China & EM Asia

Highlights Xi Jinping is trying to do two things at once: ease policy while cracking down on systemic financial risk; The trade war with the U.S. is a genuine crisis for China and is eliciting fiscal stimulus; Credit growth is far more likely to "hold the line" than it is to explode upward or collapse downward; The 30% chance of a policy mistake from financial tightening has fallen to 20% only, as bad loan recognition is underway and a critical risk to monitor; Hedge against the risk of a stimulus overshoot. Feature "We have upheld the underlying principle of pursuing progress while ensuring stability." - Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, October 18, 2017 "Any form of external pressure can eventually be transformed into impetus for growth, and objectively speaking will accelerate supply-side structural reforms." - Guo Shuqing, Secretary of the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission, July 5 Last year we made the case that China's General Secretary Xi Jinping would double down on his reform agenda in 2018, specifically the bid to control financial risk, and that this would bring negative surprises to global financial markets as policymakers demonstrated a higher pain threshold.1 This view has largely played out, with economic policy uncertainty spiking and a bear market in equities developing alongside an increase in corporate and even sovereign credit default risk (Chart 1). We also argued, however, that Xi's "deleveraging campaign" would be constrained by the Communist Party's need for overall stability. Trade tensions with the U.S., and Beijing's perennial fear of unemployment, would impose limits on how much pain Beijing would ultimately tolerate: The Xi administration will renew its reform drive - particularly by curbing leverage, shadow banking, and local government debt. Growth risks are to the downside. But Beijing will eventually backtrack and re-stimulate, even as early as 2018, leaving the reform agenda in limbo once again.2 Over the past month, China has clearly reached its pain threshold: authorities have announced a series of easing measures in the face of a slowing economy, a trade war, and a still-negative broad money impulse (Chart 2). Chart 1Policy Uncertainty Up, Stocks Down Policy Uncertainty Up, Stocks Down Policy Uncertainty Up, Stocks Down Chart 2PMI Falling, Money Impulse Still Negative PMI Falling, Money Impulse Still Negative PMI Falling, Money Impulse Still Negative How stimulating is the stimulus? Will it lead to a material reacceleration of the Chinese economy? What will it mean for global and China-dedicated investors? We expect policy to be modestly reflationary. A substantial boost to fiscal thrust, and at least stable credit growth, is in the works. Yet Xi's reform agenda will remain a drag on the economy. While this new stimulus will not have as dramatic an effect as the stimulus in 2015-16, it will have a positive impact relative to expectations based on China's performance in the first half of the year. We advise hedging our negative EM view against a rally in China plays and upgrading expectations for Chinese growth in 2019. The policy headwind is receding for now. Xi Jinping's "Three Tough Battles" Xi will not entirely abandon the "Reform Reboot" that began last October. From the moment he came to power in 2012-13, he pursued relatively tight monetary and fiscal policy. Total government spending growth has dropped substantially under his administration, while private credit growth has been capped at around 12% (Chart 3). Chart 3Xi Jinping Caps Government Spending And Credit Xi Jinping Caps Government Spending And Credit Xi Jinping Caps Government Spending And Credit Xi partly inherited these trends, as China's credit growth and nominal GDP growth dropped after the massive 2008 stimulus. But he also embraced tighter policy as a way of rebalancing the economy away from debt-fueled, resource-intensive, investment-led growth. A comparison of government spending priorities between Xi and his predecessor makes Xi's policy preferences crystal clear: the Xi administration has increased spending on financial and environmental regulation, while minimizing subsidies for housing and railways to nowhere (Table 1 and 2). Table 1Central Government Spending Preferences (Under Leader's Immediate Control) China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus? China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus? Table 2Total Government Spending Preferences (Under Leader's General Control) China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus? China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus? These policies are "correct" insofar as they are driven not merely by Xi's preferences but by long-term constraints: The middle class: Pollution and environmental degradation threaten the living standards of the country's middle class. Broadly defined, this group has grown to almost 51% of the population, a level that EM politicians ignore only at their peril (Chart 4). Asset bubbles: The rapid increase in China's gross debt-to-GDP ratio since 2008 is a major financial imbalance that threatens to undermine economic stability and productivity as well as Beijing's global aspirations (Chart 5). The constraint is clear when one observes that "debt servicing" is the third-fastest category of fiscal spending growth since Xi came to power (Table 2). Chart 4Emerging Middle Class A Latent Political Risk Emerging Middle Class A Latent Political Risk Emerging Middle Class A Latent Political Risk Chart 5The Rise And Plateau Of Macro Leverage China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus? China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus? The problem is that Xi also faces a different, shorter-term set of constraints arising from China's declining potential GDP, "the Middle-Income Trap," and the threat of unemployment.3 The interplay of these short- and long-term constraints has forced Xi to vacillate in his policies. In 2015, the threat of an economic "hard landing," ahead of the all-important mid-term party congress in 2017, forced him to stimulate the "old" industrial economy and sideline his reforms. Only when he had consolidated power over the Communist Party in 2016-17 could he resume pushing the reform agenda.4 In July 2017, Xi announced the so-called "Three Critical Battles" against systemic financial risk, pollution, and poverty. The three battles are interdependent: continuing on the capital-intensive economic model will overwhelm any efforts to cut excessive debt or pollution (Chart 6), yet sudden deleveraging could derail the Communist Party's basic claim to legitimacy through improving the lot of poor Chinese. The macroeconomic impact of the three battles is broadly deflationary, as credit growth falls and industries restructure. The first battle - the financial battle - will determine the outcome of the other two battles as well as the growth rate of China's investment-driven economy, Chinese import volumes, and emerging market stability (Chart 7). Chart 6Credit Stimulus Correlates With Pollution Credit Stimulus Correlates With Pollution Credit Stimulus Correlates With Pollution Chart 7Credit Determines Growth And Imports Credit Determines Growth And Imports Credit Determines Growth And Imports On July 31, in the midst of worldwide speculation about China's willingness to stimulate, Xi reaffirmed this "Three Battles" framework. Remarkably, despite a general slowdown, a sharp drop in the foreign exchange rate, the revival of capital flight, and a bear market, he announced that the battle against systemic financial risk would continue in the second half of 2018. However, he also admitted that domestic demand needed a boost in the short term. Hence there should be no doubt in investors' minds about the overarching policy framework or Xi Jinping's intentions in the long run. The question driving the markets today is what China will do in the short term and whether it will initiate a material reacceleration in economic activity. Bottom Line: Xi Jinping remains committed to the reform agenda that he has pursued since coming to power in 2012. But he is forced by circumstances to vary the pace and intensity. At the top of the agenda is the control of systemic financial risk. This is a policy driven by the belief that China's economic and financial imbalances threaten to undermine its overall stability and global rise. Why The Shift Toward Easier Policy? The gist of the July 31 Politburo statement was that policy will get more dovish in the short term. It mentioned "stability" five times. The Politburo pledged to make fiscal policy "more proactive" and to find a better balance between preventing financial risks and "serving the real economy." This direct promise from Xi Jinping of more demand-side support gives weight to the State Council's similar statement on July 23 and will have reflationary consequences above and beyond the central bank's marginal liquidity easing thus far. What is motivating this shift in policy, which apparently flies in the face of Xi's high-profile deleveraging campaign? If we had to name a single trigger for China's change of tack, it is not the economic slowdown so much as the trade war with the United States. The war began when the U.S. imposed sanctions on Chinese firm ZTE in April and China depreciated the RMB, but it escalated dramatically when the U.S. posted the Section 301 tariff list in June (Chart 8).5 This is a sea change in American policy that is extremely menacing to China. China runs a large trade surplus and has benefited more than any other country from the past three decades of U.S.-led globalization. Its embrace of globalization is what enabled the Communist Party to survive the fall of global communism! Chart 8More Than Market Dynamics At Work More Than Market Dynamics At Work More Than Market Dynamics At Work Chart 9China Is Less Export-Dependent China Is Less Export-Dependent China Is Less Export-Dependent True, China has already seen its export dependency decline (Chart 9). But Beijing has so far managed this transition gradually and carefully, whereas a not-unlikely 25% tariff on $250-$500 billion of Chinese exports will hasten the restructuring beyond its control (Chart 10). A very large share of China's population is employed in manufacturing (Chart 11). To the extent that the tariffs actually succeed in reducing external demand for Chinese goods, these jobs will be affected. Chart 10Tariffs Will Add More Pain To Factory Workers Tariffs Will Add More Pain To Factory Workers Tariffs Will Add More Pain To Factory Workers Chart 11Manufacturing Unemployment A Huge Threat Manufacturing Unemployment A Huge Threat Manufacturing Unemployment A Huge Threat Unemployment is anathema to the Communist Party. And China is simply not as experienced as the U.S. in dealing with large fluctuations in unemployment (Chart 12). While Chinese workers will blame "foreign imperialists" and rally around the flag, the pain of unemployment will eventually cause trouble for the regime. Domestic demand as well as exports will suffer. It is even possible that worker protests could evolve into anti-government protests. Chart 12China Not Experienced With Layoffs China Not Experienced With Layoffs China Not Experienced With Layoffs Given that Chinese and global growth are already slowing, it is no surprise that the Politburo statement prioritized employment.6 China's leaders will prepare for social instability as the worst possible outcome of the showdown with America - and that will push them toward stimulus. In addition, there will be no short-term political cost to Xi Jinping for erring on the side of stimulus, as there is no opposition party and the public is not demanding fiscal and monetary austerity. Moreover, the main macro implication of Xi's decision last year to remove term limits - enabling himself to be "president for life" in China - is that his reforms do not have to be achieved by any set date. They can be continually procrastinated on the basis that he will return to them later when conditions are better.7 The policy response to tariffs from the Trump administration also signals another policy preference: perseverance. Xi would not be straying from his reform priorities if not for a desire to counter American protectionism. China is not interested in kowtowing but would rather gird itself for a trade war. Still, our baseline view is that the Xi administration will stimulate without abandoning the crackdown on shadow lending or launching a massive "irrigation-style" credit surge that exacerbates systemic risk.8 Policy will be mixed, as Xi is trying to do two things at once. Bottom Line: China's slowdown and the outbreak of a real trade war with the United States is forcing Xi Jinping to ease policy and downgrade the urgency of his attempt to tackle systemic financial risk this year. Can Fiscal Easing Overshoot? Yes. How far will China's policy easing go? China has a low level of public debt, and fiscal policy has been tight, so we fully expect fiscal thrust to surprise to the upside in the second half of the year, easily by 1%-2% of GDP, possibly by 4% of GDP. A remarkable thing happened this summer when researchers at the People's Bank of China and the Ministry of Finance began debating fiscal policy openly. Such debates usually occur during times of abnormal stress. The root of the debate lay in the national budget blueprint laid out in March at the National People's Congress. There, without changing official rhetoric about "proactive fiscal policy," the authorities revealed that they would tighten policy this year, with the aim of shrinking the budget deficit from 3% of GDP target in 2017 to 2.6% in 2018. The IMF, which publishes a more realistic "augmented" deficit, estimates that the deficit will contract from 13.4% of GDP to 13% (Chart 13). This fiscal tightening coincided with Xi's battle against systemic financial risk. Hence both monetary and fiscal policy were set to tighten this year, along with tougher regulatory and anti-corruption enforcement.9 Thus it made sense on May 8 when the Ministry of Finance revealed that the quota for net new local government bond issuance this year would increase by 34% to 2.18 trillion RMB. This quota governs new bonds that go to brand new spending (i.e. it is not to be confused with the local government debt swap program, which eases repayment burdens but does not involve a net expansion of debt). Local government spending is the key because it makes up the vast majority (85%) of total government spending, which itself is about the same size as new private credit each year. Chart 13Fiscal Tightening Was The Plan For 2018 China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus? China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus? Table 3Local Government Bond Issuance And Quota China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus? China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus? In June, local governments took full advantage of this opportunity, issuing 316 billion RMB in brand new bonds (up from a mere 17 billion in May - an 11.8% increase year-on-year) (Table 3). This spike in issuance is later than in previous years. Combined with the Politburo and State Council pledging to boost fiscal policy and domestic demand, it suggests that net new issuance will pick up sharply in H2 2018 (Chart 14).10 Chart 14Local Government Debt Can Surprise In H2 China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus? China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus? Chart 15June Issuance Surged, Special Bonds To Pick Up China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus? China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus? At the same time, the risk that special infrastructure spending will fall short this year is receding. About 1.4 trillion RMB of the year's new bond allowance consists of special purpose bonds to fund projects. The State Council said on July 23 it would accelerate the issuance of these bonds, since, at most, only 27% of the quota was issued in the first half of the year (Chart 15). The risk of a shortfall - due to stricter government regulations over the quality of projects - is thereby reduced. What is the overall impact of these moves? The Chinese government provides an annual "debt limit" that applies to the grand total of explicit, on-balance-sheet, local government debt. The limit increased by 11.6% for 2018, to 21 trillion RMB (Table 4), which, theoretically, enables local governments to splurge on a 4.5 trillion RMB debt blowout. Should that occur, 2.6 trillion RMB of that amount, or 3% of GDP, would be completely unexpected new government spending in 2018 (creating a positive fiscal thrust).11 Table 4Local Government Debt Quota Is Not A Constraint China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus? China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus? Such a blowout may not be likely, but it is legally allowed - and the political constraints on new issuance have fallen with the central government's change of stance. This means that local governments' net new bond issuance can move up toward this number. More feasibly, local governments could increase their explicit debt to 19.3 trillion RMB, a 920 billion RMB increase on what is expected, which would imply 1% of GDP in new spending or "stimulus" in 2018.12 The above only considers explicit, on-balance-sheet debt. Local governments also notoriously borrow and spend off the balance sheet. The total of such borrowing was 8.6 trillion RMB at the end of 2014, but there is no recent data and the stock and flow are completely opaque.13 The battle against systemic risk is supposed to curtail such activity this year. But the newly relaxed supervision from Beijing will result in less deleveraging at minimum, and possibly re-leveraging. Similarly, the government has said it is willing to help local governments issue refinancing bonds to deal with the spike in bonds maturing this year.14 This frees them up to actually spend or invest the money they raise from brand new bonds. In short, our constraints-based methodology suggests that the risk lies to the upside for local government debt in 2018, given that it is legal for debt to increase by as much as 2.5 trillion RMB, 3% of GDP, over the 1.9 trillion RMB increase that is already expected in the IMF's budget deficit projections for 2018. What about the central government? Its policy stance has clearly shifted. The central government could quite reasonably expand the official budget deficit beyond the 2.6% target. Indeed, that target is already outdated given that new individual tax cuts have been proposed, which would decrease revenues (add to the deficit) by, we estimate, a minimum of 0.44% of GDP over a 12-month period starting in October.15 Other fiscal boosts have also been proposed that would add an uncertain sum to this amount.16 The total of these measures can quite easily add up to 1% of GDP, albeit with the impact mostly in 2019. Finally, the strongest reason to err on the side of an upward fiscal surprise is that an expansion of fiscal policy will allow the Xi administration to boost demand without entirely relying on credit growth. First, local governments are actually