Emerging Markets

Highlights Global Growth Fears: Efforts to contain the China coronavirus outbreak risk creating the outcome that investors feared most in 2019 from the US-China trade war – weaker global growth and a severe disruption to supply chains worldwide. Monetary Policy Responses: Global bond yields have plunged as investors have piled into safe haven assets and priced in additional monetary easing from major central banks. Some of that decline in yields, however, may be a repricing of future rate hike probabilities with central banks like the Fed and ECB rethinking their inflation mandates and how to achieve them. Duration Strategy: Maintain a moderate below-benchmark cyclical (6-12 months) stance on overall interest rate duration in global fixed income portfolios. Yields now discount a significant hit to global economic growth from China. This outcome is far from certain, especially if China delivers more aggressive fiscal and monetary policy easing to mitigate the deflationary effects of the public health crisis. Feature Chart of the WeekBond Yields Have "Gone Viral" Global bond yields have declined sharply over the past two weeks, as investors have tried to process the potential implications of the China coronavirus outbreak. Scenes of empty streets in Chinese cities under quarantine look like something out of a Hollywood science fiction movie. Fears of a “zombie apocalypse” scenario plunging the global economy into recession are proliferating among doomsayers. The viral outbreak is interrupting global growth just as it is starting to show signs of recovery from the manufacturing slump of 2019 (Chart of the Week). Global bond yields had been slowly rising alongside that economic improvement, and risk premia in equity and credit markets had begun to narrow in earnest. Against that backdrop with markets priced for perfection, a massive public health crisis in the most marginal driver of global growth, China, was a potent trigger for a correction in risk assets. The story is obviously very fluid, with the number of infected continuing to grow in China and more cases being discovered across the world. At least 50 million Chinese citizens are now under quarantine, across several major cities. More countries are instituting travel bans to and from China, and important global companies like Apple are shuttering their China operations until further notice. The ultimate hit to global growth is yet to be determined, but measures being taken to slow the spread of the coronavirus will clearly have an impact on global trade, supply chain management and, thus, economic growth. This risks a repeat of the May-August period last year, when markets were pricing in the potential negative effects of US-China trade tariffs on global growth, triggering a major decline in global bond yields. A big driver of that bond rally last year was a shift towards expectations of easier global monetary policy. Those were largely realized as central banks cut rates while global growth was actually slowing. Bond yields now discount another round of rate cuts, most importantly from the US Federal Reserve, despite no formal indication (yet) that policymakers are looking to deliver more easing. The risk now is that investors will become too pessimistic, setting up a swing of the pendulum in the opposite direction if the hit to global growth from the virus is less than feared. On that note, a significant Chinese economic growth slowdown now appears fully priced into global bond yields. The risk now is that investors will become too pessimistic, setting up a swing of the pendulum in the opposite direction if the hit to global growth from the virus is less than feared. On that note, a significant Chinese economic growth slowdown now appears fully priced into global bond yields, as we discuss later in this Weekly Report. Breaking Down The Latest Decline In Global Bond Yields The decline in government bond yields in the developed markets (DM) has been sharpest since Chinese authorities confirmed human-to-human transmission of the coronavirus on Monday, January 20. That appears to be the date when investors began to take the outbreak much more seriously. Growth-sensitive assets like emerging market (EM) equities, copper and oil prices peaked on Friday, January 17, while measures of volatility like the US VIX index and US high-yield credit spreads troughed (Chart 2). The price of safe haven assets like gold and the Japanese yen have also increased since that “pre-virus peak” on January 17, as have bond volatility measures like the US MOVE index or European swaption volatility (Chart 3). Importantly, the increases in rates volatility have been smaller to date compared to mid-2019, when the “convexity” trade triggered an insatiable demand for duration that drove longer-maturity global bond yields sharply lower. Chart 2A Pullback In Growth-Sensitive Assets Chart 3A Mild Bid For Safe Havens Compared To 2019 A breakdown of the decline in the benchmark 10-year government bond yields in the major DM countries (US, Germany, Japan, the UK, Canada and Australia) since that “pre-virus peak” is shown in Table 1. Table 1Global Bond Yield Changes Since January 17, 2020 The biggest declines were in the US (-33bps), Canada (-29bps) and Australia (-23bps) where central bank monetary policy expectations also saw the largest shift. Our 12-month discounters, which measure the change in short-term interest rates over a one-year horizon priced into Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curves, have fallen by -30bps in the US, -26bps in Canada and -22bps in Australia – indicating that markets had fully priced in a rate cutting response to the coronavirus outbreak from the Fed, Bank of Canada and Reserve Bank of Australia. Bond yields have fallen to a lesser extent in Germany (-19bps), the UK (-11bps) and Japan (-7bps), but with very modest declines in our 12-month discounters for those three countries were policy interest rates are close to, or below, 0%. Therefore, the decline global yields over the past two weeks can, on the surface, be attributed to expectations of easier monetary policy in response to the potential hit to growth, and tightening of financial conditions as risk assets sell off, from the coronavirus (Chart 4). Chart 4Falling Yields Reflect Expectations Of More Rate Cuts In 2020... Chart 5...But Also Expectations Of Lower Rates For Longer Yet when looking at our estimates of the term premium for all six countries, the decline in the nominal 10-year yields is almost equal to the reduction in the term premium. On the surface, this would be consistent with the idea that the fall in yields is due to risk aversion driving up the demand for the safety of government bonds – and can hence be unwound if the news were to turn less gloomy on the spread of the coronavirus. Yet interest rates further out the yield curve have also fallen by similar amounts in all countries shown, when looking at 1-year interest rates, 5-years forward (the bottom row of Table 1). That decline in longer-dated forwards does correlate strongly with lower inflation expectations as measured by 10-year CPI swap rates (Chart 5). This suggests an alternative explanation for the recent fall in global bond yields that is not related to worries over the coronavirus: bond markets increasingly believe that policy interest rates will be lower for a lot longer. An alternative explanation for the recent fall in global bond yields that is not related to worries over the coronavirus: bond markets increasingly believe that policy interest rates will be lower for a lot longer. With the Fed and ECB now openly discussing changing their monetary policy frameworks to manage achievement of their statutory inflation targets more proactively, the hurdle for contemplating any interest rate hikes in the future is now much higher. Thus, central banks are giving forward guidance to the markets that rates will be lower. That is a message that would also be consistent with the decline in the term premium, to the extent that the premium is compensation for the future volatility of short-term interest rates. When looking at all the components, the message from the most recent decline in global bond yields may be more complex than simple virus-driven risk aversion. Our Duration Indicator continues to improve alongside rebounding global economic sentiment, signaling cyclical upward pressure on yields (Chart 7) – assuming, of course, that the hit to Chinese growth from the coronavirus outbreak is no worse than currently discounted in financial asset prices. In the case of US Treasuries, the bond rally also has a cyclical component, with yields now down to levels more consistent with the softer pace of growth indicated by the ISM Manufacturing index and the recent softening trend in US data surprises (Chart 6). Yet with US monetary policy and financial conditions still highly accommodative, the odds still favor some improvement in the current trend-like pace for US GDP growth that will, eventually, begin to put moderate upward pressure on Treasury yields again. Chart 6Low UST Yields Are Not Just A coronavirus Story Chart 7Global Yields Were Due For A Corrective Pullback A similar message is given when we look at global bond yields, more generally. Our Duration Indicator continues to improve alongside rebounding global economic sentiment, signaling cyclical upward pressure on yields (Chart 7) – assuming, of course, that the hit to Chinese growth from the coronavirus outbreak is no worse than currently discounted in financial asset prices. Bottom Line: Efforts to contain the China coronavirus outbreak risk creating the outcome that investors feared most in 2019 from the US-China trade war – weaker Chinese growth and a severe disruption to global supply chains. Global bond yields have plunged as investors have piled into safe haven assets and priced in additional monetary easing from major central banks. Some of that decline in yields, however, may be a repricing of future rate hike probabilities with central banks like the Fed and ECB rethinking their inflation mandates and how to achieve them. How Much China Weakness Is Priced Into Global Bond Yields? The China coronavirus outbreak, and the response to contain it, represents a potentially severe hit to Chinese – and global – economic growth. A lot of comparisons have been made to the 2003 SARS outbreak to try and find a comparable past event. However, as our colleagues at BCA Research Emerging Markets Strategy have noted, China’s economy is so much larger now, rendering comparisons of the economic impact from SARS to that of the coronavirus far less meaningful.1 For example, China’s GDP at purchasing power parity accounts for 19.3% of world GDP compared to 8.3% in 2002 before the SARS outbreak occurred. China’s share of the global consumption of various industrial metals has surged, as well, from between 10-20% in 2002 to 50-60% today. A simple alternative way to measure the impact of any virus-driven slowing of Chinese economic growth would be to calculate the reduction in full-year 2020 GDP growth relative to consensus forecasts. In this sense, the comparison is made to current expectations rather than to a past episode – an approach that should be far more relevant for predicting the response of financial asset prices today. For example, the Bloomberg consensus expectation for Chinese nominal GDP growth for all of 2020 is currently 7.2%. Using that rate and the level of nominal GDP from 2019, we can calculate an expected level for nominal GDP for 2020. We can then make some simplifying assumptions for the impact on full-year growth from an extended period of lost output from the quarantines, government-ordered factory shutdowns and extended holidays, travel bans, etc. Assuming that one full month of expected nominal GDP growth is lost (i.e. 1/12th of the expected increase in the level of nominal China GDP), the full-year growth rate falls to 6.6% Assuming that two full months of expected nominal GDP growth are lost, the full year growth rate falls to 6.0% Global bond yields now reflect a considerable slowdown of Chinese economic activity from the coronavirus, representing between 1-2 months of expected full-year 2020 nominal GDP growth that will be lost.  