enabled populist outcomes like Trump and Brexit, then why did populism fall short in France, Spain, Italy, and Germany? Social media participation thrived on the rise of polarization through the 2000s and 2010s but it exacerbated the problem – and once polarization erupted in the form of an anti-establishment presidency, Russian interference, the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and real world riots and social unrest, the tech platforms found themselves in the crosshairs of both of the political factions and the various politicians trying to appease their anger. Silicon Valley and the FAANGs operate in a power struggle – not merely a politicized environment – that is here to stay and will direct their attention away from their primary business and toward paying for lobbyists in Washington, Brussels, and elsewhere. This in itself is a danger to their business models even if it were not the case that the macro and policy backdrop is less supportive. Bottom Line: The reflationary fiscal and policy backdrop will continue in the coming years, a macro headwind for tech outperformance, while political risks to the tech sector have grown substantially. Chart 13Polarization Falls In Many Countries Despite Social Media Congress In Check But Regulatory Risk Persists Democrats and Republicans have a different and opposed set of grievances against Big Tech, which is likely to prevent comprehensive legislation from developing anytime soon. But legislation is still possible, and in the meantime risks will come from emboldened regulators. Based on the House judiciary hearing in July 2020, Democrats are concerned with content moderation and market concentration. They want to fortify their recent gains in preventing social media companies from aiding what they regard as the spread of seditious and libelous material or propaganda that favors the anti-establishment Trumpist right wing. Judging by the Senate Republicans’ hearings in October and November 2020, Republicans are primarily concerned with content moderation– i.e. preventing conservatives from being de-platformed, and conservative views from being censored. Republicans are less concerned about market concentration, i.e. accusations of monopolistic and anti-competitive behavior.3 Now that the social media companies have more or less thrown in with the Democrats on content moderation, Democratic priorities are likely to shift to antitrust and anti-competitive behavior. But serious changes would require either abolishing the filibuster in the Senate (which is not happening for the time being due to last month’s bipartisan power-sharing arrangement) or winning over 10 Republicans. This will be difficult, especially when it comes to the Democratic belief that a generational shift in antitrust doctrine and practice is necessary. A frontal assault on the sector would require passing a law that resolves a number of jurisprudential issues so that the courts could be instructed to interpret antitrust issues with a greater focus on rooting out anti-competitive or collusive behavior (as opposed to lowering prices and preventing consumer harm). This is possible but Republican agreement would require major compromises that the Democrats are not inclined to make. A bipartisan bill is still possible because last year’s hearings revealed that there is common ground between the two parties. Both have agreed that anti-trust agencies should be strengthened and empowered to examine Big Tech; that data should be portable and platforms should be interoperable (rather than favoring their own services or imposing penalties for users who would switch services); that mergers and acquisitions should be examined with the presumption that consumers will be harmed, so that the merging parties must show that they cannot otherwise achieve the desired consumer benefits and that their actions will serve some public good; and that regulators need not trouble themselves excessively about the problem of accurately defining the market, which is always a sticking point for such fast evolving services.4 Moreover there is overlap between the populist sides of both parties, comparable to the bipartisan populist demands to give larger household rebates amid the COVID crisis. For example, Democrats want to revise Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects the tech companies from being held liable for the actions and comments of third parties on their platforms. The Democratic proposal is to break down the distinction between neutral tools and content creation, arguing that tech platforms can be “negligent” and that in order to benefit from the liability protections they should have to demonstrate that they have taken reasonable steps to prevent unlawful misuse of their platforms that cause harm to others. This idea of “reasonable moderation” would leave a very vague standard for judges that would lead to a complex operating environment across different jurisdictions, but it is attractive to Trumpists and right-wing populists who support greater ability to sue the platforms for alleged bias.5 Thus revising Section 230 could create a bridge between the two parties, albeit isolating the free-market contingent in either party. It would foist huge new liabilities not only on the tech giants but also on startups and market entrants with far fewer lawyers. The mechanism will be a decisive feature of any future legislative proposal, however. Republicans are staunchly opposed to creating an Internet oversight committee, similar to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or anything that smacks of Big Brother and would risk too cozy of a relationship between the regulatory state and the immense capabilities of the tech companies. But they could be amenable to law that strengthens the antitrust agencies and alters the parameters of judicial scrutiny if they believed it would make consumer choice and innovation more likely. If popular opinion suggested great urgency on this issue then perhaps the parties’ differences could be resolved more quickly in the form of a major bill. But polls suggest the populace is also divided on tech regulation – in part because the pandemic left consumers largely thankful for the Internet services that they relied on so heavily while under lockdown. A bare majority of conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats now favor tech regulation, the average voter is lukewarm, and moderates of both parties show little enthusiasm (Chart 14). By contrast, at the height of Democratic anxiety over Trump’s election and Russian interference, a clear majority of Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents favored tougher regulation. Chart 14Public Split On Government Regulation Of Big Tech Companies In short, the public is split, the parties are split, and the various 2020 crises have temporarily subsided, so tech regulatory risk will emanate from regulatory authorities but not from major new legislation anytime soon. Regulatory agencies thus threaten to give tech stocks negative surprises – even if the process takes time. Biden will replace one commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) immediately but may only be able to replace two Republican commissioners toward the end of his term, in September 2023 and 2024, meaning that the commission will be divided (Table 2). Any major crackdown on market concentration will have to proceed upon bipartisan grounds unless Democrats gain control of this commission sooner. Meanwhile Biden will be able to replace outgoing Republican Ajit Pai on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) right away, giving a Democratic tilt to this body, which is capable of pursuing the administration’s goals on content regulation (Table 3). Here the Supreme Court may eventually weigh in to defend free speech and press rights, which Section 230 ultimately reinforces, but the tech companies will be in the firing line until then. Table 2Federal Trade Commission Balance Of Power Table 3Federal Communications Commission Balance Of Power Finally, Biden’s nominee for the US Assistant Attorney General for the antitrust division will be a critical post to watch for the Department of Justice’s involvement in tech regulation and antitrust, though this position requires Senate confirmation, which will rule out any populist candidate. If Biden picks a former Facebook lawyer as rumored then he clearly will not be prioritizing a tough antitrust stance.6 Bottom Line: With the Senate filibuster intact for the time being, Democrats need 10 Republican senators to join them to pass any significant legislation that would amount to a frontal assault on the tech sector. This is possible but not probable in the short run, as Congress prioritizes the fight against the pandemic, Republicans and Democrats remain divided and the public is lukewarm about regulation. Much more likely is a regulatory slow boil at the hands of the DOJ, FCC, FTC, and the states. Biden Maintains Obama Alliance With Silicon Valley Public opinion is wishy washy about Big Tech, as mentioned above. Compare attitudes toward Wall Street and the major pharmaceutical corporations. Opinion shifted against the banks drastically during the financial crisis and has since recovered to about 24% net approval, although there are also polls showing that consumers of all stripes believe the banking sector got off easy and could use more regulation (Chart 15). The health care industry also took a hit during the Great Recession, when laid off workers also lost their health insurance, and has also largely recovered due to its conduct during the pandemic. The exception is Big Pharma, which is widely blamed for excessive drug prices, got bashed under President Trump, and is about to get bashed by President Biden in the form of price caps and Medicare negotiations. By contrast with these sectors, the computer and Internet industry has seen a hit to its popular support since Trump’s election but never dipped into net negative territory and may be recovering due to its helpful role during the COVID lockdowns. When net popular approval turns negative then it will be a flashing red light for the tech sector that sweeping regulation is imminent. While some of the opinion polling is lagging, the crisis over the election is unlikely to produce this effect because the public views break down along partisan lines. Chart 15Big Tech More Popular Than Big Banks, Big Pharma Thus unlike the Trumpists, or the populists in the Democratic Party, the Biden administration is only inclined gradually to dial up the pressure on Big Tech. Biden would bite off more than any president could chew if he tackled tech aggressively along with other big corporations. His campaign platform and early executive orders show that he is already tackling Big Health Insurance and Big Oil, sectors that make up 7.5% and 1.4% of GDP respectively. There is at least some focus on re-regulating the financial industry as well (7.7% of value add), albeit with lower priority. To attempt a major overhaul of Big Tech (at least 5.3% of GDP) on top of all this would be impracticable even if Biden were inclined to listen to the anti-monopoly crusaders in his party. Information services are obviously important to the economies of solid blue states like California, New York, and Washington but they are increasingly important to critical swing states like Georgia and Pennsylvania – places where voters will be skeptical of Biden’s policies on energy and immigration. The information sector is growing fastest in blue states and in battlegrounds like Arizona. It employs more people in blue states and in battlegrounds like Georgia. And it is rapidly employing more people in the grand prize of Democratic designs, Texas, where an exodus of Californians fleeing poor governance and high costs holds out the possibility of creating a decisive Democratic ascendancy in the Electoral College. Silicon Valley and other tech clusters will maintain their unique strengths and network effects for a long time but the dispersion of the tech sector to cheaper heartland regions has electoral consequences that mainline Democrats will not want to suppress. Not only did the tech firms help Biden get elected through votes and media controls but also through campaign