flush with revenues due to strong land sales (Chart 16), which comprise around a third of their revenues. This enables them to increase spending even before they tap the larger debt allowance. Second, China's primary concern about financial risk is due to excessive corporate (and some household) leverage, particularly by state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and shadow banking. It is not due to public debt per se. It is entirely sensible that China would boost public debt as it attempts to limit leverage. In fact, this would be the Zhu Rongji playbook from 1998-2001. This was the last time that China announced a momentous three-year plan to crack down on profligate lending, hidden debts, and credit misallocation. The authorities deliberately expanded fiscal policy to compensate for the anticipate credit crunch and its drag on GDP growth (Chart 17).17 Chart 16Land Sales Enable Non-Debt Fiscal Spending Land Sales Enable Non-Debt Fiscal Spending Land Sales Enable Non-Debt Fiscal Spending Chart 17China Boosted Fiscal During Last Bad Debt Purge China Boosted Fiscal During Last Bad Debt Purge China Boosted Fiscal During Last Bad Debt Purge As for the impact on the economy, the money multiplier will be meaningful because the economy is slowing and fiscal policy has been tight. But fiscal spending does operate with a six-to-ten month lag, meaning that China/EM-linked risk assets will move long before the economic data fully shows the impact. Our sense, judging by the unenthusiastic response of copper prices thus far, is that the market does not anticipate the fiscal overshoot that we now do. Bottom Line: The political constraints on local government spending have fallen. Fiscal policy could add as much as 1%-3% of GDP to the budget deficit in H2 2018, namely if local government spending is unleashed by the recently announced policy shift. This is comparable to the 4% of GDP fiscal boost in 2008-09 and 3% in 2015-16. Can Monetary Easing Overshoot? Yes, But Less Likely. Credit is China's primary means of stimulating the economy, especially during crisis moments, and it has a much shorter lag period than fiscal spending (about three months). But Xi's agenda makes the use of rapid, credit-fueled stimulus more problematic. Based on the sharp drop in the interbank rate - in particular, the three-month interbank repo rate that BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy and China Investment Strategy use as a proxy for China's benchmark rate - it is entirely possible that credit growth will increase to some degree in H2 2018. Interbank rates have now fallen almost to 2016 levels, while the central bank never hiked the official 1-year policy rate during the recent upswing (Chart 18). In other words, the monetary setting has now almost entirely reversed the financial crackdown that began in 2017. The sharp drop in the interbank rate is partly a consequence of the three cuts to required reserve ratios (RRRs) this year, which amounts to 2.8 trillion RMB in new base money from which banks can lend.18 One or two more RRR cuts are expected in H2 2018, which could free up another roughly 800 billion-to-1.6 trillion RMB in new base money. With China accumulating forex reserves at a slower pace than in the past, and facing a future of economic rebalancing away from exports and growing trade protectionism, RRRs can continue to decline over the long run (Chart 19). China will not need to sterilize as large of inflows of foreign exchange.19 Chart 18Monetary Settings Back To Easy Levels Monetary Settings Back To Easy Levels Monetary Settings Back To Easy Levels Chart 19RRR Cuts Can Continue RRR Cuts Can Continue RRR Cuts Can Continue If China's banks and borrowers respond as they have almost always done, then credit growth should rise. The risk to this assumption is that the banks may be afraid to lend as long as the Xi administration remains even partially committed to its financial crackdown. Moreover, the anti-corruption campaign is continuing to probe the financial sector. While this has only produced a handful of anecdotes so far, they are significant and may have helped cause the decline in loan approvals since early 2017. Critically, China has begun the process of recognizing non-performing loans (NPLs), by requiring that "special mention loans" be reclassified as NPLs, thus implying that NPL ratios will spike, especially among small and regional lenders (Chart 20). This is part of the deleveraging process we expect to continue, but it can take on a life of its own and will almost certainly weigh on credit growth to some extent for as long as it continues. Chart 20NPL Recognition Underway (!) NPL Recognition Underway (!) NPL Recognition Underway (!) Chart 21Three Scenarios For Private Credit In H2 2018 China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus? China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus? What will be the prevailing trend: monetary easing or the financial crackdown? In Chart 21 we consider three scenarios for the path of overall private credit growth (total social financing, ex-equity) for the rest of the year, with our subjective probabilities: In Scenario A, 10% probability, we present an extreme case in which Beijing panics over the trade war and the banks engage in a 2009-style lending extravaganza. Credit skyrockets up to the 2010-17 average growth rate. This would mark a massive 11.9 trillion RMB or 13.8% of GDP increase in excess of the amount implied by the H1 2018 data. This size of credit spike would be comparable to the huge spikes that occurred during past crises, such as the 22% of GDP increase in 2008-09 or the 9% of GDP increase in 2015-16. Needless to say, this is not our baseline case, but it could materialize if the trade war causes a global panic. In Scenario B, 70% probability, we assume, more reasonably, that traditional yuan bank loans are allowed to rise toward their average 2010-17 growth rate as a result of policy easing, yet Xi maintains the crackdown on non-bank credit in accordance with this "Three Battles" framework. Credit growth would still decelerate in year-on-year terms, but only just: it would fall from 12.3% in 2017 to 11.5% in 2018. Additional policy measures could easily bump this up to a modest year-on-year acceleration, of course. This scenario would result in a credit increase worth 2.9 trillion RMB or 3.4% of GDP on top of the level implied by H1 2018. In Scenario C, 20% probability, we assume that the 2018 YTD status quo persists: bank credit and non-bank credit continue growing at the bleak H1 2018 rate. The administration's attempt to maintain the crackdown on financial risk could frighten banks out of lending. This would mean no credit increase in 2018 beyond what is naturally extrapolated from the H1 2018 data. Credit growth would slow from 12.3% to 10.7% in 2018. This scenario would be surprising, but not entirely implausible given that the Politburo is insisting on continuing the Three Battles. The collapse in interbank rates and the easing measures already undertaken - such as reports that the Macro-Prudential Assessments will lighten up, and that the People's Bank is explicitly softening banks' annual loan quotas20 - lead us to believe that Scenario B is most likely, and possibly too conservative. This is the scenario most consistent with the latest Politburo statement: that authorities will continue the campaign against systemic risk, namely through the policy of "opening the front door" (traditional bank loans go up) and "closing the back door" (shadow lending goes down), which began in January. The Chinese government has always considered control of financial intermediation to be essential. The only way to reinforce the dominance of the state-controlled banks, while preventing a sharp drop in aggregate demand, is to allow them to grow their loan books while regulators tie the hands of their shadow-bank rivals (Chart 22). Chart 22Opening The Front Door, Closing The Back Opening The Front Door, Closing The Back Opening The Front Door, Closing The Back One factor that could evolve beyond authorities' control is the velocity of money. Money velocity is essentially a gauge of animal spirits. If a single yuan changes hands multiple times, it will drive more economic activity, but if it is deposited away for a rainy day, then the bear spirit is in full force. Thus, if credit growth accelerates, but money in circulation changes hands more slowly, then nominal GDP can still decelerate - and vice versa.21 China's money velocity suffered a sharp drop during the tumult of 2015, recovered along with the policy stimulus in 2016, and has tapered a bit in 2018 in the face of Xi's deleveraging campaign. Yet it remains elevated relative to 2012-16 and clearly responds at least somewhat to policy easing. The implication is that money velocity should remain elevated or even pick up in H2. Again, the risk to this view is that Xi's ongoing battle against financial risk, and anti-corruption campaign in the financial sector, could suppress money velocity as well as credit growth. Bottom Line: We see a subjective 70% chance that the drop in credit growth will be halted or reversed in H2 as a result of the central bank's liquidity easing and the Politburo's willingness to let traditional bank lending grow while it discourages shadow lending. Our baseline case says the impact could amount to new credit worth 3.4% of GDP in H2 2018 that markets do not yet expect. Investment Conclusions Beijing's shift in policy suggests that our subjective probability of a policy mistake this year, leading to a sharp economic deceleration, should be reduced from 30% to 20% (Credit Scenario C above).22 Why is this dire scenario still carrying one-to-five odds? Because we fear that the financial crackdown and rising NPLs could take on a life of their own. Meanwhile the risk of aggressive re-leveraging has risen from 0% to 10% (Credit Scenario A above). Summing up, Table 5 provides a simple, back-of-the-envelope estimate of the size of both fiscal and monetary policy measures as a share of GDP. Table 5Potential Magnitude Of Easing/Stimulus China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus? China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus? Our bias is to expect a strong fiscal response combined with a weak-to-moderate credit response. This would reflect the Xi administration's desire to prevent asset bubbles while supporting growth. A more proactive fiscal policy harkens back to China's handling of its last financial purge in 1998-2001. If banks prove unable or unwilling to lend sufficiently, additional fiscal expansion will pick up the slack. New local government debt can surprise by 1% of GDP or more, while formal bank lending amidst an ongoing crackdown on shadow lending could add new credit of around 3.4% of GDP and hence mitigate or halt the slowdown in credit growth. The combined effect would be an unexpected boost to demand worth 4.4% of GDP in H2 2018, which would exert an unknown, but positive, multiplier effect. We are replacing our "Reform Reboot" checklist, which has seen every item checked off, with a new "Stimulus Checklist" that we will monitor going forward (Appendix). Chart 23How To Monitor The Stimulus Impact How To Monitor The Stimulus Impact How To Monitor The Stimulus Impact Neither the size of this stimulus, nor the composition of fiscal spending, will be quite as positive for EM/commodities as were past stimulus efforts. China's investment profile is changing as the reform agenda seeks to reduce industrial overcapacity and build the foundations for stronger household demand and a consumer society. Increases in fiscal spending today will involve more "soft infrastructure" than in the past. We recommend reinstituting our long China / short EM equity trade, using MSCI China ex-tech equities. We also recommend reinitiating our long China Big Five Banks / short other banks trade, to capture the disparity of the financial crackdown's impact. To capture the new upside risk for global risk assets, our colleague Mathieu Savary at BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy has devised a "China Play" index that is highly sensitive to Chinese growth - it includes iron ore prices, Swedish industrial stocks, Brazilian stocks, and EM junk bonds (all in USD terms), as well as the Aussie dollar-Japanese yen cross. BCA Geopolitical Strategy also recommends this trade as a portfolio hedge to our negative EM view (Chart 23).23 A major risk to the "modest reflation" argument in this report will materialize if the RMB depreciates excessively in response to the escalating trade war (Trump will likely post a new tariff list on $200 billion worth of goods in September).24 This could result in renewed capital outflows breaking through China's capital controls, the PBC appearing to lose control, EM currencies and capital markets getting roiled, EM financial conditions tightening sharply, and global trade and growth slowing sharply. China would ultimately have to stimulate more (moving in the direction of Credit Scenario A above), but a market selloff would occur first and much economic damage would be done. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Qingyun Xu, Senior Analyst qingyun@bcaresearch.com Yushu Ma, Contributing Editor yushum@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "A Long View Of China," dated December 28, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 4 The fact that he began tightening financial policy in late 2016 and early 2017 was especially significant because only a very self-assured leader would attempt something so risky ahead of a midterm party congress. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Reports, "Trump, Year Two: Let The Trade War Begin," dated March 14, 2018, and "Trump's Demands On China," dated April 4, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 The statement declared in its first paragraph that China would "maintain the stability of employment," with employment being the first item in a list. A similar emphasis on employment has not been seen in Politburo statements since the troubled year of 2015, and it has not been mentioned substantively in 11 key meetings since the nineteenth National Party Congress last October. 7 Please see footnote 2 above. 8 After the State Council meetings on July 23 and 26, Vice-Minister of Finance Liu Wei elaborated on the government's thinking: "These [measures] further add weight to the overall broad logic at the start of the year ... It isn't at all that the macro-economy has undergone any major volatility, and we are not undertaking any irrigation-style, shock-style measures." Please see "Beijing Sheds Light On Plans For More Active Fiscal Policy," China Banking News, July 27, 2018, available at www.chinabankingnews.com. 9 Our colleagues in BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy service have dubbed this policy "triple tightening." Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EM And China: A Deleveraging Update," dated November 8, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 This spike in net new issuance in the single month of June is equivalent to 19.8% of the total net new issuance in 2017. It is also much higher than the average monthly issuance in 2014-17 or in 2017 alone. However, since June and July have typically seen the largest spikes in new issuance, it will be critical to see if new issuance in 2018 remains elevated after July. Notably, local government bond issuance is currently divided between brand new bonds, debt swap bonds, and refinancing bonds, but the debt swap program will expire in August, and the refinancing bonds are separate, meaning that a larger share of the allowed new issuance will involve new spending. 11 The IMF expects the change in local government explicit debt this year to be 1.9 trillion RMB. That is, a rise from 16.5 trillion existing to 18.4 trillion estimated. 12 This number is derived by assuming that total debt reaches 92.2% of the debt limit in 2018, which is the share it reached in 2015 (since 2015 the share has fallen to 87.5% in 2017). However, 2015 was a year of fiscal easing, so it is not unreasonable to apply this ratio to 2018 as an upper estimate, now that the government's easing signal is clear. One reason that local governments have been increasing debt more slowly than allowed was that the central government was tightening investment restrictions, for instance on urban rail investment. Many new subway projects of second-tier cities have been suspended, and after raising the qualifications for subway and light rail, the majority of third- and fourth-tier cities were not qualified to build urban rail at all. As a result, local governments' investment intentions were dropping. Now this may change. 13 This estimate comes from the Ministry of Finance. The previous estimate was from the National Accounting Office and stood at 7 trillion RMB as of June 2013. 14 Maturities will spike in the coming years, so this policy signal suggests that further support for refinancing will be forthcoming. There are even unconfirmed rumors of a second phase of the local government debt swap program, which would cover "hidden debt." 15 We say "minimum" because we do not include projections of the impact of tax deductions, lacking details. We only estimate the headline savings to household incomes - loss to government revenues - based on the increase of the individual income tax eligibility threshold and the reduction in tax rates for different income brackets. 16 Additional fiscal measures include corporate tax cuts, R&D expense credits, VAT rebates, and reductions in various fees. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "What Geopolitical Risks Keep Our Clients Awake?" dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 In fact it is more like 1.9 trillion due to strings attached, but a fourth or even fifth RRR cut could push it 3.5 trillion for the year, assuming the average 800 billion cut. 19 Ultimately this trend will result in tightening liquidity conditions in China, but for now forex reserves are not draining massively, while the RRR cuts are easing domestic liquidity. 20 Please see "China Said To Ease Bank Capital Rule To Free Up More Lending," Bloomberg, July 25, and "China's Central Bank Steps Up Effort To Boost Lending," August 1, 2018, available at www.bloomberg.com. 21 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Ms. Mea Challenges The EMS View," dated October 19, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see BCA Research Special Report, "China: Party Congress Ends ... So What?" dated November 2, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 23 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "The Dollar And Risk Assets Are Beholden To China's Stimulus," dated August 3, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 24 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Three Macro Paradoxes Are About To Come True," dated August 3, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Appendix China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus? China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus? China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus? China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus?