The last time that Chinese nominal GDP growth fell to a sub-7% pace was back in 2015 (Chart 8). The Caixin manufacturing PMI reached a low of 47.2 then, 3.9 points below the current level of 51.1. The level of global bond yields, using our “Major Countries” GDP-weighted aggregate, was at 0.72% - similar to today’s level. Global growth ex-China was also at similarly subdued levels in 2015 (i.e. the US ISM manufacturing index was below 50). Chart 8Global Yields Already Priced For A 2015-Type Slowdown In China Chart 9New Stimulus Measures In China Are Inevitable We conclude from this admittedly simple analysis that global bond yields now reflect a considerable slowdown of Chinese economic activity from the coronavirus, representing between 1-2 months of expected full-year 2020 nominal GDP growth that will be lost. The final impact on China economic growth in 2020 will likely be less than that full hit, as Chinese policymakers will surely look to ease monetary and fiscal policy to offset the hit to the economy (Chart 9). While BCA’s China strategists do not currently expect the same magnitude of policy responses as was seen in 2015/16, there will likely be enough to at least partially offset the hit to growth from containing the virus. In terms of timing, the critical point for financial markets – and bond yields – will be when the growth rate of new coronavirus cases peaks. During the 2003 SARS episode, global equity markets bottomed when that number of new cases peaked, which we believe to be a useful template for timing a potential turning point in the “fear narrative” (Chart 10). The number of new coronavirus infections continues to rise, however, suggesting that risk assets and bond yields will likely remain subdued in the near term. Chart 10Markets Bottomed In 2003 When The SARS Infection Rate Peaked When that turn does happen, any potential increase in global bond yields will be driven more by unwinding the declines in real yields and term premia of the past two weeks shown earlier in this report in Table 1. Chart 11Only A Pause In The Cyclical Upturn In Yields? That suggests a potential rise in the 10-year US Treasury yield of as much as 30bps, and a 23bps increase in the 10-year German bund yield. An additional increase of 5-10bps for both markets could come from higher inflation expectations, although that would likely need to be accompanied by a sizeable rebound in the price of oil and other industrial commodities. We are not seeing signs in our most favored leading indicators – like our global LEI diffusion index or the global ZEW index – suggesting that the next cyclical move in yields will be lower. We acknowledge that the recent fall in yields has gone against our expectations of a moderate grind higher global bond yields in 2020. However, we are not seeing signs in our most favored leading indicators – like our global LEI diffusion index or the global ZEW index – suggesting that the next cyclical move in yields will be lower (Chart 11). We will monitor those indicators in the coming months for any signs of a serious hit to global growth from the coronavirus outbreak. Bottom Line: Maintain a moderate below-benchmark cyclical (6-12 months) stance on overall interest rate duration in global fixed income portfolios. Yields now discount a significant hit to global economic growth from China. This outcome is far from certain, especially if China delivers more aggressive fiscal and monetary policy easing to mitigate the deflationary effects of the public health crisis.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Coronavirus Versus SARS: Mind The Economic Differences", dated January 30, 2020, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index ​​​​​​​ Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

  Feature Everyone’s asset-allocation plans for the year have been disrupted by the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). Our view is that, while the virus is serious and will hurt the Chinese and global economy in the short term, it does not change the 12-month structural outlook for financial markets. Once the epidemic is under control (which it is not yet), there will be an excellent buying opportunity for risk assets and for the most affected asset classes. Many commentators have pointed to the lessons from SARS in 2003. Markets bottomed around the time that new cases of the disease peaked (Chart 1). But there are risks with such a simplistic comparison. The US invasion of Iraq happened at the same time – between 19 March and 1 May 2003 – with arguably a bigger impact on global markets. The Chinese economy was much less significant: China represented only 4% of global nominal GDP in 2003 (versus 17% now), 7% of global car sales (35% now), and 10-20% of commodity demand (50-60%). And it is still unclear how similar 2019-nCoV is to SARS: it appears to be spreading more rapidly (Chart 2) but (so far, at least) is less deadly, with a mortality rate of about 2%, compared to 10% for SARS. Recommended Allocation Chart 1The Lesson From Sars Chart 2But Is Novel Coronavirus Different?     Nonetheless, the basic theory that markets should bottom around the time that new cases and deaths peak is likely to prove correct. With the number of deaths still growing, however, that is not yet the case. Our advice to investors would be not to sell at this point. The hedges we have in our portfolio (overweight cash and gold) should help to cushion any further downside. But, within a few weeks, assets such as EM equities, airline stocks, commodities, or the Australian dollar should look very attractive again (Chart 3). For the next few months, economic data, particularly from China, will be hard to interpret. In 2003, Chinese GDP was reduced by 1.1% because of SARS, according to estimates by the Brookings Institute.1 The global economy is likely to be more heavily impacted this time, given today’s closely integrated supply chains. On the other hand, most academic research shows that consumption and production lost during an epidemic are later made up. Additionally, the Chinese government is likely to respond with easier fiscal and monetary policy. Once the air clears, we think our thesis that the manufacturing cycle bottomed in late 2019 will remain intact. The data over the past few weeks supports this. In Asia, in particular, PMIs for the major emerging economies are back above 50 (Chart 4). Europe’s rebound has lagged a little but, in the key German economy, indicators of business and investor sentiment have bottomed. Demand in the auto sector, crucial for Europe and Japan, is clearly starting to recover. Data in Europe and EM have generally surprised to the upside recently (Chart 5). Chart 3Some Assets May Soon Look Attractive   Chart 4Asian And European Data Picking Up Chart 5Positive Surprises The theory that markets should bottom around the time that new cases and deaths peak is likely to prove correct. To a degree, the new virus gave investors an excuse to take profits in some over-bought markets. The US equity market, in particular, looked expensive at the start of the year, with a forward PE of 19x. But we would dismiss the common view that investors had become too optimistic. The bull-bear ratio is not elevated (Chart 6), with only 37% of US individual investors at the start of January believing that the stock market would go up over the next six months, not particularly high by historical standards – it has fallen now to 32%. Last year, investors took money out of equity funds, despite strong returns from stocks. In the past – for example 2012 and 2016 – when this happened, it was followed by further gains for equities, as investors belatedly bought into the rally (Chart 7).   Chart 6Retail Investors Aren't So Bullish... Chart 7...Indeed, They Have Been Selling Stocks     On a 12-month investment horizon, therefore, we remain overweight risk assets such as equities and credit, albeit with some hedges. The upside to global growth remains underestimated: the economists’ consensus is for only 1.8% GDP growth in the US and 1.0% in the euro area this year. A combination of accelerating global growth and central banks that will stay dovish should allow equities to outperform bonds over the next 12 months (Chart 8). Chart 8If PMIs Pick Up, Equities Will Outperform   Chart 9First Signs Of US Equity Underperformance? Equities:  In December, we moved underweight US equities and recommended shifting into more cyclical markets: overweight the euro zone, and neutral on EM, the UK, and Australia. Before the outbreak of 2019-nCoV, this had worked in EM, but less well in Europe (Chart 9). Once the effects of the virus have cleared, we still believe this allocation will outperform as the global manufacturing cycle picks up. But we have a couple of concerns. (1) The recent US/China trade deal will require China to increase imports from the US by a highly unrealistic 83% year-on-year in 2020 (Chart 10). Our China strategists don’t expect this target to be fully met, but think any increase will come from substitution.2 This would hurt exporters in Europe and Asia. (2) The outperformance of euro area equities is very much determined by how banks fare. The headwinds against them continue: the ECB recently decreed that six major banks fall below required capital ratios; loan growth to corporates in the euro area has fallen to 3.2% year-on-year. Much, though, depends on the yield curve (Chart 11). If it steepens, as a result of stronger growth this year, as we expect, bank stocks should outperform, especially since they remain very cheap (the average price/book ratio of euro area banks is currently only 0.65).   