contributions. The financial and health care industries punished the Democrats for passing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and Dodd-Frank reforms in 2009-12 (Chart 16). By contrast the tech heavily favors Democrats over Republicans (with donations at $170 million versus $20 million in the 2020 election). Biden’s priorities are two budget reconciliation bills that will partially reverse the Trump tax cuts in order to pay for the entrenchment and expansion of Obamacare and other aspects of his health care and child care agenda. He is also focused on infrastructure, particularly green infrastructure and renewables, to create jobs and galvanize the climate change coalition. Broad re-regulation is coming down the pike, but health, immigration, energy, and labor are higher priorities than tech. The tech sector faces greater scrutiny than before, first from the FCC and later from the DOJ and FTC, but the administration will have more room for maneuver later in its term. Bottom Line: The Obama administration forged an alliance with Silicon Valley that Biden will largely maintain. The purpose of regulatory pressure is to build leverage over the tech giants. Chart 16Big Tech A Big Donor To Democratic Party Investment Takeaways Not all of the dominoes are lined up to topple Big Tech in a massive display of federal monopoly busting. The public is lukewarm and the political elite are divided. Nevertheless the long-term trajectory points to greater government scrutiny – and the tech sector has no margin of safety for political risk as the macro backdrop has started to shift in a more inflationary direction. Our colleague Juan Correa Ossa has shown that antitrust action to curb corporate power has tended to occur at times in US history where stock market earnings are elevated or rising rapidly relative to average wages, when inflation is running hot, and yet the economy has entered a bust phase where politicians are looking for a scapegoat to deflect public anger (Table 4). Table 4Stock Performance In Selected Judicial Events While inflation is not an immediate problem (at least not yet), it was not a problem when the FTC and DOJ went after Microsoft starting in 1998. The distressed economy and tech bubble are good enough reason for investors to expect the government to increase antitrust pressure (Chart 17). If inflation recovers in the coming years around the time the Biden administration gains room to maneuver on this issue then it is doubly bad for the tech sector. Chart 17Anti-Trust Usually Follows Economic Bust In Microsoft’s case, the stock fell when the government first brought charges but rallied throughout the twists and turns of the courtroom – especially after 2002 when the case was settled, and ever since (Chart 18). Fortunately for the company the DOJ backed away from breakup and instead ordered it to open up its application programming to others. But even firms that are broken up usually create buying opportunities. Note that Microsoft cleared its image and has not become the subject of government or popular scrutiny again today. Today’s regulators are likely to place a greater burden of proof on tech companies attempting mergers and acquisitions. The alternative for startups is to hold an initial public offering – and IPOs have exploded amid the current context of low rates, easy money, investor exuberance, a chilling effect on M&A, and a lingering pandemic. The markets are frothy, buyer beware (Chart 19). Chart 18Microsoft's Anti-Trust Warning Chart 19Regulators Will Crack Down On M&A Strategically we remain favorable toward value stocks over growth stocks given the changing macro and policy backdrop outlined above (Chart 20). However, in the very near term we would not encourage investors to take on any additional risk. The latest bout of volatility is not necessarily over, political and geopolitical risks are now underrated after a period in which they subsided from peak levels, and exuberant markets are subject to very sharp corrections.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor jesse.Kuri@bcaresearch.com Chart 20Take A Pause Amid Value Vs Growth Setback   Appendix Table A1Political Risk Matrix Table A2Biden’s Cabinet Position Appointments   Footnotes 1     Congressional Budget Office, “Overview of the Economic Outlook: 2021-2031,” February 2021, cbo.gov. 2     Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, “The Cost of the Trump and Biden Campaign Plans” October 7, 2020, and “The Cost of the Trump and Biden COVID Response Plans,” October 29, 2020, October 7, 2020, crfb.org. 3    The huge gap between the two parties can be illustrated by the recent case of Parler, the microblog that sought to rival Twitter by maintaining laissez faire content moderation standards. When Parler came under fire for attracting conservatives in the wake of the Twitter ban against Trump, Apple and Amazon teamed up to block it from their app purchasing and cloud services, thus effectively banning the app for 99% of users. There is no doubt that any private platform can regulate content according to its own standards on its own sites. In the words of Section 230, this extends not only to “obscene” or “excessively violent” material but to anything “otherwise objectionable.” But once tech companies prevent the emergence of competitors and alternatives, and cooperate in doing so, they enter much more dangerous legal territory. And yet the response from the House Democrats on the oversight committee was to ask the FBI to investigate Parler for hosting far-right extremists. Conservatives are therefore up in arms. The courts have not yet weighed in but the case represents a larger risk to the tech firms than the usual challenges under Section 230. 4    Representative Ken Buck, “The Third Way,” House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law 5    See Will Duffield, “Circumventing Section 230: Product Liability Lawsuits Threaten Internet Speech,” Cato Institute, January 26, 2021, cato.org. 6    See Ryan Grim and David Dayen, “Merrick Garland Wants Former Facebook Lawyer To Top Antitrust Division,” The Intercept, January 28, 2021, theintercept.com.