Highlights Our forecast of higher geopolitical risk in 2018 is coming to fruition; President Trump's two key policies, economic populism (fiscal stimulus) and mercantilism (trade tariffs), will counteract each other; Stimulus is leading to trade deficits and a stronger dollar, while a stronger dollar encourages trade deficits. This is a problem for Trump in 2020; The administration will seek coordinated international currency moves, but the U.S. has less influence today than it did at the time of key 1971 and 1985 precedents; Favor DM over EM assets; favor U.S. over DM stocks; and expect Trump to threaten tariffs against currency manipulation. Feature "China, the European Union and others have been manipulating their currencies and interest rates lower, while the U.S. is raising rates while the dollars [sic] gets stronger and stronger with each passing day - taking away our big competitive edge. As usual, not a level playing field... The United States should not be penalized because we are doing so well. Tightening now hurts all that we have done. The U.S. should be allowed to recapture what was lost due to illegal currency manipulation and BAD Trade Deals. Debt coming due & we are raising rates - Really?" - President Donald Trump, tweet, July 20, 2018 "The dollar may be our currency, but it is your problem." - Treasury Secretary John Connally, 1971, speaking to a group of European officials Chart 1A Fiscal Boost Will Accelerate Inflation A Fiscal Boost Will Accelerate Inflation A Fiscal Boost Will Accelerate Inflation In April 2017, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy concluded that "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017," but also "Understated In 2018."1 At the heart of our forecast was the interplay between three factors: "Domestic Policy Is Bullish USD:" We argued in early 2017 that the political "path of least resistance" would lead to "tax cuts in 2017" and that President Trump's economic policies "will involve greater budget deficits than the current budget law augurs." The conclusion was that "even a modest boost to government spending will motivate the Fed to accelerate its tightening cycle at a time when the output gap is nearly closed and unemployment is plumbing decade lows" (Chart 1). "Chinese Growth Scare Is Bullish USD:" We also correctly predicted that "Chinese data is likely to decelerate and induce a growth scare." Even though Chinese data was peachy in early 2017, we pointed out that "Chinese policymakers have gone forward with property market curbs and begun to tighten liquidity marginally in the interbank system." We would go on to produce several in-depth research reports throughout the year that outlined these reform efforts and linked them to President Xi Jinping's reduced political constraints following the nineteenth National Party Congress in October.2 "European Political Risks Are Bullish USD:" Finally, we argued that a combination of political risks - e.g., the 2018 Italian election - and the slowdown in China would reverberate in Europe, forcing "the ECB to be a lot more dovish than the market expects." Our conclusion in April 2017 - quoted verbatim below - was that these three factors would combine to force President Trump to try to talk down the greenback: The combination of Trump's domestic policy agenda and these global macro-economic factors will drive the dollar up. At some point in 2018, we assume that USD strength will begin to irk Donald Trump and his cabinet, particularly as it prevents them from delivering on their promise of shrinking trade deficits. We suspect that President Trump will eventually reach for the "currency manipulation" playbook of the 1970s-80s. On July 20, President Trump put a big red bow on our forecast by doing precisely what we expected: talking down the USD by charging the rest of the world with currency manipulation. Speaking with CNBC, Trump pointed out that "in China, their currency is dropping like a rock and our currency is going up, and I have to tell you it puts us at a disadvantage." President Trump is correct: Beijing is definitely manipulating the currency, as we pointed out last week (Chart 2).3 Chart 2The CNY Is Much Weaker Than The DXY Implies The CNY Is Much Weaker Than The DXY Implies The CNY Is Much Weaker Than The DXY Implies Chart 3U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD But President Trump wants to have his cake and eat it too. His economic stimulus is inevitably leading to a widening trade deficit. With tax cuts and increased capital spending, U.S. demand is growing faster than demand in the rest of the world. This economic outperformance in the context of stalling global growth is leading to the greenback rally that we forecast (Chart 3). When the U.S. economy outperforms the rest of the world, the Fed tends to be in the lead of tightening policy among G10 economies, spurring a rally in the trade-weighted dollar index (Chart 4).4 A rising currency then reinforces the trade deficit. Chart 42018 Rally Is Not Over 2018 Rally Is Not Over 2018 Rally Is Not Over There is much uncertainty regarding President Trump's true preferences, but we know two things: he is an economic populist and a mercantilist. He has been clear on both fronts throughout his campaign. The problem for President Trump is that the two policies are working against one another. His stimulus has spurred a USD rally that will likely offset the impact of his tariffs, particularly the more modest 10% variety he has said he will impose on all Chinese imports (Chart 5). Chart 5Trump Threatens Tariffs On All ##br##Chinese Imports (And Then Some) The Dollar May Be Our Currency, But It Is Your Problem The Dollar May Be Our Currency, But It Is Your Problem The Trump administration is therefore facing a choice: triple-down on tariffs, potentially causing a market and economic calamity in the process; or, use protectionism as a bargaining chip in a bout of orchestrated and negotiated, global, currency manipulation. As we pointed out last April, President Trump would not be the first to face this choice: 1971 Smithsonian Agreement President Richard Nixon famously closed the gold window on August 15, 1971 in what came to be known as the "Nixon shock."5 Less understood, but also part of the "shock," was a 10% surcharge on all imported goods, the purpose of which was to force U.S. trade partners to appreciate their currencies against the USD. Much like Trump, Nixon had campaigned on a mercantilist platform in 1968, promising southern voters that he would limit imports of Japanese textiles. As president, he staffed his cabinet with trade hawks, including Treasury Secretary John Connally who was in favor of threatening reduced U.S. military presence in Europe and Japan to force Berlin and Tokyo to the negotiating table. Connally also gave us the colorful quote for the title of this report and also famously quipped that "foreigners are out to screw us, our job is to screw them first." The economists in the Nixon cabinet - including Paul Volcker, then the Undersecretary of the Treasury under Connally - opposed the surcharge, fearing retaliation from trade partners, but policymakers like Connally favored brinkmanship. The U.S. ultimately got other currencies to appreciate, mostly the deutschmark and yen, but not by as much as it wanted. Critics in the administration - particularly the powerful National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger - feared that brinkmanship would hurt Trans-Atlantic relations and thus impede Cold War coordination. As such, the U.S. removed the surcharge merely four months later without meeting most of its objectives, including increasing allied defense-spending and reducing trade barriers to U.S. exports. Even the currency effects dissipated within two years. 1985 Plaza Accord The U.S. reached for the mercantilist playbook once again in the early 1980s as the USD rallied on the back of Volcker's dramatic interest rate hikes. The subsequent dollar bull market hurt U.S. exports and widened the current account deficit (Chart 6). U.S. negotiators benefited from the 1971 Nixon surcharge because European and Japanese policymakers knew that the U.S. was serious about tariffs and had no problem with protectionism. The result was coordinated currency manipulation to drive down the dollar and self-imposed export limits by Japan, both of which had an almost instantaneous effect on the Japanese share of American imports (Chart 7). Chart 6Dollar Bull Market And Current Account Balance In 1980s-90s Dollar Bull Market And Current Account Balance In 1980s-90s Dollar Bull Market And Current Account Balance In 1980s-90s Chart 7The U.S. Got What It Wanted From Plaza Accord The U.S. Got What It Wanted From Plaza Accord The U.S. Got What It Wanted From Plaza Accord The Smithsonian and Plaza examples are important for two reasons. First, they show that Trump's mercantilism is neither novel nor somehow "un-American." It especially is not anti-Republican, with both Nixon and Reagan having used overt protectionism and currency manipulation in recent history. Second, the experience of both negotiations in bringing about a shift in the U.S. trade imbalance will motivate the Trump administration to reach for the same "coordinated currency manipulation" playbook. In fact, Trump's Trade Representative, Robert Lighthizer, is a veteran of the 1985 agreement, having negotiated it for President Ronald Reagan. Should investors get ahead of the Plaza Accord 2.0 by shorting the greenback? The knee-jerk reactions of the market suggest that this is the thinking of the median investor. For instance, the DXY fell by 0.7% on the day of Trump's tweet. We disagree, however, and are sticking with our long DXY position, initiated on January 31, 2018, and up 6.17% since then.6 Why? Because 2018 is neither 1985 nor 1971. President Trump, and America more broadly, is facing several constraints today. As such, we do not expect that he will find eager partners in negotiating a coordinated currency manipulation. Chart 8Globalization Has Reached Its Apex Globalization Has Reached Its Apex Globalization Has Reached Its Apex Chart 9Global Protectionism Has Bottomed Global Protectionism Has Bottomed Global Protectionism Has Bottomed Economy: Europe and Japan were booming economies in the early 1970s and mid-1980s, and had the luxury of appreciating their currencies at the U.S.'s behest. Today, it is difficult to see how either Europe or China (now in Japan's place) can afford significant monetary policy tightening that would engineer structural bull markets in their currencies. For Europe, the risk is that the peripheral economies may not survive a back-up in yields. For China, if the PBOC engineered a persistently strong CNY/USD, it would tighten financial conditions and hurt the export sector. Apex of Globalization: U.S. policymakers were able to negotiate the 1971 and 1985 currency agreements in part because of the underlying promise of growing trade. Europe and Japan agreed to a tactical retreat to get a strategic victory: ongoing trade liberalization. In 2017-18, however, this promise has been muted. Global trade has peaked as a percent of GDP (Chart 8), average tariffs have bottomed (Chart 9), and the number of preferential trade agreements signed each year has collapsed (Chart 10). Temporary trade barriers have ticked up since 2008 (Chart 11). To be clear, these signs are not necessarily proof that globalization is reversing, but merely that it has reached its apex. Nonetheless, America's trade partners will be far less willing to agree to coordinated currency manipulation in an era where the global trade pie is no longer growing. Chart 10Low-Hanging Fruit Of Globalization Already Picked The Dollar May Be Our Currency, But It Is Your Problem The Dollar May Be Our Currency, But It Is Your Problem Chart 11Temporary Trade Barriers Ticking Up The Dollar May Be Our Currency, But It Is Your Problem The Dollar May Be Our Currency, But It Is Your Problem Multipolarity: The U.S. is simply not as powerful - relatively speaking - as it was at the height of the Cold War (Chart 12). As such, it is difficult to see how President Trump can successfully bully major economies into self-defeating currency manipulation. The Cold War gave the U.S. far greater leverage, particularly vis-à-vis Europe and Japan. Today, Trump's threats of pulling out of NATO are merely spurring Europeans to integrate further as Russia is no longer the threat it once was. There are no Soviet tank divisions arrayed across the Fulda Gap in Eastern Germany. In fact, Russia is cutting defense spending and further integrating into the European economy with new pipeline infrastructure (which Trump has pointedly criticized). And China is overtly hostile to the U.S. and thus completely unlike Japan, which huddled under the American nuclear umbrella during the U.S.-Japan trade war. Chart 12The U.S. Has Less Weight To Throw Around The U.S. Has Less Weight To Throw Around The U.S. Has Less Weight To Throw Around Is the Trump administration ignoring these major differences? No. There may be a much simpler explanation for President Trump's dollar bearishness: domestic politics. We only see a probability of around 20% that the U.S. trade deficit will shrink during the course of Trump's first term in office. Most likely, the trade deficit will widen as domestic stimulus supercharges the U.S. economy relative to the rest of the world and the greenback rallies. Economic slowdown in China and EM will likely further expand the U.S. trade deficit as these economies cut interest rates and allow their exchange rates to drop. President Trump therefore has a problem. The only way the trade deficit will shrink by 2020 is if the U.S. enters a recession and domestic demand shrinks - but presidents do not survive re-election during recessions. If a recession does not develop, he will have to explain to voters in early 2020 why the trade deficit actually surged, despite all his tough rhetoric, tariffs, and trade negotiations. The charge of currency manipulation could therefore do the trick, blaming the rest of the world for the USD rally that was largely caused by U.S. stimulus. Bottom Line: We do not expect the Fed to respond to President Trump's rhetoric. The current Powell Fed is not the 1970s Burns Fed. As such, we would fade any upcoming weakness in the USD. We expect the dollar bull market to carry on in 2018 and to continue weighing on global risk assets, namely EM equities and currencies. Investors should remain overweight DM assets relative to EM in terms of broad global asset allocation, and overweight U.S. equities in particular relative to other DM equities. The major risk to our bullish USD view is not a compliant Fed but rather a China that "blinks." Beijing has begun some modest stimulus in the face of the economic slowdown produced by the Xi administration's aforementioned efforts to contain systemic financial risk. Over the next month, we will dive deep into Chinese politics to see if the trade conflict will prompt Xi to reverse his attempt to tighten policy and once again embrace a resurgence in credit growth. In the long term, however, we expect that the Trump administration will grow frustrated with the fact that its two main policies - economic populism at home and mercantilism abroad - will offset each other and that the U.S. trade imbalance will continue to grow apace. At that point, President Trump may decide to reach for two levers: staffing the Fed with über doves and/or ratcheting up tariffs to much higher levels. We expect the latter to be the more likely outcome than the former, and either would result in a serious blowback from the rest of the world that would unsettle markets. More importantly, it would be the death knell of globalization, stranding trillions of dollars of capex behind suddenly very relevant national borders. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017," dated April 5, 2017, and "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "China Down, India Up," dated March 15, 2017, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, "China's Nineteenth Party Congress: A Primer," dated September 13, 2017, "China: Party Congress Ends... So What?" dated November 1, 2017, "A Long View Of China," dated December 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing?" dated July 18, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "The S&P Doesn't Abhor A Strong Dollar," dated July 20, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Douglas A. Irwin, "The Nixon shock after forty years: the import surcharge revisited," World Trade Review 12:01 (January 2013), pp. 29-56, available at www.nber.org; and Barry Eichengreen, "Before the Plaza: The Exchange Rate Stabilization Attempts of 1925, 1933, 1936, and 1971," Behl Working Paper Series 11 (2015). 