Chart 10China’s Import Targets Are Unrealistic Chart 11Bank Performance Depends On The Yield Curve Once the air clears, we think our thesis that the manufacturing cycle bottomed in late 2019 will remain intact. Fixed Income: Government bond yields have fallen in recent weeks as investors sought cover, with the US Treasury 10-year yield dropping to 1.55%. While it may test last September’s low of 1.46%, we do not see much further room for global yields to fall. They tend to be highly correlated with manufacturing PMIs, which we expect to rise over the next 12 months (Chart 12). Also, we see the Fed staying on hold this year, not cutting rates twice, as the market is now pricing in. This mildly hawkish surprise should push up rates (Chart 13). We continue to prefer credit over government bonds. Our global fixed-income strategists consider that, from a valuation standpoint, US high yield, and UK investment grade and high yield are the most attractive (Chart 14).3 Chart 12Rates Move In Line With PMIs Chart 13What If The Fed Doesn't Cut Rates? Chart 14US Junk Looks Most Attractive Currencies:  Defensive currencies such as the yen, Swiss franc, and US dollar have benefitted from the recent risk-off move. We see this as temporary. Once investors refocus on growth, the US dollar should start to depreciate again (the DXY index did fall by 3% between September and early January). The dollar is a counter-cyclical currency. It is 15% overvalued relative to PPP (Chart 15). It is also very momentum-driven – and, since December, momentum has pointed to depreciation and continues to do so (Chart 16).  Chart 15Dollar Is 15% Overvalued... Chart 16...And Momentum Has Moved Against USD Commodities: Industrial metals prices had started to pick up over the past few months, reflecting the stabilization of Chinese growth (Chart 17). How they fare from now will depend on: (1) how sharply Chinese growth slows as a result of 2019nCoV, and (2) how much stimulus the Chinese government rolls out to offset this. Given the degree of decline in some commodity prices (zinc down by 16% since mid-January, and copper by 9%, for example), there should be an attractive buying opportunity in these assets over coming weeks. Gold has proved to be a handy hedge against geopolitical risks (Iran) and unexpected tail risks (the coronavirus), rising by 4% year-to-date. We continue to believe it has a useful place in investors’ portfolios as a diversifier and hedge, particularly in a world of very low interest rates where cash is unattractive (Chart 18). The oil price has been hit by the disruption to air travel in January, but supply remains tight (and OPEC is likely to cut supply further in response to the demand shock).4 As long as economic growth picks up later this year, we see the crude oil price recovering over the coming months. Chart 17Metals Reflect Chinese Growth Chart 18Gold Attractive With Bond Yields So Low Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Please see Globalization and Disease: The Case Of SARS, Jong-Wha Lee and Warwick J. McKibbin, Brookings Discussion Paper No. 156, available at https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/20040203-1.pdf 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report “Managing Expectations,” dated 22 January 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report “How To Find Value In Corporate Bonds,” dated 21 January 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report “Expect OPEC 2.0 To Cut Supply In Response to Demand Shock,” dated 30 January 2020, available at ces.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation  

Highlights China’s economic rebound in Q1 will be delayed due to the coronavirus, which will have a larger negative hit than SARS. New stimulus measures will assist a rebound in demand later this year. Europe remains a geopolitical opportunity rather than a risk. As long as global growth rebounds this year, European equities can outperform their richly valued American counterparts. Emerging markets face a new headwind from the coronavirus. Emerging market performance relative to developed markets will be a key test of whether endogenous growth trends are taking shape. Tactically – over a 12-month horizon – we remain long industrial commodities; long Korean equities versus Taiwanese; and long Malaysian equities relative to emerging markets. Feature Global equities will ultimately push through the coronavirus and the Democratic Party primary election, but risks are elevated and Q1 looks to bring significant volatility. Last week we shifted to a tactically neutral stance on risk assets but we remain cyclically bullish. In this report we update our market-based GeoRisk indicators, which are almost all set to rise from low levels in the coming months as developed market equities and emerging market currencies face higher risk premiums. China: The Year Of The Rat Chart 1Markets Will Rebound Once Toll Of Virus Peaks The ink had hardly dried on our “Black Swan” report for 2020 when Chinese scientists confirmed human-to-human transmission of the Wuhan coronavirus (2019-nCoV), sending a wave of fear over China and the world. The number of new cases and new deaths is rising and economic activity will suffer as the Chinese New Year is extended, shoppers stay home, and international travel is canceled. The virus is likely to prove more troublesome than stock investors want to admit, at least in the short term. Too little is known to make confident assertions about promptly containing the virus or its impact on global economy and markets. The analogy with the SARS outbreak of 2003 is limited: it is not certain that this virus has a lower death rate, but it is certain that the Chinese economy is more vulnerable to disruption today than at that time – and much more influential on the global economy. The SARS episode is useful, however, in suggesting that the market will not rebound until the number of new cases and deaths turn down (Chart 1). Assuming the virus is ultimately contained – both in China and in neighboring Asian countries whose governments may not be as effective at quarantining the problem – regional consumption and production will bounce back. New stimulus measures will also take effect with a lag. Domestic political risk is structurally understated in China. Stimulus will indeed be the answer. First, the negative shock to consumer demand comes at a time when global trade is still relatively weak, thus presenting a two-pronged threat to China’s economy, which was only just stabilizing after the truce in the trade war. Second, China’s hundredth anniversary of the Communist Party, in 2021, will require the government to stabilize the economy now. The important political leadership reshuffle at the twentieth National Party Congress in 2022 is another imperative to avoid a deepening slump today (Chart 2). Chart 2China Will Stimulate To Avoid A Deepening Slump Beyond 2020, the Wuhan virus highlights our theme that domestic political risk is structurally understated in China. At the centennial celebration, China’s leaders aim to show that the country is a “moderately prosperous society in all respects,” emphasis added. For decades China’s leaders have emphasized industrial production to the detriment of other social and economic goals, such as food safety and a clean and safe environment for households to live in. The emergence of the middle class, writ broadly, as a majority of the population is a persistent source of pressure on leaders, as the limited opinion polling available from China demonstrates (Chart 3). In other emerging markets, a large middle class has led to social and political change when the government failed to meet growing middle class demands (Chart 4). Chart 3Chinese Social And Economic Conditions Are Source Of Pressure Chart 4Consumerism Encourages Democracy Chart 5China’s Government Is Behind The Curve Under General Secretary Xi Jinping, the government has cracked down on corruption and pollution as well as poverty, and has attempted to improve consumer safety and the health care system. The party officially aims to shift its policy focus from meeting the basic material needs of the population to improving quality of life. The problem is that China’s government is behind the curve (Chart 5). While it is making rapid progress – for instance, the communicable disease burden has dropped dramatically – and has unique authoritarian tools, acute problems of health, food safety, pollution, and public services will nevertheless persist. The government’s responses will inevitably fall short from time to time and heads will roll. Crisis events create the potential for the market to be surprised by the level of domestic political change or pushback, which will prove disruptive at times. Bottom Line: China’s economic rebound in Q1 will be delayed due to the coronavirus, which will have a larger negative hit than SARS. The SARS episode suggests that Chinese equities will be a tactical buy when the number of new cases and deaths begin falling. New stimulus measures will assist a rebound in demand later this year – underscoring our constructive cyclical view on Chinese and global growth. The episode highlights the challenges China faces in modernizing and improving regulations, health, and safety for the emerging middle class. Domestic political risk is understated. Europe: Political Risks Still Contained China’s near-term hit, and rebound later this year, will echo in Europe, where the economy and equity market are highly reliant on China’s credit cycle and import demand. Politically, however, Europe remains a geopolitical opportunity rather than a risk (Chart 6). Chart 6China's Hit Will Echo In Europe, But Political Risks Are Contained There The final months of last year saw the biggest and most immediate political risk – a disorderly UK exit from the EU – removed. The Trump administration is not likely to slap large-scale tariffs – such as auto tariffs on a national security pretext – because Trump is constrained by the weak manufacturing sector in advance of his election. Meanwhile immigration and terrorism have declined since 2016, draining the fuel of Europe’s anti-establishment parties. Pound weakness during the Brexit transition period is an opportunity for investors to buy. Chart 7Immigration Is Ticking Up, But From Low Levels Chart 8Refugees Will Favor Western Route Across The Mediterranean Chart 9Government Gridlock, Catalonia, And Poor Reform Momentum Will Pull Up Spanish Risk There are some signs of immigration numbers ticking up, but from very low levels (Chart 7). This uptick must be monitored for Spain (and France), as the renewed civil war in Libya is forcing refugees to shift to the western route across the Mediterranean (Chart 8). (Note that even peace in Libya opens the possibility of greater migrant flows as the country then becomes a viable transit route again). Our Spanish