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "America Is Roaring Back! (But Why Is King Dollar Whispering?)," dated January 31, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights President Trump is a prisoner of his own mercantilist rhetoric - there is more trade tension and volatility to come; China's depreciation of the RMB can go further - and will elicit more punitive measures from Trump; Gasoline prices are a constraint on Trump's Maximum Pressure campaign against Iran, but only until midterm elections are done; Brexit woes are keeping us short GBP/USD, but Theresa May has discovered the credible threat of new elections - we are putting a trailing stop on this trade at 2%; The EU migration "crisis" is neither a real crisis nor investment relevant. Feature General Hummel: I'm not about to kill 80,000 innocent people! We bluffed, they called it. The mission is over. Captain Frye: Whoever said anything about bluffing, General? The Rock, 1996 As BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has expected since November 2016, the risk of trade war poses a clear and present danger for investors.1 The U.S. imposed tariffs of 25% on $34 billion of Chinese goods on July 6, with tariffs on another $16 billion going into effect on July 20. President Trump announced on July 10 that he would levy a 10% tariff on an additional $200 billion of Chinese imports by August 31 and then on another $300 billion if China still refused to back down. That would add up to $550 billion in Chinese goods and services that could be subject to tariffs, more than China exported to the U.S. last year (Chart 1)! Chart 1President Trump Magically Threatens ##br##Even Non-Existent China Imports Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Table 1Market's Couldn't Care##br## Less About Tariffs Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? The S&P 500 couldn't care less. Trade-related events - and other geopolitical crises - have thus far had a negligible impact on U.S. equities (Table 1). If anything, stocks appear to be slowly climbing the geopolitical wall of worry since plunging to a low of 2,581 on February 8, which was before any trade tensions emerged in full focus (Chart 2A and Chart 2B).2 Chart 2AStocks Climbing The 'Wall Of Worry' On Trade Tensions... Stocks Climbing The 'Wall Of Worry' On Trade Tensions... Stocks Climbing The 'Wall Of Worry' On Trade Tensions... Chart 2B...And On Military Tensions ...And On Military Tensions ...And On Military Tensions Speaking with clients, the consensus appears to be that President Trump is "bluffing." After all, did he not successfully create a "credible threat" amidst the tensions with North Korea, thus forcing Pyongyang to stand down, change its bellicose rhetoric, free U.S. prisoners, and freeze its nuclear device and ballistic tests? This was a genuinely successful application of his "Maximum Pressure" tactic and he did not have to fire a shot!3 Yes, but the Washington-Pyongyang 2017 brinkmanship caused 10-year Treasuries to plunge 35bps from their July 7 peak to their September 7 low.4 Our colleague Rob Robis - BCA's Chief Fixed Income Strategist - assures us that this move in Treasuries last summer was purely North Korea-related, which suggests that not all investors were relaxed and expecting tensions to resolve themselves.5 President Trump may be bluffing on protectionism, on Iran, and on the U.S.'s trade and geopolitical relationship with its G7 allies. However, we should consider two risks. The first is that his opponents might not back down. Yes, we agree with the consensus that China will ultimately lose a trade war with the U.S. It is a trade surplus country fighting a trade war with its chief source of final export demand (Chart 3). Chart 3China Has More To Lose Than The U.S. China Has More To Lose Than The U.S. China Has More To Lose Than The U.S. Forecasting when China backs down, however, is difficult. If Beijing backs down in 2018, investors betting on stocks ignoring trade risks will be proven correct. We do not see this happening. Instead, we expect Beijing to continue using CNY depreciation to offset the impact of tariffs, likely exacerbating the ongoing USD rally in the process, and eventually putting pressure on U.S. corporate earnings in Q3 and Q4. China does not appear to be panicking about the threat of a 10% tariff. In fact, Beijing may decide to double-down on its structural reform efforts, which have negatively impacted growth in the country thus far, blaming President Trump's protectionist policies for the pain. The other question is whether the U.S. political context will allow President Trump to end the trade war. Our clients, colleagues, and friends in the financial industry seem to have collective amnesia about the "trade truce" orchestrated by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on May 20. The truce lasted merely a couple of days, with the U.S. ultimately announcing on May 29 that the tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese imports would go forward. President Trump may have wanted to present the Mnuchin truce as a big victory ahead of the midterm elections. His tweets the next day were triumphant.6 However, once the collective American establishment (Congress, pundits, and even Trump's ardent supporters in the conservative media) got hold of the details of the deal, they were shocked and disappointed.7 Why? The American "median voter" is far more protectionist than the political establishment has wanted to admit. Now that this public preference has been elucidated, President Trump himself cannot move against it. He is a prisoner of his own mercantilist rhetoric. President Trump may be dealing with a situation similar to the one General Hummel faced in the iconic mid-1990s action thriller The Rock. Hummel, played by the steely Ed Harris, holed up in Alcatraz with VX gas-armed M55 rockets, threatening to take out tens of thousands in San Francisco unless a ransom was paid by the Washington establishment. Unfortunately for Hummel, the psychotic marines he brought to "The Rock" turned against him when he suggested that the entire operation was in fact a bluff. As such, we reiterate: Whoever said anything about bluffing? China: Beware Beijing's Retaliation Since 2017, we have cautioned investors that Beijing was likely to retaliate to the imposition of tariffs by weakening the CNY/USD.8 June was the largest one-month decline in CNY/USD since the massive devaluation in 1994 (Chart 4). BCA's China Investment Strategy has shown that the PBOC is indeed allowing China's currency to depreciate against the U.S. dollar.9 Chart 5 shows the actual CNY/USD exchange rate alongside the value that would be predicted based on its relationship with the dollar over the year prior to its early-April peak. The chart suggests that the decline in CNY/USD appears to have reflected the strength in the U.S. dollar until very recently. However, CNY/USD has fallen over the past few days by a magnitude in excess of what would be expected given movements in the greenback, implying that the very recent weakness is likely policy-driven. Chart 4The Biggest One-Month Yuan Drop Since 1994 The Biggest One-Month Yuan Drop Since 1994 The Biggest One-Month Yuan Drop Since 1994 Chart 5The CNY Is Much Weaker Than The DXY Implies The CNY Is Much Weaker Than The DXY Implies The CNY Is Much Weaker Than The DXY Implies BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy has pointed out that currency depreciation is also a way to stimulate the economy in the face of the central government's ongoing deleveraging policy.10 Not only does a weaker CNY dull the impact of Trump's tariffs, it also insulates China against a slowdown in global trade volumes (Chart 6). Moreover, China's current account fell into deficit last quarter (Chart 7). A weaker RMB helps deal with this issue, but the PBoC may be forced to cut Reserve Requirement Ratios (RRRs) further if the deficit remains in place, forcing the currency even lower. Chart 6China Needs A Buffer Against Slowing Trade China Needs A Buffer Against Slowing Trade China Needs A Buffer Against Slowing Trade Chart 7Supportive Conditions For A Lower CNY Supportive Conditions For A Lower CNY Supportive Conditions For A Lower CNY There is no silver lining in this move by Beijing. Evidence that China is manipulating its currency would be a clear sign of an outright, full-scale trade war between the U.S. and China. On one hand, a falling RMB will improve the financial position of China's exporters. On the other hand, it may invite further protectionist action from the U.S., including a threat by the White House to increase the tariff levels on the additional $500 billion of imports from the current 10% rate, or to enhance export restrictions on critical technologies, or to add new investment restrictions. Several of our clients have pointed out that China does not want a trade war, that it cannot win a trade war, and that it is therefore likely to offer concessions ahead of the U.S. midterm election. We agree that China is at a disadvantage.11 But we also reiterate that the concessions have already been offered, in mid-May following the Mnuchin negotiations with Chinese Vice Premier Liu He. China and the U.S. may of course resume negotiations at any time, but it will likely take months, at best, to arrange a deal that reverses this month's actual implementation of tariffs. We think that the obsession with "who will win the trade war" is misplaced. Of course, the U.S. will "win." The problem is that what the Trump administration and what investors consider a "victory" may be starkly different: victory may not include a rip-roaring stock market. In fact, President Trump may require a stock market correction precisely to convince his audience, including those in Beijing, that his threats are indeed credible. Bottom Line: President Trump's promise of a 10% tariff on $500 billion of Chinese imports can easily be assuaged by a CNY/USD depreciation. If we know that Beijing is depreciating its currency, so does the White House. The charge against Beijing for currency manipulation could occur as late as the Treasury Department's semiannual Report to Congress in October, or informally via a presidential tweet at any time before then. While the formal remedies against a country deemed to be officially engaged in currency manipulation are relatively benign in the context of the ongoing trade war, we would expect President Trump to up the pressure on China regardless. Iran: Can Midterm Election Stay President Trump's Hand? We identified U.S.-Iran tensions in our annual Strategic Outlook as the premier geopolitical risk in 2018 aside from trade concerns.12 We subsequently argued that President Trump's application of "Maximum Pressure" against Iran would likely exacerbate tensions in the Middle East, add a geopolitical risk premium to oil prices, and potentially lead to a military conflict in 2019 (Diagram 1).13 Diagram 1Iran-U.S. Tension Decision Tree Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? The Brent crude oil price has come off its highs just below $80/bbl in late May and appears to be holding at $75/bbl. Is the market once again ignoring bubbling U.S.-Iran tensions or is there another factor at play? We suspect that investors are placing their hopes on White House pressure on producers to bring massive amounts of crude online to offset the impact of "Maximum Pressure" on Iran. First, Trump tweeted in April that "OPEC is at it again," keeping oil prices artificially high. He followed this with another tweet at the end of June, directly requesting that Saudi Arabia increase oil production by up to 2 million b/d so that he may continue to play brinkmanship with Tehran. Second, the Libyan media leaked that President Trump sent letters to the representatives of Libya's warring factions, imploring them to restart oil exports or face international prosecution and potential U.S. military intervention.14 The pressure on the Libyan authorities appears to have worked, with the Tripoli-based National Oil Corporation (NOC) ending its force majeure, a legal waiver on contractual obligations, on the ports of Ras Lanuf, Es Sider, Zueitina, and Hariga. Third, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo signaled on July 10 that the U.S. would consider granting waivers to countries seeking to avoid being sanctioned for buying oil from Iran. On July 15, however, the administration clarified the comment by stating that it would only grant limited exceptions based on national security or humanitarian efforts. The White House is realizing that, unlike its brinkmanship with North Korea, "Maximum Pressure" on Iran comes with immediate domestic costs: higher gasoline prices (Chart 8). The last thing President Trump wants to see is his household tax cut trumped by the higher cost of gasoline. Chart 8How Badly Do Americans Want A New Iran Deal? How Badly Do Americans Want A New Iran Deal? How Badly Do Americans Want A New Iran Deal? Chart 9Iran Is Not Yet At Peak North Korean Levels Of Threat Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Applying Maximum Pressure on Iran is tricky. Politically, the upside is limited for President Trump. First, a majority of Americans (62%) do not want to see the U.S. withdraw from the deal, and do not consider Iran to be as critical of a threat as North Korea (Chart 9). That said, 40% believe that Iran is a "very serious" threat - up from just 30% in October, 2017 - and 62% of Americans believe that "Iran has violated the terms" of the nuclear agreement. These are numbers that President Trump can "work with," but not if gasoline prices rise to consumer-pinching levels. As such, the question is whether we should stand down from our bullish oil outlook given President Trump's active role in eking out new supply. We should, if there were supply to be eked out. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy believes that global supply capacity will not be sufficient to keep prices below $80/bbl in the event that Venezuela collapses in 2019 or that Iranian export losses are greater than the 500,000 b/d we are currently projecting.15 The U.S. EIA estimates there is only 1.8mm b/d of spare capacity available worldwide this year, to fall to just over 1 mm b/d next year (Chart 10). Our commodity strategists believe that the idle and spare capacity of KSA, Russia, and other core OPEC 2.0 states that can actually increase production would be taxed to the extreme to cover losses of Iranian exports, especially if the losses reached 1 mm b/d. In fact, many secondary OPEC 2.0 producers are struggling to produce at their 2017-2018 production quota, suggesting that lack of investment and natural depletion have already taken their toll (Chart 11). Chart 10Global Spare Capacity##br## Stretched Thin Global Spare Capacity Stretched Thin Global Spare Capacity Stretched Thin Chart 11OPEC 2.0's Core Producers Would##br## Struggle To Replace Lost Exports OPEC 2.0's Core Producers Would Struggle To Replace Lost Exports OPEC 2.0's Core Producers Would Struggle To Replace Lost Exports Could President Trump back off from the threat of brinkmanship with Iran due to the risk of rising oil prices? Yes, absolutely. We have argued in the past that President Trump appears to be an intensely domestically-focused president. We also see little logic, from the perspective of U.S. interests broadly defined or President Trump's "America First" strategy specifically, in undermining the Obama-era nuclear agreement. As such, domestic constraints could stay President Trump's hand. On the other hand, these constraints would have the greatest force ahead of the November 2018 midterm and the 2020 general elections. This gives President Trump a window between November 2018 and at least the early summer of 2020 to put Maximum Pressure on Iran. As such, we think that investors should fade White House attempts to shore up global supply. Once the midterm election is over, the pressure will fall back on Iran. What about Iran's calculus? Tehran has an interest in dampening tensions ahead of the midterms as well. However, if the U.S. actually enforces sanctions, as we expect it will, we are certain that Iran will begin to ponder the retaliatory action we describe in Diagram 1. In fact, Iran's population appears to be itching for a confrontation, with an ever-increasing majority supporting the restart of Iranian nuclear facilities in response to U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA nuclear agreement (Chart 12). Iranian officials have also already threatened to close the Straits of Hormuz as we expected they would. Chart 12Iranians Supported Ending Nuclear Deal If The U.S. Did (And It Did!) Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Bottom Line: Between now and November, U.S. policy towards Iran may be much ado about nothing. However, we expect the pressure to rise by the end of the year and especially in 2019. Our subjective probability of armed conflict remains at an elevated 20%, by the end of 2019. This is four times greater than our probability of kinetic action amidst the tensions between the U.S. and North Korea. Brexit: Has Theresa May Figured Out How Credible Threats Work? We have long argued that a soft Brexit is incompatible with Euroskeptic demands for increased sovereignty (Diagram 2). And, indeed, sovereignty was one of the main demands - if not the main demand - of Brexit voters ahead of the referendum. A large percent, 32% of "leave" voters, said they would be willing to vote "stay" if a deal with the EU gave "more power to the U.K. parliament," an even greater share than those focused on migration (Chart 13). As such, since March 2016, we have expected the U.K. Conservative Party to split into factions regardless of the outcome of the vote on EU membership.16 Diagram 2The Illogic Of ##br##Soft Brexit Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Chart 13Sovereignty Topped The##br## List Of Brexit Voter Concerns Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May has fought against the inevitable by inviting notable Euroskeptics into her cabinet and by trying to pursue a hard Brexit in practice. The problem with this strategy is that it won't work in Westminster, where a whopping 74% of all members of parliament, and 55% of all Tory MPs, declared themselves as "remain" supporters ahead of the 2016 referendum (Chart 14). Given that the House of Commons has to approve the ultimate U.K.-EU deal, a hard-Brexit deal is likely to fail in Parliament. While such a defeat would not automatically bring up an election, May would be essentially left without any political capital with which to continue EU negotiations and would either have to resign or call a new election. Chart 14Westminster MPs Support Bremain! Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Theresa May therefore has two options. The first is to trust the political instincts of David Davis and Boris Johnson and try to push a hard Brexit through the House of Commons. But with a slim majority of just one MP, how would she accomplish such a feat? Nobody knows, ourselves included, which is why we shorted the GBP as long as May stubbornly listened to the Euroskeptics in her cabinet. However, it appears that May has finally decided to ditch her Euroskeptic cabinet members and establish the "credible threat" of a new election. While May has not uttered the phrase directly, she hinted at a new election when she suggested that "there may be no Brexit at all." The message to hard-Brexit Tory rebels is clear: back my version of Brexit or risk new elections. From an economic perspective, retaining some semblance of Common Market membership is obviously superior to the hard-Brexit alternative. It is so superior, in fact, that Boris Johnson himself called for it immediately following the referendum!17 From a political perspective, it is also much easier to persuade less than two-dozen committed Tory Euroskeptics that a new election would be folly than it is to convince half of the party that the economic risks of a hard-Brexit are inconsequential. The switch in May's tactic therefore warrants a cautionary approach to our current GBP/USD short. The recommendation is up 5.55% since February 14. However, the GBP could be given a tailwind if investors sniff out fear amongst hard Brexit Tories. We still believe that downside risks exist in the short term. First, there is no telling if the EU will accept the particularities of May's Brexit strategy. In fact, the EU may want to make May's life even more difficult by asking for more concessions. Second, Euroskeptic Tories in the House of Commons may be willing martyrs, rebelling against May regardless of the economic and political consequences. Bottom Line: We are keeping our short GBP/USD on for now, which has returned 5.55% since February 14, but we will tighten the stop to just 2%. We think that Theresa May has finally figured out how to use "credible threats" to cajole her party into a soft Brexit. The problem, however, is that she still needs Brussels to play ball and her Euroskeptic MPs to act against their ideology. Europe: Will The Immigration Crisis End The EU? Chart 15European Migration Crisis Is Over European Migration Crisis Is Over European Migration Crisis Is Over No. There is no migration crisis in the EU (Chart 15). Despite the posturing in Europe over the past several months, the migration crisis ended in October 2015. As we forecast at the time, Europe has since taken several steps ovet the succeeding years to increase the enforcement of its external borders, including illiberal methods that many investors thought beyond European sensibilities.18 Today, EU member states are openly interdicting ships carrying asylum seekers and turning them away in international waters. Chancellor Angela Merkel has become just the latest in a long line of policymakers to succumb to her political constraints - and abandon her preferences - by agreeing to end the standoff with her conservative Bavarian allies. Merkel has agreed to set up transit centers on the border of Austria from where migrants will be returned to the EU country where they were originally registered, or simply sent across the border to Austria. The idea behind the move is to end the "pull" that Merkel inadvertently created by openly declaring that Germany was open to migrants regardless of where they came from. Why wouldn't migrants keep coming to Europe regardless? Because if the promise of a job and a legal status in Germany or other EU member states is no longer available, the cost - in treasure, limb, and life - of the journey through the Sahara and unstable states like Libya, and the Mediterranean Sea will no longer make sense. As Chart 15 shows, potential migrants are capable of making the cost-benefit calculation and are electing to stay put. Bottom Line: The EU migration crisis is not investment-relevant. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see the Appendices for the detailed description of events. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Pyongyang's Pivot To America," June 8, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Have Bond Yields Peaked For The Cycle? No," dated September 12, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 6 His tweets in the immediacy of the deal suggest that this was the case. He tweeted, immediately following Mnuchin's Fox News appearance, "China has agreed to buy massive amounts of ADDITIONAL Farm/Agricultural Products - would be one of the best things to happen to our farmers in many years!" He then tweeted again, suggesting that his deal was superior to anything President Obama got, "I ask Senator Chuck Schumer, why didn't President Obama & the Democrats do something about Trade with China, including Theft of Intellectual Property etc.? They did NOTHING! With that being said, Chuck & I have long agreed on this issue! Trade, plus, with China will happen!" His third tweet suggested that the deal being negotiated was indeed a big compromise, "On China, Barriers and Tariffs to come down for first time." All random capitalizations are President Trump's originals. 7 We reacted to the truce by arguing that it would not "last long." It lasted merely three days! Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Some Good News (Trade), Some Bad News (Italy)," dated May 23, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, and "Are You 'Sick Of Winning' Yet?" dated June 20, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Now What?" dated June 27, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "What Is Good For China Doesn't Always Help The World," dated June 29, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Year Two: Let The Trade War Begin," dated March 14, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize," dated May 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see "Trump's letter to rivals allegedly results in resumption of oil exports in Libya," Libyan Express, dated July 11, 2018, available at libyanexpress.com. 15 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Brinkmanship Fuels Chaos In Oil Markets, And Raises The Odds Of Conflict In The Gulf," dated July 5, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Johnson stated right after the referendum that "there will continue to be free trade and access to the single market." Please see "U.K. will retain access to the EU single market: Brexit leader Johnson," Reuters, dated June 26, 2016, available at uk.reuters.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Great Migration - Europe, Refugees, And Investment Implications," dated September 23, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Appendix 2A Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Appendix 2B Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Appendix 2B (Cont.) Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Whoever Said Anything About Bluffing? Geopolitical Calendar

Dear Client, Geopolitical analysis is a fundamental part of the investment process. BCA’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist, Marko Papic, will introduce a one-day specialized course - Geopolitics & Investing - to our current BCA Academy offerings. This special inaugural session will take place on September 26 in Toronto and is available, complimentary, only to those who sign up to BCA's 2018 Investment Conference. The course is aimed at investors and asset managers and will emphasize the key principles of our geopolitical methodology. Marko launched BCA's Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) in 2012. It is the financial industry's only dedicated geopolitical research product and focuses on the geopolitical and macroeconomic realities which constrain policymakers' options. The Geopolitics & Investing course will introduce: The constraints-based methodology that underpins BCA's Geopolitical Strategy; Best-practices for reading the news and avoiding media biases; Game theory and its application to markets; Generating "geopolitical alpha;" Manipulating data in the context of political analysis. The course will conclude with two topical and market-relevant "war games," which will tie together the methods and best-practices introduced in the course. We hope to see you there. Click here to join us! Space is limited. Highlights The U.S. and China have now acted on their threats and imposed tariffs; A full-blown trade war is expected, as President Trump retaliates to China's retaliation; The Tiananmen Square incident, the third Taiwan Strait Crisis, and the Hainan Island incident are previous U.S.-China clashes worth comparing to today's conflict - they point to more trouble ahead; Trade tensions are already spilling out into strategic tensions in China's near seas. It is too soon to buy Chinese or China-exposed equities. Feature On July 6, President Donald Trump imposed a 25% tariff on $34 billion worth of Chinese imports, to expand to $50 billion on July 20. China responded with tariffs of its own on the same amount (Chart 1). Trump has since threatened to slap a 10% tariff on $200 billion worth of goods, and potentially additional tariffs on another $300 billion. Beijing is refusing to negotiate under duress. Trade tensions have already spilled into the military realm, with scuffles occurring from the coast of Africa to the Taiwan Strait.1 BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has long maintained that U.S.-China relations are in a structural, not merely cyclical, decline.2 One of the most striking illustrations of this thesis has been the divergence of the two economies since the global financial crisis. The Chinese exporter has fallen in importance to China's economy while the U.S. consumer has been taking on less debt (Chart 2). Previously, a close economic dependency - dubbed "Chimerica" by prominent commentators - limited the two countries' underlying strategic distrust. Today, strategic distrust is aggravating economic divisions. Chart 1U.S.-China Trade Hit By Tariffs The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis Chart 2Sino-American Symbiosis Is Over Sino-American Symbiosis Is Over Sino-American Symbiosis Is Over How significant is the current rupture in U.S.-China relations? A brief look at the three major crisis points of the 1980s-2000s reinforces our structural assessment: the current conflict has the potential to become the biggest conflict in U.S.-China relations since the early Cold War. Judging by previous crises, it could last two years or more and involve extensive economic sanctions and military saber-rattling. The disruption to global markets could be much greater than in the past due to China's greater heft on the world stage. Crisis #1: Tiananmen Square, 1989-91 The first major crisis in modern U.S.-China relations was also the worst to date. It is therefore the model against which to compare today's fraying relationship. It centered on the suppression of the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989 by the Communist Party and People's Liberation Army (PLA). Throughout the 1980s, China struggled to manage the rapid economic and social consequences of opening up to the outside world. The release of pent-up demand in an inefficient, command-style supply system resulted in rising bouts of inflation that spurred popular unrest (Chart 3). Meanwhile, student activism and democratic sentiment emerged in the political climate of glasnost across communist regimes. These forces coalesced into the large-scale demonstrations at Tiananmen Square, Beijing, and other cities, in the spring of 1989. In response, the ruling party declared martial law and ordered the PLA to break up the demonstrations on June 3-4. The United States responded with a series of sanctions intended to punish and isolate China's leaders. President George H. W. Bush halted arms exports, other sensitive exports, most civilian and military dialogue, development aid, and support for multilateral bank lending to China.3 The other G7 countries joined with their own restrictions on exports, aid, and loans. China's economy slowed sharply to a 4% growth rate from above 10% for most of the decade. Meanwhile the government expanded the crackdown on domestic dissent. Exports to China clearly suffered from the crisis (Chart 4). Chart 3China's Reform Era Sparked Inflation China's Reform Era Sparked Inflation China's Reform Era Sparked Inflation Chart 4Trade Suffered From Tiananmen Incident Trade Suffered From Tiananmen Incident Trade Suffered From Tiananmen Incident Ultimately, however, the U.S. and its allies proved unwilling to sustain the pressure. While multilateral lending dropped off, direct lending continued (Chart 5). China was also allowed to retain its Most Favored Nation (MFN) trading status. The G7 began removing some of the sanctions as early as the following year. The inflow of FDI recovered sharply (Chart 6). Only a few of the sanctions had a lasting effect.4 Chart 5Multilateral Lending Cut Off After Tiananmen The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis Chart 6FDI Recovered From Tiananmen Quickly The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis The relevance of Tiananmen today is that when faced with domestic instability, China's ruling party took drastic measures to ensure its supremacy. This included weathering the pain of the combined G7 trade sanctions at a time when China's economy was small, weak, and slowing. By comparison, today's trade war also threatens domestic stability - through unemployed manufacturing workers rather than pro-democracy students. Yet it does not involve a united front against China from the West (the Trump administration is simultaneously slapping tariffs on the G7!). Moreover, China's economy is far larger and more influential than in 1989. This gives it a greater ability to retaliate and to deter a conflict that is all the more consequential for global economies and markets (Table 1). As for the market impact, mainland China did not have functional stock markets until 1990-91, but Hong Kong-listed stocks collapsed during the Tiananmen protests and did not fully recover for a year (Chart 7). Today, tariffs are a more direct and lasting threat to corporate earnings than the Tiananmen fallout and it is not clear how far the cycle of retaliation will go. The implication for investors is that Chinese and China-exposed equities are not yet a buy, despite the 10% and 13% selloff in A-shares and H-shares in recent weeks. Table 1China Much Bigger Today Than In Previous U.S.-China Clashes The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis Chart 7Tiananmen Hit Hong Kong Stocks Tiananmen Hit Hong Kong Stocks Tiananmen Hit Hong Kong Stocks Finally, the 1980s-90s marked the heyday of U.S.-China economic engagement and the Bush White House was eager to get on with business (even the Bill Clinton White House proved to be the same). By contrast, the Washington establishment today is united in demanding a tougher stance on China. The two countries are now "peers" locked in a struggle that goes beyond trade to affect long-term national security.5 Rebuilding trust will require painstaking negotiations that may take months; more economic and financial pain may be necessary to force cooperation. Bottom Line: The Tiananmen incident has long provided the basic framework for a rupture in U.S.-China relations, as it involved an official diplomatic cutoff along with a serious blow to Chinese growth rates and foreign trade and investment. Circumstances are even more dangerous today, as China is in a better position to stare down U.S. pressure and the U.S. is more desirous of a drawn-out confrontation. This is a bad combination for risk assets. It is too early to buy into the selloff in Chinese and China-related equities. Crisis #2: The Taiwan Strait, 1995-96 From the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949 and beginning of the Korean War in 1950, the United States undertook to defend the routed Chinese nationalists on their island refuge of Taiwan. Fighting occasionally broke out over control of the small coastal islands across the strait from Taiwan, most notably in the two "Taiwan Strait Crises" of 1954-55 and 1958. An uneasy equilibrium then developed that lasted until the third Taiwan Strait Crisis in 1995-96. The third crisis arose in the aftermath of Taiwan's democratization. China's economy was booming, it was seeking to modernize its military, and the U.S. was increasing arms sales to Taiwan (Chart 8). In July 1995, Beijing launched a series of missile tests and military exercises, hoping to discourage pro-independence sentiment and dissuade the Taiwanese people from voting for President Lee Teng-hui - who was rightly suspected of favoring independence - ahead of the 1996 elections. The United States responded with a show of force on behalf of its informal ally, eventually deploying two aircraft carriers, USS Nimitz and USS Independence, and various warships to the area. The Nimitz sailed through the strait. Tensions peaked ahead of the Taiwanese election on March 23, 1996 - in which voters went against China's wishes - and simmered for years afterwards. Chart 8Arms Sales Could Reemerge As An Irritant Arms Sales Could Reemerge As An Irritant Arms Sales Could Reemerge As An Irritant Chart 9Taiwan Crisis Hit Mainland And Taiwan, Not U.S. Stocks Taiwan Crisis Hit Mainland And Taiwan, Not U.S. Stocks Taiwan Crisis Hit Mainland And Taiwan, Not U.S. Stocks The military and diplomatic standoff had a pronounced negative impact on financial markets. Both mainland and Taiwanese stock markets sold off and were suppressed for months afterwards (Chart 9). Our measure of the Taiwanese geopolitical risk premium - which utilizes the JPY/USD and USD/KRW exchange rates as proxies - shows that risks reached a peak during this period (Chart 10). As with Tiananmen, however, U.S. stocks were insulated from the crisis. Chart 10Taiwanese Geopolitical Risk Likely To Rise From Here Taiwanese Geopolitical Risk Likely To Rise From Here Taiwanese Geopolitical Risk Likely To Rise From Here Over the long run, China's saber-rattling promoted pro-independence sentiment and Taiwanese identity, factors that are proving to be political risks once again in 2018 (Chart 11). China has held provocative military drills and imposed discrete sanctions as a result of pro-independence election outcomes in 2014-16 (Chart 12). Local elections on November 24 this year could serve as a lightning rod for provocations, especially if pro-independence politicians, which currently hold all branches of government, continue to win.6 Chart 11Beijing's Saber-Rattling Was Counter-Productive The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis Chart 12Mainland Tourists Punish Rebel Taiwan Mainland Tourists Punish Rebel Taiwan Mainland Tourists Punish Rebel Taiwan Further, the Trump administration has upgraded Taiwan relations and its trade war with China is already spilling over into Taiwan affairs. The decision to send the destroyers USS Mustin and Benfold through the Taiwan Strait on July 7-8 should be seen in the context of trade tensions. A new aircraft carrier transit is being openly discussed. These are negative signs that warrant caution toward both mainland and Taiwanese equities. Bottom Line: The Third Taiwan Strait Crisis marked the biggest spike in military tensions between the U.S. and China in recent memory and had a markedly negative impact on regional risk assets. It is a worrying sign that the U.S.