risk indicator is already ticking up due to government gridlock, the Catalonian conflict, and a declining commitment to structural economic reform (Chart 9). But this is not a major concern for global investors. The United Kingdom The UK will formally exit the European Union on January 31. The transition period – in which the UK remains fully integrated into the EU single market – expires on December 31, 2020. This is the official deadline for the two sides to negotiate a trade agreement – though it can, and likely will, be delayed. Chart 10British Political Risk Will Revive, But Not Dramatically The trade agreement is intended to minimize the negative economic impact of Brexit while ensuring that the UK reclaims its sovereignty and the EU retains the integrity of the single market. As negotiations get under way, the pound will face a new round of volatility and British political risk will revive somewhat, but we do not expect a dramatic increase (Chart 10). Ultimately we see pound weakness as an opportunity for investors to buy. The twin risks of no-deal Brexit or a socialist Jeremy Corbyn government have been decisively cast off. The end-of-year deadline can be extended and the two sides can find technical ways to compromise over regulations, tariffs, and border checks. Challenges to global growth only make an amicable solution more obtainable. Italy Our Italian GeoRisk indicator is collapsing as political risks proved yet again to be overstated (Chart 11). Chart 11Italian GeoRisk Indicator Is Collapsing The local election in Emilia-Romagna was hyped as a major populist risk, in which the chief anti-establishment players, Matteo Salvini and the League, would take power in a region viewed as the symbolic home of the Italian left wing. Instead, the League lost, the ruling Democratic Party won, and the current government coalition will survive. While the populists prevailed at another election in Calabria, this outcome was fully expected. The trend of recent provincial elections does not suggest a swell of Italian populism (Chart 12). Chart 12Recent Local Elections Do Not Suggest A Swell Of Italian Populism Chart 13The Italian Coalition Will Not Rush To Elections This local election is not the end of the coalition’s troubles. The left-wing, anti-establishment Five Star Movement is suffering in the polls as a result of its uninspiring, politically expedient pairing with the establishment Democrats. The Democrats may receive a boost from Emilia-Romagna but the Five Star’s leadership change – the resignation of party leader Luigi di Maio – will not be enough to revive its fortunes alone. A new Five Star leader will have to decide whether to collaborate more deeply with the Democrats or try to reclaim the party’s anti-establishment credentials. The latter would push the coalition toward an election before too long. But the Five Star’s weak polling – and the League’s persistent 10 percentage point lead over the Democratic Party in nationwide polling – suggests that the coalition will not rush to elections but will try to prepare by passing a new electoral law (Chart 13). What is clear is that the Five Star Movement will not court elections until they improve their polling. France In France, Emmanuel Macron and his ruling En Marche party have seen their popularity drop to new lows amid the historic labor strikes in opposition to Macron’s pension reforms (Chart 14). Macron’s current trajectory is dangerously close to that of his predecessor, Francois Hollande, and threatens to turn him into a lame duck. We doubt this is the case. Chart 14Macron’s Popularity Is On A Dangerous Trajectory Diagram 1The ‘J-Curve’ Of Structural Reform We view Macron’s decline as another example of the “J-Curve of Structural Reform,” in which a leader’s political capital drops amid controversial reforms (Diagram 1). If the leader avoids an election during the trough of the curve, the danger zone, then his or her political capital may well revive after the benefits of the structural reform are recognized. In this case, the reform is neutral for France’s budget deficit – a cyclical positive – but it encourages an improvement in pension sustainability by incentivizing workers to work longer and postpone retirement – a structural positive. Chart 15France's Economy Is Holding Up Chart 16A Relatively Strong Economy Will Buffer Against Political Risk In France Municipal elections in March will not go Macron’s way, but the presidential and legislative elections are not until 2022. France’s GDP growth is holding up better than that of its neighbors, wages are rising, and confidence did not collapse amid the Christmas labor strike (Chart 15). Hence we expect the increase in political risk to be manageable (Chart 16), a boon for French equities. Germany German political risk is set to rise from today’s depths (Chart 17). The country faces a major shift: globalization is structurally declining and Chancellor Angela Merkel is stepping down. Merkel’s heir-apparent, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer (AKK), is floundering in the opinion polls (Chart 18). Chart 17German Political Risk Will Rise Chart 18Merkel's Heir-Apparent Is Floundering In The Opinion Polls Thus intra-party struggle, and conceivably even a rare early election, could emerge. But the US-China trade ceasefire offers a temporary reprieve. Next year will be different, with elections looming in the fall and the potential for a Trump reelection to trigger a second round of the US-China trade war or to shift to trade war with the EU and tariffs on German cars. The overall political trend in Germany is centrist and pro-Europe, and most of the parties are becoming more willing to upgrade fiscal policy over time. South Korea’s economic problems are priced in, while the market is dismissing Taiwan’s immense political risk. Bottom Line: The US election cycle is the chief source of policy risk and geopolitical risk in 2020, a stark contrast with the EU. European political risk will spike with a full-fledged recession, but for now it is contained. In fact the risks are largely to the upside in the short term as the countries turn slightly more fiscally accommodative. As long as global growth rebounds this year, European equities can outperform their richly valued American counterparts. Emerging Markets: Can They Outperform? With volatility likely in the near-term, Arthur Budaghyan of BCA Research’s Emerging Markets Strategy argues that the key test for emerging markets equities is whether they outperform their developed market counterparts. If they do not, then it suggests that investors still do not see endogenous growth, capital spending and profitability in emerging markets and therefore that they will lag their DM counterparts in the eventual equity upswing. Our long Korea / short Taiwan trade exploded out of the gate but has since fallen back in the face of the new headwind from the coronavirus. We have a high conviction in this trade because the difference in equity valuations faces a looming catalyst in the market’s mispricing of relative geopolitical risk: South Korea’s risk indicator is in a broad upswing while Taiwan’s has collapsed, despite the persistence of the diplomatic track with North Korea and Taiwan’s resounding reelection of both a pro-independence president and legislature (Chart 19). Mainland China will send both risk indicators upward in the near term, but South Korea’s economic problems are priced in and Trump’s diplomacy with North Korea is grounded in well-established constraints on Washington, Beijing, Pyongyang, and Seoul. By contrast the market is entirely dismissing Taiwan’s immense political risk, which does not depend on the outcome of the US election. In the coming 1-3 years, Beijing, Taipei, and Washington are all more likely to take self-interested actions that test the constraints in the Taiwan Strait, upsetting the market, before those constraints are reconfirmed (assuming they are). Beijing is likely to impose economic sanctions as Taipei’s demand for greater freedom and alliance with the US will agitate Chinese leaders who will seek to get the Kuomintang back into power. Brazilian political risk has failed to reach new highs, as anticipated, suggesting that President Jair Bolsonaro’s many problems are not driving investors to sell the real amid underlying indications of rebounding global growth and at least attempts at pro-market reform (Chart 20). Chart 19Markets Are Mispricing Geopolitical Risks In South Korea And Taiwan Chart 20Political Risks Remain Contained In Brazil Turkey’s military intervention into Libya’s civil war is another example of the foreign adventurism that we see as an outgrowth of populism and the need to distract the public’s attention from domestic mismanagement. We expect the risk indicator to rise or be flat and would remain short Turkish currency and risk assets. Bottom Line: Emerging markets face a new headwind from the coronavirus. Not only will China’s growth rebound sputter but Asian EMs will be exposed to the virus and may be less capable than China of dealing with it rapidly and effectively. With volatility looming, emerging market performance relative to developed markets will be a key test of whether endogenous growth trends are taking shape. Investment Conclusions Tactically we are closing our long GBP/JPY trade and UK curve steepener for negligible gains. We are also closing our long Egyptian sovereign bond trade for a gain of 5.59%. We remain long industrial commodities; long Korean equities versus Taiwanese; and long Malaysian equities relative to emerging markets. We expect these trades to perform well over a 12-month horizon. Strategically several of our recommendations will benefit from heightened volatility in the near term but face challenges later in the year as growth rebounds and risk sentiment revives. Nevertheless our time horizon is three-to-five years. In that span we remain long gold, long euro, long defense, short US tech, and short CNY-USD.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Appendix Germany: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator UK: GeoRisk Indicator Canada: GeoRisk Indicator China: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights The intense focus on the weakening of global oil demand expected in the wake of another coronavirus outbreak in China – dubbed 2019-nCoV – obscures likely supply-side responses by OPEC 2.0. The producer coalition likely will rebalance markets by extending production cuts from end-March to at least the end of June when it meets in Vienna March 5-6.  OPEC 2.0 producers will be exquisitely sensitive to Asian refiner demand. They will use it as a gauge for how severe 2019-nCoV’s impact will be on EM demand, and adjust production and exports accordingly. On the demand side, it is difficult to analogue the 2019-nCoV outbreak to the 2003 SARS outbreak, given all the conflicting fundamentals at play at that time.  