-China trade war is becoming intermeshed with cross-strait political tensions. We continue to view Taiwan as the potential site of a "Black Swan" event, especially if this November's local election goes against Beijing's wishes.7 Crisis #3: Hainan Island, 2001 Lastly, the "Hainan Island Incident" marks another point of tension in U.S.-China relations. On April 1, 2001 a Chinese jet struck a U.S. EP-3 ARIES II signals reconnaissance plane in the skies over the South China Sea, between Hainan and the contested Paracel Islands. The U.S. plane landed on the southern island, where its crew was detained and interrogated for 10 days while their aircraft was meticulously disassembled. The U.S. issued a half-hearted apology and the crew was released. The Chinese pilot went missing in the crash and was later declared killed in action. The incident fed into already sour feelings between Washington and Beijing. Just two years earlier, the U.S. government had "botched" an attack on a federal Yugoslav target in Belgrade, striking the Chinese embassy and killing three Chinese civilians.8 Thus, at the turn of the century, China was angry about U.S. military interventionism, while the U.S. was wary of China's military modernization. But this period of tensions was ultimately overshadowed by the September 11 terrorist attacks later that year, which prompted the U.S. to turn its attention to the Middle East and the war on terrorism. We highlight the Hainan incident for a simple reason: the South China Sea is a much more fiercely contested space today than it was in 2001. This is not only because global trade traffic has multiplied to around $4.14 trillion in the sea (Diagram 1). It is also because China has attempted to enforce its sovereignty claims over most of the sea by building up military assets there over the past several years.9 The U.S. has begun to push back by conducting "freedom of navigation" exercises that directly challenge China's maritime-territorial claims. Diagram 1South China Sea As Traffic Roundabout The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis In fact, China's entire maritime periphery - from the South China Sea to the Taiwan Strait to the East China Sea - has become a zone of geopolitical risk. The risk stems from China's attempts to establish a sphere of influence - and the American, Japanese, and other Asian nations' attempts to contain China's rise. A Hainan incident today would have a much bigger impact on the market than in 2001, when China's share of global GDP, imports, and military spending was roughly one-third of what it is today (see Table 1 above). And while a diplomatic crisis of this nature could easily cause global stocks to fall, the greater danger to the marketplace is that a military incident occurs. That would jeopardize global trade and growth, and the geopolitical fallout would be more difficult to contain. Bottom Line: U.S.-China strategic tensions came to a head in the South China Sea in 2001, but quickly subsided.. Today both the risk of a miscalculation and the economic stakes are greater than in the past. China's maritime periphery is thus an additional source of geopolitical risk at a time of U.S.-China trade war. Investment Conclusions: Then And Now What the three examples above have in common is that they occurred during the springtime of U.S.-China relations after the rise of Deng Xiaoping and China's "reform and opening up" policy. In each case, thriving trade and corporate profits provided an impetus for Washington and Beijing to move beyond their difficulties. The political elite across the West also believed that economic engagement would nudge China toward fuller liberalization and eventually even democracy. Today, however, the economic logic of a U.S.-China détente has been replaced by strategic rivalry, as the two economic systems are diverging. The U.S. is growing fearful of China's technological prowess, while China fears having its access to technology unplugged.10 As we have highlighted before, President Trump is virtually unconstrained on trade policy as well as on foreign policy and national security. And while he faces congressional resistance to his tariffs on G7 allies, Congress is actually egging him on in the fight against China - as seen with the Senate's vote to re-impose, against Trump's will, sanctions on Chinese telecommunications company ZTE.11 The kerfuffle over Trump's attempted trade deal with China in May was highly illuminating: Trump attempted to sign off on a deal with China to get a "quick win" ahead of the midterms. Secretary of Treasury Steve Mnuchin called it a "truce" and top economic adviser Larry Kudlow promoted it on talk shows. But the deal was rebuffed by Congress, which is demanding resolution to the thornier problems of forced tech transfer and intellectual property theft that Trump's own administration prioritized. Hence this trade war can go farther than even Trump intended. In other words, Trump's protectionist rhetoric on China has been so successful that it now constrains his actions. The U.S. engaged in a similar trade war with Japan in the 1980s and succeeded in reducing Japan's share of the American market and in forcing Japan to invest long-term capital in the U.S. The Trump administration presumably wants to repeat this process and achieve a similar outcome (Chart 13). The intention is not necessarily to destabilize China, but to change the composition of the U.S.'s Asia trade, and hence the distribution of Asian power, and to re-capture Chinese savings via American hard assets. Chart 13The U.S. Hopes To Replicate Japan Trade War The U.S. Hopes To Replicate Japan Trade War The U.S. Hopes To Replicate Japan Trade War Chart 14The U.S. Seeks To Redistribute Asian Trade The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis If China's exports to the U.S. are taxed, both it and other manufacturing nations will have to invest more in other developing Asian economies. The latter can gradually make their manufacturing sectors more efficient, but cannot pose a strategic threat to the United States (Chart 14). However, Japan ultimately capitulated to U.S. tariff pressure because the two countries were Cold War allies with a clear national security hierarchy. By contrast, China and the U.S. are antagonists without a clear hierarchy. Beijing perceives U.S. actions as part of its strategy to contain China's rise. The Southeast Asian countries that stand to benefit from the transformation of international supply chains are also the ones that will eventually become most exposed to U.S.-China conflicts.12 As highlighted above, China is not likely to shrink from the fight that the U.S. is bringing. Given that we expect diplomacy to remain on track in North Korea,13 the result is that Taiwan and the countries around the South China Sea are the likeliest candidates for geopolitical risk events in Asia that disrupt markets this year or next. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 For Taiwan, please see Section II below. For Africa, please see Ryan Browne, "Chinese lasers injure US military pilots in Africa, Pentagon says," CNN, May 4, 2018, available at www.cnn.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated March 28, 2018, and Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II," dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 The institutions affected included the multilateral development banks and other U.S. and international development agencies. Please see Dianne E. Rennack, "China: U.S. Economic Sanctions," Congressional Research Service, October 1, 1997, available at congressionalresearch.com 4 Arms and certain high-tech exports remained under restriction for years after the event, both from Europe and the U.S. China is still unable to receive funding from the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation or exports of items on the U.S. Munitions List. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Italy, Spain, Trade Wars... Oh My!" dated May 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Or if the pro-independence third party or the anti-establishment candidates win. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taiwan Is A Potential Black Swan," dated March 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 There is an extensive debate over the Belgrade embassy bombing. It can be summarized by saying that although the U.S. apologized for the mistake, the U.S. suspected Chinese collaboration with the Yugoslav government, while China maintains its innocence. 9 We have tracked the South China Sea closely since 2012. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The South China Sea: Smooth Sailing?" dated March 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump's Demands On China," dated April 4, 2018, and "Trump, Year Two: Let The Trade War Begin," dated March 14, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Are You 'Sick Of Winning' Yet?" dated June 20, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How To Play The Proxy Battles In Asia," dated March 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Pyongyang's Pivot To America," dated June 8, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Returns Following Crises In U.S.-China Relations Returns Following Crises In U.S.-China Relations The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis Open Trades & Positions Open Tactical Recommendations* The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis Open Strategic Recommendations* The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis

Highlights BCA's Geopolitical Power Index (GPI) confirms that we live in a multipolar world; Most of President Trump's policies are designed to strike out against this structural reality; Trade war with China is real and presents the premier geopolitical risk in 2018; President Trump's aggression towards G7 allies boils down to greater NAFTA risk; We remain bullish USD, bearish EM, maintain our short U.S. China-exposed equities and closing all our "bullish" NAFTA trades; Remain short GBP/USD, Theresa May's days appear numbered. Feature "We're going to win so much, you're going to be so sick and tired of winning." Candidate Donald Trump, May 26, 2016 In 2013, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy introduced the concept of multipolarity into our financial lexicon.1 Multipolarity is a term in political science that denotes when the number of states powerful enough to pursue an independent and globally relevant foreign policy is greater than one (unipolarity) or two (bipolarity). At the time, the evidence that U.S. global hegemony was in retreat was plentiful, but the idea of a U.S. decline was still far from consensus. By late 2016, however, President Donald Trump was overtly campaigning on it. His campaign slogan, "Make America Great Again," promised to reverse the process by striking out at the perceived causes of the decline: globalization, unchecked illegal immigration, and the ineffective foreign policy of the D.C. establishment. How can we quantitatively prove that the world is multipolar? We recently enhanced the classic National Capability Index (NCI) with our own measure, the Geopolitical Power Index (GPI). The original index, created for the Correlates of War project in 1963, had grown outdated. Its reliance on "military personnel" and "iron and steel production" harkened back to the late nineteenth century and overstated the power of China (Chart 1). Chart 1The National Capability Index Overstates China's Power The National Capability Index Overstates China's Power The National Capability Index Overstates China's Power Our own index avoids these pitfalls, while retaining the parsimony of the NCI, by focusing on six key factors: Population: We adapted the original population measure by penalizing countries with large dependency ratios. Yes, having a vast population matters, but having too many dependents (the elderly and youth) can strain resources otherwise available for global power projection. Global Economic Relevance: The original index failed to capture a country's relevance for the global economy. Designed at the height of the Cold War, the NCI did not foresee today's globalized future. As such, we modified the original index by introducing a measure that captures a country's contribution to global final demand. The more an economy imports, the greater its bargaining power in terms of trade and vis-à-vis its geopolitical rivals. Arms Exports: Having a large army is no longer as relevant now that wars have become a high-tech affair. To capture that reality, we replaced the NCI's focus on the number of soldiers with arms exports as a share of the global defense industry. We retained the original three variables that measure primary energy consumption, GDP, and overall military expenditure. Chart 2 shows the updated data. As expected, the U.S. is in decline, having lost nearly a third of its quantitatively measured geopolitical power since 1998. Over the same period, China has gone from having just 30% of U.S. geopolitical power to over 80%. Other countries, like Russia, India, Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan, have also seen an increase in geopolitical power over the same period, confirming their roles as regional powers (Chart 3). Chart 2BCA's Geopolitical Power Index Illustrates A Multipolar World BCA's Geopolitical Power Index Illustrates A Multipolar World BCA's Geopolitical Power Index Illustrates A Multipolar World Chart 3China Was Not The Only EM To Rise Are You "Sick Of Winning" Yet? Are You "Sick Of Winning" Yet? President Trump was elected with the mandate of changing the trajectory of American power and getting the country back on a "winning" path. Investors can perceive nearly all the moves by the administration - from protectionist actions against China and traditional allies, to applying a "Maximum Pressure" doctrine against North Korea and Iran - as a fight against the structural decline of U.S. power. Isn't President Trump "tilting at windmills"? Fighting a vain battle against imaginary adversaries? Yes. The decline of the U.S. is a product of classic imperial overstretch combined with the natural lifecycle of any global hegemon. U.S. policymakers have made decisions that have hastened the decline, but the overarching American geopolitical trajectory would have been negative regardless: Global peace brought prosperity which strengthened Emerging Markets (EM), particularly China, relative to the U.S. That said, Trump is not as crazy as the media often imply. Chaos is not necessarily bad for a domestically driven economy secured by two oceans. The U.S. tends to outperform the rest of the world - economically, financially, and geopolitically - amid turbulence. Our own updated GPI shows that both World Wars were massively favorable for U.S. hegemony (Chart 4), although this time around the chaos is mostly self-inflicted. Chart 4America Profits From Chaos America Profits From Chaos America Profits From Chaos Similarly, Trump's economic populism at home is buoying sentiment and assuaging the negative consequences - real or imagined - of his protectionism. Meanwhile, the threat of tariffs is souring the mood abroad. This policy mix is causing U.S. assets to outperform (Chart 5). Most importantly, the U.S. dollar is now up 2.7% since the beginning of the year, putting pressure on EM assets. When combined with continued counter-cyclical structural reforms in China, we maintain that the overall macro and geopolitical context remains bearish for global risk assets. This is not the first time that an American president has deployed both an aggressive trade policy and an aggressive foreign policy. The difference, this time around, is that the world is multipolar. A defining feature of multipolarity is that it is less predictable and more likely to produce inter-state conflict (Chart 6). As more countries matter - geopolitically, economically, financially - the number of "veto players" rises, making stable equilibria more difficult to produce. As such, bullying as a negotiating tactic worked when used by Presidents Nixon, Reagan, Bush Jr., and Clinton, but may not work today. Investors should therefore prepare for a long period of uncertainty this summer as the world responds to a U.S. administration focused on "winning." Chart 5U.S. Assets Outperform U.S. Assets Outperform U.S. Assets Outperform Chart 6Multipolarity Produces Uncertainty Multipolarity Produces Uncertainty Multipolarity Produces Uncertainty Bottom Line: There is a clear logic behind President Trump's foreign and trade policy. He is trying to reverse a decline in U.S. hegemony. The problem is that his policy decisions are unlikely to address the structural causes of America's decline. What is much more likely is that his policy will cause the rest of the world to react in unpredictable ways. The U.S. may benefit, but that is not a forgone conclusion. Investors should position themselves for a volatile summer. Below we review three key issues, two negative and one positive. The U.S. Vs. China: The Trade War Is Real The Trump administration has announced that it will go ahead with tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese imports in retaliation for forced technology transfer and intellectual property theft under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act. The tariffs will come in two tranches beginning on July 6. China will respond proportionately, based on both its statements and its response to the steel and aluminum tariffs (Chart 7). If the two sides stop here, then perhaps the trade war can be delayed. But Trump is already saying he will impose tariffs on a further $200 billion worth of goods. At that point, if Beijing re-retaliates, China's proportionate response will cover more goods than the entire range of U.S. imports (Chart 8). Retaliation will have to occur elsewhere. Chart 7Trump's Steel/Aluminum Tariffs Are You "Sick Of Winning" Yet? Are You "Sick Of Winning" Yet? Chart 8Trump's Tariffs On China Are You "Sick Of Winning" Yet? Are You "Sick Of Winning" Yet? We would expect the CNY/USD to weaken as negotiations fail. We would also expect tensions to continue spilling over into the South China Sea and other areas of strategic disagreement.2 The South China Sea or Taiwan could produce market-moving "black swan" geopolitical events this year or next.3 Chart 9Downside Risks Continue Downside Risks Continue Downside Risks Continue It is critical to distinguish between the U.S. trade conflict with China and the one with the G7. In the latter case, the U.S. political establishment will push against the Trump administration, encouraging him to compromise. With China, however, Congress is becoming the aggressor and we certainly do not expect the Defense Department or the intelligence community to play the peacemaker with Beijing. In particular, members of Congress are trying to cancel Trump's ZTE deal while expanding the powers of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to restrict Chinese investments.4 These congressional factors underscore our theme that U.S.