Forward curves for the principal benchmark crude oils – Brent and WTI – remain backwardated, in spite of the 2019-nCoV-related sell-off. Longer-dated WTI (out to December 2023) traded below $50/bbl earlier in the week, roughly in line with shale-breakeven costs reported by the Dallas Fed earlier this month. This likely will continue to pressure capex in the US shales, keeping future supply growth constrained. Feature Forward curves for the principal benchmark crude oils – Brent and WTI – remain backwardated, in spite of the 2019-nCoV-related sell-off. Chart of the WeekChina's Oil Demand Drives Global Growth Oil markets are rightly focused on the demand implications of the 2019-nCoV outbreak in China.1 Since 2000, China has accounted for 42% of annual oil-demand growth worldwide (Chart of the Week). China is second only to the US in oil demand, accounting for 14% of total global demand of 100.7mm b/d at the end of 2019; its oil imports averaged more than 10mm b/d last year, and are expected to remain strong as it continues to build out its refining sector. Chart 2Asian Air Travel Hit Hard By SARS Historical analogues for 2019-nCoV are difficult. The immediate analogue is the SARS coronavirus outbreak identified in China in February 2003, which lasted six months and hit Asian air travel especially hard (Chart 2). During the height of the SARS outbreak in April 2003, air-travel passenger demand in Asia plunged 45%, according to the International Air Transport Association (IATA). This pushed jet fuel prices lower in Asia and in other key markets, along with distillate prices generally (Chart 3).2 Chart 3Fundamental Supply-Demand Balances Support Higher Crude Oil Prices China now is an extremely large share of global jet fuel consumption. Chart 4BCA Models, Base Metals Prices Suggest SARS Effect Was Short-Lived The industry now is more reliant on Chinese travelers. Since 2003, the number of annual air passengers has more than doubled, with China growing to become the world’s largest outbound travel market. In 2003, close to 7mm passengers from China traveled on international flights. By 2018, that number had grown close to 64mm people, according to China’s aviation authority.  As Chart 2 demonstrates, China now is an extremely large share of global jet fuel consumption. Still, oil is a global market – the avoidance of China during the SARS outbreak in 2003 would have impacted global air travel, and, as a result, global jet-fuel prices. Our proprietary EM commodity-demand models and the behavior of base metals prices, which were and remain heavily influenced by China’s economy, suggest China’s GDP growth slowed in 2003 (mainly 1H03) because of the SARS outbreak (Chart 4).  The LME’s base metals index fell 9% between February and July 2003, while copper prices fell 11%. By year-end, these markets had fully recovered. Oil-Supply Management Drives Price Evolution In the modern era of the oil market beginning roughly around 2000, there have been numerous demand shocks requiring a supply response from OPEC.  During the SARS outbreak in 2003, oil-market fundamentals at the time were complicated by the sudden loss of Venezuelan output in December 2002 to a general strike, which lasted three months and removed more than 2mm b/d from the market, and the US invasion of Iraq on March 2003. Both of these supply-side shocks hit markets just as demand was being hit by SARS. This makes it difficult to extract a pure price response on the demand side to the SARS episode. In the modern era of the oil market beginning roughly around 2000, there have been numerous demand shocks requiring a supply response from OPEC. These including the 9/11 terror attacks in the US in 2001; the SARS outbreak in late 2002-03; the Global Financial Crisis in 2007-08; and the euro debt crisis in 2011-12 (Chart 5).3 Chart 5Demand Shocks Abound In 21st Century Chart 6OPEC Lost Key Members' Output During SARS Outbreak   OPEC 2.0’s goal – similar to OPEC’s goal before it – is to avoid an unintended inventory accumulation. Importantly, these demand shocks were accompanied by supply shocks – Venezuela's general strike; the US invasion of Iraq continues to play havoc with global supply; the BP Macondo blowout in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010; the Arab Spring and the loss of Libyan output in 2011 – all of which complicated OPEC’s decision making (Chart 6). Much of OPEC’s adjustment then and now is made by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), which functions as the central bank of the global oil market increasing and decreasing production to balance markets (Chart 7). Chart 7KSA Primarily Balances Markets During Supply, Demand Shocks OPEC 2.0’s goal – similar to OPEC’s goal before it – is to avoid an unintended inventory accumulation, which would push prices lower and severely alter the forward curves for the principal crude oil pricing benchmarks, WTI and Brent (Chart 8). Chart 8OPEC 2.0’s Goal: Avoid Unintended Inventory Accumulation Navigating The 2019-nCoV Outbreak Oil prices – like all commodity prices – are a function of supply and demand, which clear the market instantaneously (here and now), and across time as buyers and sellers contract for forward delivery. The relentless focus on the demand-side consequences of the 2019-nCoV outbreak is not helpful in determining how oil prices will trade going forward. Oil prices – like all commodity prices – are a function of supply and demand, which clear the market instantaneously (here and now), and across time as buyers and sellers contract for forward delivery. The discussion above is meant to highlight this, by recalling OPEC’s production management during various demand shocks, not just the SARS outbreak in 2003. OPEC then, and OPEC 2.0 now, is not forced to produce oil and export regardless of the physical realities it confronts. It can adjust production and exports in response to direct demand indications from its refinery buyers and traders lifting its crude oil. Demand slowdowns, all else equal, typically will show up in falling crack-spread differentials between refined products and crude oil prices (Chart 9).4 Chart 9Crack Spreads Inform Crude Oil Production Decisions It still is too early to gauge the extent of the fall-off in demand arising from 2019-nCoV, but it will become apparent in cracks and in OPEC 2.0 producers’ responses to lower refiner demand. Falling crack spreads inform crude oil producers they need to throttle back on production – refiners are not able to profitably run all the crude being made available to them and crude and product are backing up in inventory.  It still is too early to gauge the extent of the fall-off in demand arising from 2019-nCoV, but it will become apparent in cracks and in OPEC 2.0 producers’ responses to lower refiner demand, which will determine how much production they need to cut in order to balance the market. This will be done against a backdrop of supply concerns that are not too dissimilar to those prevailing during the 2003 SARS crisis – e.g., instability in Iraq and Iran that could threaten production, and the loss of Venezuelan exports. Bottom Line: Markets still are in the process of assessing how damaging 2019-nCoV will be for industrial commodity demand – oil, bulks and base metals, in particular. As has been the case in all such demand shocks, OPEC’s supply response (and now OPEC 2.0’s) will determine how deeply and for how long prices are impacted.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Overweight Brent prices fell 8% since last Monday amid the coronavirus outbreak in China. The number of confirmed cases is rapidly expanding, reaching more than 6,000 as of Wednesday which surpasses the trajectory of SARS in the first month of the outbreak in 2003. Nonetheless, the fatality rate remains below that of SARS, estimated at less than 3% vs. ~ 10% for SARS. Separately, the WCS discount to WTI averaged -$23/bbl this month. This is in line with our view that the discount would drop below -$20/bbl in 1Q20. This level is appropriate to incentivize additional rail transportation to the US. We expect the discount will remain close to current levels and for crude-by-rail volumes to pick up this year (Chart 10). Base Metals: Neutral Base metals have been severely impacted this week by the coronavirus outbreak – copper, aluminum, zinc, and lead are down 9%, 4%, 9%, and 5%. A prolonged slowdown in China’s economic activity – the driver of the global industrial activity recovery we expect – would plunge metals’ prices. China’s base metal consumption more than doubled since 2003. Thus, the potential impact of 2019-nCoV is much larger compared to SARS and market participants are pricing in the probability of damaging scenarios to global growth. This explains the pronounced decline in metals’ prices this year vs. 2003. Precious Metals: Neutral Gold was one of the few commodities in the green since last week. The yellow metal rose 1% since last Monday, supported by renewed safe-haven demand flows. Gold and the USD have been rising simultaneously amid the virus outbreak, which is typical of uncertain periods. The spectrum of possible outcomes is wide and negatively skewed. This warrants protection through safe-haven assets. We remain strategically long gold as a portfolio hedge. Our recommendation is up 28% since inception. Ags/Softs: Underweight Corn markets focused on USDA reports of rising exports, highlighted by the sale of 124,355 MT to Mexico. CBOT March corn futures were up 6% Tuesday, reversing earlier losses Monday. Beans remain under pressure, as traders await tangible evidence that China will go ahead with purchases announced in the so-called phase-one deal negotiated between the US and China (Chart 11).  Chart 10WCS Discount Under Pressure Chart 11Markets Waiting For China Demand   Footnotes 1     The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2019-nCoV website highlights the marked differences between China’s response to the current coronavirus outbreak vs the 2003 SARS outbreak. One notable response by the Chinese government this time around – besides the rapid lockdown on travel – has been the alacrity with which officials posted the genome for the virus to a global research database, which allowed US researchers to quickly compare it to the strain they isolated. Separately, Reuters reported Australian researchers were able to grow the virus in a lab, which could accelerate development of a vaccine.  2     Distillates comprise the so-called middle of the refined barrel, and include jet fuel, diesel fuel and heating oil (also known as gasoil). These are primarily associated with industrial markets – mining and transportation, e.g. – and are key barometers of economic activity generally.  3     The "modern" era for oil began roughly in 2000, when oil prices became a random walk. WTI prices were mean-reverting from 1986 to roughly 2000, then became a random walk. Please see Helyette Geman, (2007), "Mean Reversion versus Random Walk in Oil and Natural Gas Prices," in Advances in Mathematical Finance, Birkhäuser, Boston; and Haidar, I. and C.R. Wolff, "Forecasting crude oil price (revisited)," The proceeding of the 30th USAEE Conference, Washington , D.C. USA. 9-12 October, 2011. 4     The “crack spread” is the USD/bbl difference between refined-product prices and crude-oil prices. It represents the gross margin of refiners.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q4 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades

Special Report

Our top five geopolitical “Black Swans” are risks that the market is seriously underpricing. With the “phase one” trade deal signed, Chinese policy could become less accommodative, resulting in a negative economic surprise. The trade deal may fall victim to domestic politics, raising the risk of a US-China military skirmish. A Biden victory at the Democratic National Convention or a Democratic takeover of the White House could trigger social unrest and violence in the US. A pickup in the flow of migrants to Europe would fundamentally undermine political stability there. Russia’s weak economy will add fuel to domestic unrest, risking an escalation beyond the point of containment. Over the past four years, BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy service has started off each year with their top five geopolitical “Black Swans.” These are low-probability events whose market impact would be significant enough to matter for global investors. Unlike the great Byron Wien’s perennial list of market surprises, we do not assign these events a “better than 50% likelihood of happening.” We offer risks that the market is seriously underpricing by assigning them only single-digit probabilities when we think the reality is closer to 10%-15%, a level at which a risk premium ought to be assigned. Some of our risks below are so obscure that it is not clear how exactly to price them. We exclude issues that are fairly probable, such as flare-ups in Indo-Pakistani conflict. The two major risks of the year – discussed in our Geopolitical Strategy’s annual outlook – are that either US President Donald Trump or Chinese President Xi Jinping overreaches in a major way. But what would truly surprise the market would be a policy-induced relapse in Chinese growth or a direct military clash between the two great powers. That is how we begin. Other risks stem from domestic affairs in the US, Europe, and Russia. Black Swan 1: China’s Financial Crisis Begins Chart II-1A Crackdown On Financial Risk Could Cause China's Economy To Derail The risk of Xi Jinping’s concentration of power in his own person is that individuals can easily make mistakes, especially if unchecked by advisors or institutions. Lower officials will fear correcting or admonishing an all-powerful leader. Inconvenient information may not be relayed up the hierarchy. Such behavior was rampant in Chairman Mao Zedong’s time, leading to famine among other ills. Insofar as President Xi’s cult of personality successfully imitates Mao’s, it will be subject to similar errors. If President Xi overreaches and makes a policy mistake this year, it could occur in economic policy or other policies. We begin with economic policy, as we have charted the risks of Xi’s crackdown on the financial system since early 2017 (Chart II-1). This year is supposed to be the third and final year of Xi Jinping’s “three battles” against systemic risk, pollution, and poverty. The first battle actually focuses on financial risk, i.e. China’s money and credit bubble. The regime has compromised on this goal since mid-2018, allowing monetary easing to stabilize the economy amid the trade war. But with a “phase one” trade deal having been signed, there is an underrated risk that economic policy will return to its prior setting, i.e. become less accommodative (Chart II-2). When Xi launched the “deleveraging campaign” in 2017, we posited that the authorities would be willing to tolerate an annual GDP growth rate below 6%. This would not only cull excesses in the economy but also demonstrate that the administration means business when it says that China must prioritize quality rather than quantity of growth. While Chinese authorities are most likely targeting “around 6%” in 2020, it is entirely possible that the authorities will allow an undershoot in the 5.5%-5.9% range. They will argue that the GDP target for 2020 has already been met on a compound growth rate basis (Chart II-3), as astute clients have pointed out. They may see less need for stimulus than the market expects. Chart II-2Easing Of Trade Tensions May Re-Incentivize Tighter Policy Chart II-3Chinese Authorities Might Tolerate A Growth Undershoot In 2020   Similarly, while urban disposable income is ostensibly lagging its target of doubling 2010 levels by 2020, China’s 13th Five Year Plan, which concludes in 2020, conspicuously avoided treating urban and rural income targets separately. If the authorities focus only on general disposable income, then they are on track to meet their target (Chart II-4). This would reduce the impetus for greater economic support. The Xi administration may aim only for stability, not acceleration, in the economy. There are already tentative signs that Chinese authorities are “satisfied” with the amount of stimulus they have injected: some indicators of money and credit have already peaked (Chart II-5). The crackdown on shadow banking has eased, but informal lending is still contracting. The regime is still pushing reforms that shake up state-owned enterprises. Chart II-4Lower Impetus For Economic Support Due To Improvements In National Income? Chart II-5Has China's Stimulus Peaked?   An added headwind for the Chinese economy stems from the currency. The currency should track interest rate differentials. Beijing’s incremental monetary stimulus, in the form of cuts to bank reserve requirement ratios (RRRs), should also push the renminbi down over time (Chart II-6). However, an essential aspect of any trade deal with the Trump administration is the need to demonstrate that China is not competitively devaluing. Hence the CNY-USD could overshoot in the first half of the year. This is positive for global exports to China, but it tightens Chinese financial conditions at home. A stronger than otherwise justified renminbi would add to any negative economic surprises from less accommodative monetary and fiscal policy. Conventional wisdom says China will stimulate the economy ahead of two major political events: the centenary of the Communist Party in 2021 and the twentieth National Party Congress in 2022. The former is a highly symbolic anniversary, as Xi has reasserted the supremacy of the party in all things, while the latter is more significant for policy, as it is a leadership reshuffle that will usher in the sixth generation of China’s political elite. But conventional wisdom may be wrong – the Xi administration may aim only for stability, not acceleration, in the economy. It would make sense to save dry powder for the next US or global recession. The obvious implication is that China’s economic rebound may lose steam as early as H2 – but the black swan risk is that negative surprises could cause a vicious spiral inside of China. This is a country with massive financial and economic imbalances, a declining potential growth profile, and persistent political obstacles to growth both at home and abroad. Corporate defaults have spiked sharply. While the default rate is lower than elsewhere, the market may be sniffing out a bigger problem as it charges a much higher premium for onshore Chinese bonds (Chart II-7). Chart II-6CNY/USD Overshoot Would Tighten Chinese Financial Conditions Chart II-7Is China's Bond Market Sniffing Out A Problem?   Bottom Line: Our view is that China’s authorities will remain accommodative in 2020 in order to ensure that growth bottoms and the labor market continues to improve. But Beijing has compromised its domestic economic discipline since 2018 in order to fight trade war. The risk now, with a “phase one” deal in hand, is that Xi Jinping returns to his three-year battle plan and underestimates the downward pressures on the economy. The result would be a huge negative surprise for the Chinese and global economy in 2020. Black Swan 2: The US And China Go To War In 2013, we predicted that US-China conflict was “more likely than you think.” This was not just an argument for trade conflict or general enmity that raises the temperature in the Asia-Pacific region – we included military conflict. At the time, the notion that a Sino-American armed conflict was the world’s greatest geopolitical threat seemed ludicrous to many of our clients. We published this analysis in October of that year, months after the Islamic State “Soldier’s Harvest” offensive into Iraq. Trying to direct investors to the budding rivalry between American and Chinese naval forces in the South China Sea amidst the Islamic State hysteria was challenging, to say the least. Chart II-8Americans’ Attitudes Toward China Plunged… The suggestion that an accidental skirmish between the US and China could descend into a full-blown conflict involved a stretch of the imagination because China was not yet perceived by the American public as a major threat. In 2014, only 19%of the US public saw China as the “greatest threat to the US in the future.” This came between Russia, at 23%, and Iran, at 16%. Today, China and Russia share the top spot with 24%. Furthermore, the share of Americans with an unfavorable view of China has increased from 52% to 60% in the six intervening years (Chart II-8). The level of enmity expressed by the US public toward China is still lower than that toward the Soviet Union at the onset of the Cold War in the 1950s (Chart II-9). However, the trajectory of distrust is clearly mounting. We expect this trend to continue: anti-China sentiment is one of the few sources of bipartisan agreement remaining in Washington, DC (Chart II-10). Chinese sentiment toward the United States has also darkened dramatically. The geopolitical rivalry is deepening for structural reasons: as China advances in size and sophistication, it seeks to alter the regional status quo in its favor, while the US grows fearful and seeks to contain China. Chart II-9…But Not Yet To War-Inducing Levels Chart II-10Distrust Of China Is Bipartisan Chart II-11Newfound American Concern For China’s Repression One example of rising enmity is the US public’s newfound concern for China’s domestic policies and human rights, specifically Beijing’s treatment of its Uyghur minority in Xinjiang. A Google Trends analysis of the term “Uyghur” or “Uyghur camps” shows a dramatic rise in mentions since Q2 of 2018, around the same time the trade war ramped up in a major way (Chart II-11). While startling revelations of re-education camps in Xinjiang emerged in recent years, the reality is that