-China tensions are structural and secular.5 Would China stimulate its economy to negate the effects of tariffs? We see nothing yet on the policy side to warrant a change in our fundamental view, which holds that any stimulus will be limited due to the agenda of containing systemic financial risk. Credit growth remains weak and fiscal spending has not yet perked up (Chart 9), portending weak Chinese imports and negative outcomes for EM. The risk to Chinese growth remains to the downside this year (and likely next year) as the government continues with the reforms. Critically, stimulus is not the only possible Chinese response to trade war. A trade war with the United States will provide Xi with a "foreign devil" on whom he can blame the pain of structural reforms. As such, it is entirely possible that Beijing doubles-down on reforms in light of an aggressive U.S. Bottom Line: The U.S.-China trade war is beginning and will cause additional market volatility and, potentially, a "black swan" event, especially ahead of the U.S. midterm elections. We do not expect 2015-style economic stimulus from Beijing. Stay long U.S. small caps relative to large caps; short U.S. China-exposed equities; and remain short EM equities relative to DM. The U.S. Vs. The G6: This Is About NAFTA There was little rhyme or reason to President Trump's smackdown of traditional U.S. allies at the G7 summit in Quebec. As our colleague Peter Berezin recently pointed out, the U.S. is throwing stones while living in a glass house.6 While the overall level of tariff barriers within developed countries is low, the U.S. actually stands at the top end of the spectrum (Chart 10). The decision to launch an investigation into whether automobile imports "threaten to impair the national security" of the U.S. - under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 - falls into the same rubric of empty threats. The U.S. has had a 25% tariff on imported light trucks since 1964, a decision that likely caused its car companies to become addicted to domestic pickup truck demand to the detriment of global competitiveness. Meanwhile, only 15% of U.S. autos shipped to the EU were subject to the infamous European 10% surcharge on auto imports. This is because U.S. autos containing European parts are exempt from the tariff. Many foreign auto manufacturers have already adjusted to the U.S. market, setting up manufacturing inside the country (Chart 11). Tariffs would hurt luxury brands like BMW, Daimler, Volvo, and Jaguar.7 As such, we doubt the investment-relevance of Trump's threat against autos. Either way, the investigation is unlikely to be completed until the tail-end of Q1 2019. Chart 10Tariffs: Who Is Robbing The U.S.? Are You "Sick Of Winning" Yet? Are You "Sick Of Winning" Yet? Chart 11Car Imports? What Imports? Are You "Sick Of Winning" Yet? Are You "Sick Of Winning" Yet? Instead, investors should take Trump's aggressive comments from the G7 in the context of the ongoing NAFTA negotiations and the closing window for a deal. President Trump wants to get a NAFTA deal ahead of the U.S. midterms in November and prior to the new Mexican Congress being inaugurated on September 1.8 This means that a deal has to be concluded by late July, or early August, giving the "old" Mexican Congress enough time to ratify it before the new president - likely Andrés Manuel López Obrador - comes to power on December 1. This would conceivably give the U.S. Congress enough time to ratify a deal by December, assuming Republicans can remove some procedural hurdles before then. The rising probability of no resolution before the U.S. midterm election will increase the risk that Trump will trigger Article 2205 and announce the U.S.'s withdrawal. Trump has always had the option of triggering the six-month withdrawal period as a negotiating tactic to increase the pressure on Canada and Mexico. Withdrawing might fire up the base, while major concessions from Canada or Mexico might be presented as "victories" to voters. Anything short of these binary outcomes is useless to Trump on November 6. Therefore, if Canada and Mexico do not relent in the next month or two, the odds of Trump triggering Article 2205 will shoot up. The key is that Trump faces limited legal or economic constraints in withdrawing: Legal Constraints: Not only can Trump unilaterally withdraw from the agreement, triggering the six-month exit period, but Congress is unlikely to stop him. Announcing withdrawal automatically nullifies much of the 1993 NAFTA Implementation Act.9 Some provisions of NAFTA under this act may continue to be implemented, but the bulk would cease to have effect, and the White House could refuse to enforce the rest. Economic Constraints: The U.S. economy has far less exposure to Canada and Mexico than vice- versa (Chart 12). Certain states and industries would be heavily affected - ironically, the U.S. auto industry would be most severely impacted (Chart 13) - and they would lobby aggressively to save the agreement. But with the American economy hyper-charged with stimulus, the drag from leaving NAFTA is not prohibitive to Trump. Voters will feel any pocketbook consequences about three months late i.e., after the election. Chart 12U.S. Economy:##br## Largely Unaffected By NAFTA U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA Chart 13NAFTA Has Made U.S. Auto ##br##Manufacturing More Competitive Are You "Sick Of Winning" Yet? Are You "Sick Of Winning" Yet? The potential saving grace for Canada is the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (CUSFTA), which took effect in 1989 and was incorporated into NAFTA. The U.S. and Canada agreed through an exchange of letters to suspend CUSFTA's operation when NAFTA took effect, but the suspension only lasts as long as NAFTA is in effect. However, reinstating CUSFTA is not straightforward. The NAFTA Implementation Act suspends some aspects of the CUSFTA and amends others (for instance, on customs fees), so there will not be an easy transition from NAFTA to a fully operational CUSFTA.10 Trump may well walk away from both CUSFTA and NAFTA in the same proclamation, or he could walk away from NAFTA while leaving CUSFTA in limbo. The latter would mitigate the negative impact on Canada, but it would still see rising tariffs, customs fees, and rising policy uncertainty. Bottom Line: We originally assigned a high probability to the abrogation of NAFTA.11 Subsequently, we lowered the probability due to positive comments from the White House and Trump's negotiating team. This was a mistake. As we initially posited, there are few constraints to abrogating NAFTA, particularly if President Trump intends to renegotiate the deal later, or conclude two separate bilateral deals that effectively maintain the same trade relationship. We are closing our trade favoring an equally-weighted basket of CAD/EUR and MXN/EUR. We are also closing our trade favoring Mexican local government bonds relative to EM. North Korea: A Geopolitical Opportunity, Not A Risk Not every move by the Trump administration is increasing geopolitical volatility. Trump's Maximum Pressure doctrine may have elevated risks on the Korean Peninsula in 2017, but it ultimately worked. The media is missing the big picture on the Singapore Summit. Diplomacy is on track and geopolitical risk - namely the risk of war on the peninsula - is fading. It is false to claim that President Trump got nothing in return for the summit. Since November 28, North Korea has moderated its belligerent threats, ceased conducting missile tests, released three U.S. political prisoners, and largely blocked off access to the Punggye-ri nuclear testing site. Now, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has held the summit with Trump, reaffirmed his longstanding promise of "complete denuclearization," reaffirmed the peace-seeking April 2018 Panmunjom Declaration with South Korea, and pledged to dismantle a ballistic missile testing site and continue negotiations. In response, President Trump has given security guarantees to the North Korean regime and has pledged to discontinue U.S.-South Korea military drills for the duration of the negotiations. Trump has not yet eased economic sanctions and his administration has ruled out troop withdrawals from South Korea for now. There is much diplomatic work to be done. But the summit was undoubtedly a positive sign, dialogue is continuing at lower levels, and Kim is expected to visit the White House in the near future. Table 1 shows that the Singapore Summit is substantial when compared with major U.S.-North Korea agreements and inter-Korean summits - and it is unprecedented in that it was agreed between American and North Korean leaders. Table 1How The Singapore Summit Stacks Up To Previous Pacts With North Korea Are You "Sick Of Winning" Yet? Are You "Sick Of Winning" Yet? Because Trump demonstrated a credible military threat, and China enforced sanctions, the foundation is firmer than that of President Barack Obama's April 2012 agreement to provide food aid in payment for a cessation of nuclear and missile activity. It is much more similar to that of President Clinton and the "Agreed Framework" of 1994, which lasted until 2002, despite many serious failures on both the U.S. and North Korean sides. We should also bear in mind that it was originally U.S. Congress, not North Korea, which undermined the 1994 agreement. Aside from removing war risk, Korean diplomacy is of limited global significance. It marginally improves the outlook for South Korean industrials, energy, telecoms, and consumer staples relative to their EM peers (Chart 14). In the long run it should also be positive for the KRW. Chart 14Winners And Losers Of Inter-Korean Engagement Winners And Losers Of Inter-Korean Engagement Winners And Losers Of Inter-Korean Engagement We maintain that a U.S.-China trade war will not be prevented because of a Korean deal. But we do not expect China to spoil the negotiations. Geopolitically, China benefits from reducing the basis for U.S. forces to be stationed in South Korea. Bottom Line: Go long a "peace dividend" basket of South Korean equity sectors (industrials, energy, consumer staples, and telecoms) and short South Korean "loser" sectors (financials, IT, consumer discretionary, and health care), both relative to their EM peers. Stick to our Korean 2-year/10-year sovereign bond curve steepener trade. Brexit Update: A New Election Is Now In Play Prime Minister Theresa May is fending off a revolt within her Conservative Party this week that could set the course for a new election this year. May reneged on a "compromise" with soft-Brexit/Bremain Tory backbenchers on an amendment that would have given the House of Commons a meaningful vote on the final U.K.-EU Brexit deal. According to the press, the compromise was killed by her own Brexit Secretary, David Davis. There is a fundamental problem with Brexit. The current path towards a hard Brexit, pushed on May by hard-Brexit members of her cabinet and articulated in her January 2017 speech, is incompatible with her party's preferences. According to their pre-referendum preferences, a majority of Tory MPs identified with the Bremain campaign ahead of the referendum (Chart 15). That would suggest that a vast majority prefer a soft Brexit today, if not staying in the EU. We would go further. The current trajectory is incompatible with the democratic preferences of the U.K. public. First, polls are showing rising opposition to Brexit (Chart 16). Second, most voters who chose to vote for Brexit in 2016 did so under the assumption that the Conservative Party would pursue a soft Brexit, including continued membership in the Common Market. Boris Johnson, the most prominent supporter of Brexit ahead of the vote and now the foreign minister, famously stated right after the referendum that "there will continue to be free trade and access to the single market."12 Chart 15Westminster MPs Support Bremain! Are You "Sick Of Winning" Yet? Are You "Sick Of Winning" Yet? Chart 16Bremain On The Rise Bremain On The Rise Bremain On The Rise So what happens now? We expect the government to be defeated on the crucial amendment giving Westminster the right to vote on the final EU-U.K. deal. If that happens, PM May could be replaced by a hard-Brexit prime minister, most likely Davis. Given the lack of support for an actual hard-Brexit outcome - both in Westminster and among the public - we believe that a new election remains likely by March 2019. Bottom Line: Political risk remains elevated in the U.K. A new election could resolve this risk, but the potential for a Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party to win the election could add additional political risk to U.K. assets. We remain short GBP/USD. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Great Risk Rotation," dated December 11, 2013; and "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Pyongyang's Pivot To America," dated June 8, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taiwan Is A Potential Black Swan," dated March 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 The Senate has passed a version of the National Defense Authorization Act with a rider that would boost CFIUS and maintain stringent restrictions on ZTE's business with the U.S. These restrictions have crippled the company but would have been removed under the Trump administration's snap deal in June. The White House claims it will remove the rider when the House and Senate hold a conference to resolve differences between their versions of the defense bill, but it is not clear that the White House will succeed. Congress could test Trump's veto. If Trump does not veto he will break a personal promise to Xi Jinping and escalate the trade war further than perhaps even he intended. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Piggy Bank No More? Trump And The Dollar's Reserve Currency Status," dated June 15, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 7 We do not include Porsche in this list as we would gladly pay the 25% tariff on top of its current price. 8 Mexican elections for both president and Congress will take place on July 1, but the new Congress will sit on September 1 while the new president will take office on December 1. 9 Please see Lori Wallach, "Presidential Authority to Terminate NAFTA Without Congressional Approval," Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, November 13, 2017, available at www.citizen.org. 10 The National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of America, "Issues Surrounding US Withdrawal From NAFTA," available from GHY International at www.ghy.com. See also Dan Ciuriak, "What if the United States Walks Away From NAFTA?" C. D. Howe Institute Intelligence Memos, dated November 27, 2017, available at www.cdhowe.org. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see "U.K. will retain access to the EU single market: Brexit leader Johnson," Reuters, dated June 26, 2016, available at uk.reuters.com. Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights North Korea is a geopolitical opportunity more than a risk to markets - the key regional risk comes from U.S.-China tensions; China's geopolitical rise, and the fear of a U.S. attack on North Korea, is driving the two Koreas together; The U.S. can accept something less than complete denuclearization - such as inspections and a missile freeze; The path of peace and eventual unification removes the risk of disruption to the global economy and is positive for South Korea's currency and certain assets. Feature We at BCA's Geopolitical Strategy have been optimists about the diplomatic tack in North Korea since September 2017.1 Our optimism stands in stark contrast to our pessimism about U.S.-China relations. U.S.