Beijing has used heavy-handed tactics against both militant groups and the wider Uyghur minority since at least 2008 – and much earlier than that. As such, the surge of interest by the general American public and legislators – culminating in the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2019 – is a product of the renewed strategic tension between the two countries. The same can be said for Hong Kong: the US did not pass a Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act in 2014, during the first round of mass protests, which prompted Beijing to take heavy-handed legal, legislative, and censorship actions. It passed the bill in 2019, after the climate in Washington had changed. Why does this matter for investors? There are two general risks that come with a greater public engagement in foreign policy. First, the “phase one” trade deal between China and the US could fall victim to domestic politics. This deal envisions a large step up in Sino-American economic cooperation. But if China is to import around $200 billion of additional US goods and services over the next two years – an almost inconceivable figure – the US and China will have to tamp down on public vitriol. This is notably the case if the Democratic Party takes over the White House, given its likely greater focus on liberal concerns such as human rights. And yet the latest bills became law under President Trump and a Republican Senate, and we fully expect a second Trump term to involve a re-escalation of trade tensions to ensure compliance with phase one and to try to gain greater structural concessions in phase two. Second, mounting nationalist sentiment will make it more difficult for US and Chinese policymakers to reduce tensions following a potential future military skirmish, accidental or otherwise. While our scenario of a military conflict in 2013 was cogent, the public backlash in the United States was probably manageable.1 Today we can no longer guarantee that this is the case. The “phase one” trade deal risks falling victim to domestic politics due to greater public engagement in foreign policy. China has greater control over the domestic narrative and public discourse, but the rise of the middle class and the government’s efforts to rebuild support for the single-party regime have combined to create an increase in nationalism. Thus it is also more difficult for Chinese policymakers to contain the popular backlash if conflict erupts. In short, the probability of a quick tamping down of public enmity is actively being reduced as American public vilification of China is closing the gap with China’s burgeoning nationalism at an alarming pace. Another of our black swan risks – Taiwan island – is inextricably bound up in this dangerous US-China dynamic. To be clear, Washington will tread carefully, as a conflict over Taiwan could become a major war. Nevertheless Taiwan’s election, as we expected, has injected new vitality into this already underrated geopolitical risk. It is not only that a high-turnout election (Chart II-12) gave President Tsai Ing-wen a greater mandate (Chart II-13), or that her Democratic Progressive Party retained its legislative majority (Chart II-14). It is not only that the trigger for this resounding victory was the revolt in Hong Kong and the Taiwanese people’s rejection of the “one country, two systems” formula for Taiwan. It is also that Tsai followed up with a repudiation of the mainland by declaring, “We don’t have a need to declare ourselves an independent state. We are an independent country already and we call ourselves the Republic of China, Taiwan.” Chart II-12Tsai Ing-Wen Enjoys A Greater Mandate On Higher Turnout… Chart II-13…Popular Support… Chart II-14…And A Legislative Majority This statement is not a minor rhetorical flourish but will be received as a major provocation in Beijing: the crystallization of a long-brewing clash between Beijing and Taipei. Additional punitive economic measures against Taiwan are now guaranteed. Saber-rattling could easily ignite in the coming year and beyond. Taiwan is the epicenter of the US-China strategic conflict. First, Beijing cannot compromise on its security or its political legitimacy and considers the “one China principle” to be inviolable. Second, the US maintains defense relations with Taiwan (and is in the process of delivering on a relatively large new package of arms). Third, the US’s true willingness to fight a war on Taiwan’s behalf is in doubt, which means that deterrence has eroded and there is greater room for miscalculation. Bottom Line: A US-China military skirmish has been our biggest black swan risk since we began writing the BCA Geopolitical Strategy. The difference between then and now, however, is that the American public is actually paying attention. Political ideology – the question of democracy and human rights – is clearly merging with trade, security, and other differences to provoke Americans of all stripes. This makes any skirmish more than just a temporary risk-off event, as it could lead to a string of incidents or even protracted military conflict. Black Swan 3: Social Unrest Erupts In America There are numerous lessons that one can learn from the ongoing unrest in Hong Kong, but perhaps the most cogent one is that Millennials and Generation Z are not as docile and feckless as their elders think. Images of university students and even teenagers throwing flying kicks and Molotov cocktails while clad in black body armor have shocked the world. Perhaps all those violent video games did have a lasting impact on the youth! What is surprising is that so few commentators have made the cognitive leap from the ultra-first world streets of Hong Kong to other developed economies. Perhaps what is clouding analysts’ minds is the idiosyncratic nature of the dispute in Hong Kong, the “one China” angle. However, Hong Kong youth are confronted with similar socio-economic challenges that their peers in other advanced economies face: overpriced real estate and a bifurcated service-sector labor market with few mid-tier jobs that pay a decent wage. There is a risk of rebellion from Trump’s most ardent supporters if he loses the White House. In the US, Millennials and Gen Z are also facing challenges unique to the US. First, their debt burden is much more toxic than that of the older cohorts, given that it is made up of student loans and credit card debt (Chart II-15). Second, they find themselves at odds – demographically and ideologically – with the older cohorts (Chart II-16). Chart II-15Younger American Cohorts Plagued By Toxic Debt Chart II-16Younger And Older Cohorts At Odds Demographically Chart II-17Massive Turnout To The 2016 Referendum On Trump The adage that the youth are apolitical and do not turn out to vote may have ended thanks to President Trump. The 2018 midterm election, which the Democratic Party successfully turned into a referendum on the president, saw the youth (18-29) turnout nearly double from 20% to 36% (the 30-44 year-old cohort also saw a jump in turnout from 35.6% to 48.8%). The election saw one of the highest turnouts in recent memory, with a 53.4% figure, just two points off the 2016 general election figure (Chart II-17). Despite the high turnout in 2018, the-most-definitely-not-Millennial Vice President Joe Biden continues to lead the Democratic Party in the polls. His probability of winning the nomination is not overwhelming, but it is the highest of any contender. In recent polls, Biden comes third place in Millennial/Gen-Z vote preferences (Chart II-18). Yet he is hardly out of contention, especially for the 30-44 year-old cohort. The view that “Uncle Joe” does not fit the Democratic Party zeitgeist has become so entrenched in the Democratic Party narrative that it became conventional wisdom last year, pulling oddsmakers and betting markets away from the clear frontrunner (Chart II-19). Chart II-18Biden Unpopular Among Young American Voters Chart II-19Bookies Pulled Down 'Uncle Joe’s' Odds, Capturing Democratic Party Zeitgeist     As such, a Biden victory at the Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin on July 13-16 may come as an affront to the left-wing activists who will surely descend on the convention. This will particularly be the case if Biden wins despite the progressive candidates amassing a majority of overall delegates, which is possible judging by the combined progressive vote share in current polling (Chart II-20). He would arrive in Milwaukee without clearing the 1990 delegate count required to win on the first ballot. On the second ballot, his presidency would then receive a boost from “superdelegates” and those progressives who are unwilling to “rock the boat,” i.e. unify against an establishment candidate with the largest share of votes. This is also how Mayor Michael Bloomberg could pull off a surprise win. Chart II-20Progressives Come Closest To Victory Such a “brokered” – or contested – convention has not occurred since 1952. However, several Democratic Party conventions came close, including 1968, 1972, and 1984. The 1968 one in Chicago was notable for considerable violence and unrest. Even if the Milwaukee Democratic Party convention does not produce unrest, it could sow the seeds for unrest later in the year. First, a breakout Biden performance in the primaries is unlikely. As such, he will likely need to pledge a shift to the left at the convention, including by accepting a progressive vice-presidential candidate. Second, an actual progressive may win the primary. Chart II-21Zealots In Both Parties Perceive Each Other As A National Threat It is likely that either of the two options would be seen as an existential threat to many of Trump’s loyal supporters across the United States. President Trump’s rhetoric often paints the scenario of a Democratic takeover of the White House in apocalyptic terms. And data suggests that the zealots in both parties perceive each other as a “threat to the nation’s wellbeing” (Chart II-21). The American Civil War in the nineteenth century began with the election of a president. This is not just because Abraham Lincoln was a particularly reviled figure in the South, but because the states that ultimately formed the Confederacy saw in his election the demographic writing-on-the-wall. The election was an expression of a general will that, from that point onwards, was irreversible. Given demographic trends in the US today, it is possible that many would see in Trump’s loss a similar fait accompli. If one perceives progressive Democrats as an existential threat to the US constitution, rebellion is the obvious and rational response. Bottom Line: Year 2020 may be a particularly violent one for the US. First, left wing activists may be shocked and angered to learn that Joe Biden (or Bloomberg) is the nominee of the Democratic Party come July. With so much hype behind the progressive candidates throughout the campaign, Biden’s nomination could be seen as an affront to what was supposed to be “the big year” for left-wing candidates. Second, investors have to start thinking about what happens if Biden – or a progressive candidate – goes on to defeat President Trump in the general election. While liberal America took Trump’s election badly, it has demographics – and thus time – on its side. Trump’s most ardent supporters may conclude that his defeat means the end of America as they know it. Black Swan 4: Europe’s Migration Crisis Restarts It is a testament to Europe’s resilience that we do not have a Black Swan scenario based on an election or a political crisis set on the continent in 2020. Support for the common currency and the EU as a whole has rebounded to its highest since 2013. Even early elections in Germany and Italy are unlikely to produce geopolitical risk. The populists in the former are in no danger of outperforming whereas the populists in the latter barely deserve the designation. But what if one of the reasons for the surge in populism – unchecked illegal immigration – were to return in 2020? Chart II-22Decline In Illegal Immigration Dampened European Populism The data suggests that the risk of migrant flows has massively subsided. From its peak of over a million arrivals in 2015, the data shows that only 125,472 migrants crossed into Europe via land and sea routes in the Mediterranean last year (Chart II-22). Why? There are five reasons that we believe have checked the flow of migrants: Supply: The civil wars in Syria, Iraq, and Libya have largely subsided. Heterogenous regions, cities, and neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed and internal boundaries have largely ossified. It is unlikely that any future conflict will produce massive outflows of refugees as the displacement has already taken place. These countries are now largely divided into armed, ethnically homogenous, camps. Enforcement: The EU has stepped up border enforcement since 2015, pouring resources into the land border with Turkey and naval patrols across the Mediterranean. Individual member states – particularly Italy and Hungary – have also stepped up border enforcement policy. While most EU member states have publicly chided both for “draconian” policies, there is no impetus to force Rome and Budapest to change policy. Libyan Imbroglio: Conflict in Libya has flared up in 2019 with military warlord Khalifa Haftar looking to wrest control from the UN-backed Government of National Accord led by Fayez al-Serraj. The Islamic State has regrouped in the country as well. Ironically, the conflict is helping stem the flow of migrants as African migrants from sub-Saharan countries dare not cross into Libya as they did in 2015 when there was a brief lull in fighting. Turkish benevolence: Ankara is quick to point out that it is the only thing standing between Europe and a massive deluge of migrants. Turkey is said to host somewhere between two and four million refugees from various conflicts in the Middle East. Fear of the crossing: If crossing the Mediterranean was easy, Europe would have experienced a massive influx of migrants throughout the twentieth century. Not only is it not easy, it is costly and quite deadly, with thousands lost each year. Furthermore, most migrants are not welcomed when they arrive to Europe, many are held in terrible conditions in holding camps in Italy and Greece. Over time, migrants who made it into Europe have reported these dangers and conditions, reducing the overall demand for illegal migration. We do not foresee these five factors changing, at least not all at once. However, there are several reasons to worry about the flow of migrants in 2020. US-Iran tensions have sparked outright military action, while unrest is flaring up across Iran’s sphere of influence. Going forward, Iran could destabilize Iraq or fuel Shia unrest against US-backed regimes. Second, Afghanistan has been the source of most migrants to Europe via sea and land Mediterranean routes – 19.2%. The conflict in the country continues and may flare up with President Trump’s decision to formally withdraw most US troops from the country in 2020. Third, a break in fighting in Libya may encourage sub-Saharan migrants to revisit routes to Europe. Migrants from Guinea, Cote d’Ivoire, and the Democratic Republic of Congo make up over 10% of migrants to Europe. Finally, Turkish relationship with the West could break up further in 2020, causing Ankara to ship migrants northward. We highly doubt that President Erdogan will risk such a break, given that 50% of Turkish exports go to Europe. A European embargo on Turkish exports – which would be a highly likely response to such an act – would crush the already decimated Turkish economy. Bottom Line: While we do not see a return to the 2015 level of migration in 2020, we flag this risk because it would fundamentally undermine political stability in Europe. Black Swan 5: Russia Faces A “Peasant Revolt” Our fifth and final black swan risk for the year stems from Russia. This risk may seem obvious, since the US election creates a dynamic that revives the inherent conflict in US-Russian relations. Russia could seek to accomplish foreign policy objectives – interfering in US elections, punishing regional adversaries. The Trump administration may be friendly toward Russia but Trump is unlikely to veto any sanctions passed by the House and Senate in an election year, should an occasion for new sanctions arise. Conversely Russia could anticipate greater US pressure if the Democrats win in November. Yet it is Russia’s domestic affairs that represent the real underrated risk. Putin’s fourth term as president has been characterized by increased focus on domestic political control and stability as opposed to foreign adventurism. The creation of a special National Guard in 2016, reporting directly to Putin and responsible for quelling domestic unrest, symbolizes the shift in focus. So too does Russia’s adherence to the OPEC 2.0 regime of production control to keep oil prices above their budget breakeven level. Meanwhile Putin’s courting of Europe for the Nordstream II pipeline, and his slight peacemaking efforts with Ukraine, has suggested a slightly more restrained international posture. Strategically it makes little sense for Russia to court negative attention at a time when the US and Europe are at odds over trade and the Middle East, the US is preoccupied with China and Iran, and Russia itself faces mounting domestic problems. The domestic problems are long in coming. The central bank has maintained a stringent monetary policy for the better part of the decade. Despite cutting interest rates recently, monetary and credit conditions are still tight, hurting domestic demand. Moscow has also imposed fiscal austerity, namely by cutting back on state pensions and hiking the value added tax. Real wage growth is weak (Chart II-23), retail sales are falling, and domestic demand looks to weaken further, as Andrija Vesic of BCA Emerging Markets Strategy observes in a recent Special Report. The effect of Russia’s policy austerity has been a drop in public approval of the administration (Chart II-24). Protests erupted in 2019 but were largely drowned out by the larger and more globally significant protests in Hong Kong. These were met by police suppression that has not removed their underlying cause. Putin’s first major decision of the new year was to reshuffle the government, entailing Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev’s transfer to a new post and the appointment of a new cabinet. This move reveals the need to show some accountability to reduce popular pressure. While Moscow now has room to cut interest rates and ease fiscal policy, it is behind the curve and the weak economy will add fuel to domestic unrest. Chart II-23Sluggish Wage Growth Threatens Russian Stability Chart II-24Austerity Weighed On The Administration's Popularity In Russia   Meanwhile Putin’s efforts to alter the Russian constitution so he can stay in power beyond current term limits, effectively becoming emperor for life, like Xi Jinping, should not be dismissed merely because they are expected. They reflect a need to take advantage of Putin’s popular standing to consolidate domestic political power at a time when the ruling United Russia party and the federal government face discontent. They also ensure that strategic conflict with the United States will take on an ideological dimension. Russia's recent cabinet shakeup is positive from the point of view of economic reform. And the country's monetary and fiscal room provide a basis for remaining overweight equities within EM, as our Emerging Markets Strategy recommends. However, Russian equities have rallied hard and the political risk is understated. Chart II-25Russian Political Risk Is Unsustainably Low Bottom Line: It is never easy predicting Putin’s next international move. Our market-based indicators of Russian political risk have hit multi-year lows, but both the domestic and international context suggest that these lows will not be sustained (Chart II-25). A new bout of risk can emanate from Putin, or from changes in Washington, or from the Russian people themselves. What would take the world by surprise would be domestic unrest on a larger scale than Russia can easily suppress through the police force. Housekeeping We are closing our long European Union / short Chinese equities strategic trade with a 1.61% loss since inception on May 10, 2019. Dhaval Joshi of BCA’s European Investment Strategy downgraded the Eurostoxx 50 to underweight versus the S&P 500 and the Nikkei 225 this week. He makes the point that the Euro Area bond yield 6-month impulse hit 100 bps – a critical technical level – and will be a strong headwind to growth. We will look to reopen this trade at a later date when the euphoria over the “phase one” trade deal subsides, as we still favor European equities and DM bourses over EM. We will reinstitute our long Brent crude H2 2020 versus H2 2021 tactical position, which was stopped out on January 9, 2020. We remain bullish on oil fundamentals and expect Middle East instability to add a political risk premium. China's stimulus and the oil view also give reason for us to reinitiate our long Malaysian equities relative to EM as a tactical position. The Malaysian ringgit will benefit as oil prices move higher, helping Malaysian companies make payments on their large pile of dollar-denominated debt and improving household purchasing power. Higher oil prices also correlate with higher equity prices, while China's stimulus and the US trade ceasefire will push the US dollar lower and help trade revive in the region. Marko Papic Chief Strategist, Clocktower Group Matt Gertken Geopolitical Strategist Footnotes 1 Observe how little attention the public paid to US-China saber-rattling around China’s announcement of an Air Defense Identification Zone in the East China Sea that year.