-China trade tensions will create an ongoing headwind for assets linked to the status quo of Sino-American engagement (Chart 1). U.S. President Donald Trump's threat to move forward with tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese goods - and his decision to impose steel and aluminum tariffs on China and others - lends credence to our long-held view that globalization has peaked.2 The seal on protectionism has been broken by the country known as the guarantor of free trade (Chart 2). Chart 1Trade Tensions Far From Resolved Trade Tensions Far From Resolved Trade Tensions Far From Resolved Chart 2The U.S. Has Broken The Seal On Protectionism The U.S. Has Broken The Seal On Protectionism The U.S. Has Broken The Seal On Protectionism Trade tensions are also spilling out into strategic areas of disagreement, as we expected.3 This week, Defense Secretary James Mattis warned China that the U.S. will maintain a "steady drumbeat" of freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea (Diagram 1). The goal is to reject China's claims of sovereignty over the sea and the rocks and reefs within it.4 The potential for a geopolitical incident or "Black Swan" event to occur in the South China Sea - or even the Taiwan Strait - is high. Diagram 1The U.S. Is Pushing Back Against China's Maritime-Territorial Claims Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America For investors, the secular decline in U.S.-China ties and the "apex of globalization" are much more relevant than what happens on the Korean peninsula - as long as the peninsula does not become the central battleground between the two great powers in a replay of the devastating 1950-53 war. In this report we argue that it will not. The current round of diplomacy between the U.S. and North Korea is likely to bear fruit in a diplomatic settlement of some kind, even a peace treaty, by 2020.5 Investors should see North Korea as a geopolitical opportunity rather than a geopolitical risk. While North Korea can still contribute to volatility, we recommend investors monitor U.S.-China trade tensions, the East and South China Seas, and Taiwan as the chief sources of market-relevant geopolitical risk in this region going forward. Elsewhere, U.S.-Iran tensions are the key understated geopolitical risk to markets. China: Hiding In Plain Sight The current diplomatic effort in the Koreas has a powerful tailwind behind it: the rise of China. China's re-emergence simply cannot be overstated. It is on track to reclaim its historic role as the world's largest economy (Chart 3A) and is developing naval, air, space and cyber-space capabilities that are rapidly eroding the U.S.'s military supremacy (Chart 3B). The rise of China vis-à-vis the U.S. is the single biggest difference between today's attempts to resolve the Korean issue and previous attempts in the 1990s and 2000s. China is reaching a critical mass that is changing the behavior of the states around it (Chart 4). Chart 3AChina's Economic Revival: ##br##The Long View Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America Chart 3BChina's Comprehensive ##br##Geopolitical Power Rising China's Comprehensive Geopolitical Power Rising China's Comprehensive Geopolitical Power Rising Chart 4EM Economic ##br##Reliance On China EM Economic Reliance On China EM Economic Reliance On China As a result, a number of anomalies are occurring throughout the region: The United States is trying to revive its Pacific presence, yet cannot decide how: From 2010-16, the U.S. sought a historic deal with Iran that would enable it to wash its hands of the Middle East and "pivot to Asia." The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was envisioned as an advanced trade deal - excluding China - that would integrate the Pacific Rim economies under a new trade framework; China would have to reform its economy in order to join. Under President Trump, however, the U.S. canceled the TPP and revoked the Iranian deal,6 while maintaining the pivot to Asia through "hard power" tactics. The Washington establishment is unified in its desire to toughen policy on China, but it is divided about how to do so - a sign of the enormity of the challenge. Japan is taking drastic, 1930s-style measures to reflate its economy, which is necessary to revive its overall strategic capability. Military spending is on the rise (Chart 5). Symbolically, the pacifist Article Nine in the post-WWII constitution may be revised next year.7 Taiwan is distancing itself from China, with Beijing-skeptic candidates dominating every level of government since the 2014 and 2016 elections. The Taiwanese increasingly see themselves as exclusively Taiwanese, not also Chinese (Chart 6) - making Taiwan a potential source of "Black Swan" events.8 Chart 5Japan's 'Re-Militarization' Japan's 'Re-Militarization' Japan's 'Re-Militarization' Chart 6Majority Of Taiwanese Are Exclusively Taiwanese Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America Southeast Asian states are vacillating. Filipinos and South Koreans recently voted against confrontation with China while Malaysians have voted against excessive Chinese influence; Thailand's junta has warmed up to Beijing while Myanmar's junta has sought some distance. The common thread is the desire to do something about China.9 India, long known for its independent foreign policy and "non-aligned" status in the Cold War, has begun courting deeper relationships with the U.S., Japan, and Australia, for fear of China. Even Russia, one of Beijing's closest partners, is engaged in talks with Japan that could result in a peace treaty, allowing these two to bury the hatchet and create economic and strategic options outside of China's control.10 Australia - the country with the most favorable view of China in the West (Chart 7) - is in the midst of an internal crisis over China that has recently broken out into a direct diplomatic spat resulting in Beijing imposing discrete economic sanctions. It goes without saying that China's rise is being felt with extreme sensitivity on the Korean peninsula. Korean kingdoms have historically struggled either to maintain their independence from China or to avoid becoming the battleground in China's conflicts with outside powers. North Korea has taken this dependency to the extreme. Trade data shows that its links to China have grown substantially since the Global Financial Crisis. China's stimulus-fueled economic boom increased commodity imports, while international sanctions cut off Pyongyang's access to most other foreign capital. The strategic vulnerability is revealed both before and after China's enforcement of sanctions in 2017 (Chart 8).11 Chart 7Australia And Russia Are China's Best Friends Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America Chart 8North Korea's Over-Reliance On China North Korea's Over-Reliance On China North Korea's Over-Reliance On China Chinese President Xi Jinping's ascendancy - marked by his strict personal control of the ruling party and scrapping of term limits - has reinforced the North's vulnerability. Like his predecessor Jiang Zemin (1992-2004), Xi represents a faction in the Communist Party of China that sees Pyongyang as more of a liability than an asset. North Korea's anxiety can be marked by Kim Jong Un's attempts to reduce the "pro-China" faction within the North Korean state. For instance, he has ordered the execution of his uncle, Jang Song Taek, who was close to Beijing, and his half-brother, Kim Jong Nam, who lived in Macao and was China's "alternative" to Kim.12 In effect, the next few years offer what is probably North Korea's last chance to create some new strategic options with South Korea and the rest of the world if it is to avoid being a mere vassal state for the coming centuries. Pyongyang's chief security threat is the United States and it has pursued a nuclear deterrent for decades in order to be able to negotiate with the U.S. for regime survival. The deterrent gives the North some independence, but normalizing ties with South Korea and the U.S. would enable the North to diversify its economy and reduce its dependence on China. South Korea is also fearful that the coming decades will bring a Chinese empire that effectively swallows North Korea and surrounds Seoul. Eventually the North must liberalize and industrialize its economy: will South Korea have a part in this process, or will China take it all? South Korean President Moon Jae-in wishes to reduce the risk of war prompted by North Korea's conflict with the United States, but he also wishes to gain leverage over the North so that China does not absorb its economy. In short, the historic re-emergence of China is encouraging Korean integration, as the two Korean states begin to reconsider their relationship and national needs in the face of global "multipolarity" and great power competition.13 The strategic logic is thus pushing toward Korean unification, even if unification is in practice a long way away. A unified Korean peninsula would rise toward the level of Japan in comprehensive geopolitical power (see Chart 3B above). With a population of 75 million, South Korean technological prowess, and at least nuclear potential (if not outright capability), the Koreas would be better prepared to defend their interests against China and other neighbors than they are separately. In a multipolar world, strength in numbers has an appealing strategic logic. Unification, however, will be extremely costly for the ruling elites of both North and South Korea, possibly prohibitive. It is not within our five-year forecast horizon. Instead, economic engagement will be the main focus, a necessary but not sufficient step toward unification. Bottom Line: China's rise, as it pertains to Korea, is underestimated by investors. It is putting pressure on the two Koreas to cooperate, create some solidarity, and expand their economic and strategic options over the long run. It is also putting pressure on the U.S. to encourage this process and try to remove or reduce the nuclear threat through economic engagement rather than war. How Is "Moonshine" Different From "Sunshine"? South Korean President Moon Jae-in won a sweeping victory in the election of May 2017 on a promise to renew South Korea's engagement with the North. His agenda has been nicknamed "Moonshine policy."14 Will Moonshine actually work? In addition to China's rise, several of today's political trends are supportive of a diplomatic settlement: North Korean leadership change: Power succession and consolidation: Kim is not the rash and inexperienced youth that many feared upon his coming to power in 2011. Instead he has consolidated power within the regime and waged high-stakes international negotiations with the U.S. and China. He is also overseeing a generational change in the upper ranks of the party and state. Such a change is necessary if North Korea is ever to revamp its relations with the world.15 Economic reform: In March 2013, not long after coming to power, Kim signaled a shift in national policy. The North Korean governing philosophy under his father was called juche, or "self-reliance," and had a heavy emphasis on putting the military first. But Kim has promised to develop the economy alongside nuclear weapons, creating a governing philosophy known as byungjin, or "parallel development."16 There is substantial evidence of marketization in North Korea, which was formally allowed in 2003 but has been growing faster since the Global Financial Crisis and the country's failed currency reforms at that time. Official statistics, such as they are, do not capture this organic and informal market process (Chart 9). Farmers have been allowed to keep some of their profits; official and unofficial marketplaces have cropped up; informal banking is developing; mobile phones and televisions are more prevalent.17 Foreign policy and strategic deterrence: Kim has demonstrated to the world that his country's nuclear and missile capabilities are more advanced than previously thought (Diagram 2). The American defense and intelligence establishment have been forced, during Kim's rapid phase of tests in 2016-17, to revise upward their expectations of the North's ability to strike the U.S. homeland with a nuclear weapon. This creates a new environment in which the U.S. can no longer ignore North Korea. Yet Kim has also proven himself to be a rational actor by discontinuing missile tests when tensions approached a boil in late 2017 and offering an olive branch to the South Koreans and Americans in early 2018.18 Chart 9North Korea: Rising From A Very Low Level North Korea: Rising From A Very Low Level North Korea: Rising From A Very Low Level Diagram 2North Korea's Proven Missile Reach Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America American leadership change: Pivot to Asia: The United States has attempted to "rebalance" its strategic posture by reducing its commitment to the Middle East and "pivoting" to East Asia. This is to confront the China challenge. President Trump's North Korea and China policies are aggressive, despite the fact that Trump is also ramping up pressure on Iran.19 International sanctions tightened: The U.S. has responded to North Korea's nuclear and missile advances by redoubling the international sanctions regime (Chart 10). A credible military threat: The Trump administration has also established a "credible threat" through its use of military drills, aircraft carrier deployments in the region, and Trump's hawkish speeches to the United Nations General Assembly and South Korean National Assembly. The demonstration that the military option is "on the table" is reminiscent of the Iranian nuclear negotiations from 2011-15 (and those to come) (Chart 11).20 Trump's maneuvering room: Few people doubt the current U.S. president's willingness to do something unpredictable, "out of the box," or even "crazy," such as preemptively attacking North Korea, or, on the other hand, withdrawing U.S. troops from South Korea (Trump has often expressed dissatisfaction with the cost of U.S. troop commitments). For better or worse, the U.S. has much greater room for maneuver than it used to in making a deal with North Korea. Chart 10U.S.-Led Sanctions Tightened The Noose U.S.-Led Sanctions Tightened The Noose U.S.-Led Sanctions Tightened The Noose Chart 11U.S. Demonstration Of Credible Military Threat Causes Market Jitters U.S. Demonstration Of Credible Military Threat Causes Market Jitters U.S. Demonstration Of Credible Military Threat Causes Market Jitters Chinese leadership change: Xi's irritation with Kim: President Xi Jinping wants to create a Chinese sphere of influence in the region, which includes depriving the U.S. of a reason to bulk up its Asia Pacific presence. However, North Korea's threats and provocations give the U.S. good reason to build up its military assets, including missile defense.21 Pyongyang as an obstacle to Chinese power projection: Xi also wants to focus China's military and strategic development toward new dimensions of defense (sea, air, space, cyber) and improve China's ability to project power globally. But the potential for a crisis in North Korea - whether regime collapse or American invasion - ties China down to a 1950s-style military posture with a heavy focus on its army in the northeast. China enforces sanctions on the North: The above factors, combined with President Trump's sanctions on Chinese companies for dealing with the North, have prompted China to change its policy toward North Korea. China has been enforcing stringent sanctions since mid-2017 (Chart 12). China benefits from North Korean economic opening: China also has an interest in North Korea's economic opening - it has pioneered this process and has also clearly benefited from the recent opening of formerly closed neighboring states like Myanmar and Cambodia (Chart 13). China wants to remain the biggest player in the North's economy as it opens further. China seeks leverage over South Korea: Direct trade and infrastructure links to South Korea will also increase China's leverage over the South. Already President Moon has given China assurances of stopping U.S. missile defense deployments in exchange for the removal of economic sanctions against South Korean companies.22 Xi Jinping is not going anywhere: Xi has consolidated power and removed limits on his term in office, so China's policy shift toward the Koreas cannot be assumed to be easily reversible. Chart 12Even China Enforces Sanctions This Time Even China Enforces Sanctions This Time Even China Enforces Sanctions This Time Chart 13China Gains When Neighbors Open Up China Gains When Neighbors Open Up China Gains When Neighbors Open Up South Korean leadership change: The fall of the right-wing: The right-of-center parties and politicians in South Korea have suffered a cyclical drop in support. First, their hawkish policies since 2008 failed to prevent North Korea's belligerence. Second, former President Park Geun-hye was impeached and removed from office in early 2017 due to scandals that marred the right wing's popular standing. The legislative elections of 2016 and the post-impeachment presidential election of 2017 show that the major center-left party (the Minjoo Party) has made a big comeback. Local elections to be held on June 13, 2018 - the day after the planned Trump-Kim summit in Singapore - are likely to reinforce this trend (Chart 14 A&B). Thus the Moon administration is benefiting from a popular tailwind that will support its dovish approach to the North and could last for several years (Chart 15). The next election, for the legislature, is not until April 15, 2020, giving Moon time to implement his policies. Fear of abandonment: President Trump's policies threaten South Korea with the risk of preemptive war or American abandonment, making engagement with the North all the more necessary. Chart 14ASouth Korea's Right-Wing Faltered In 2016... Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America Chart 14B... And Left-Wing Will Likely Win In 2018 Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America Chart 15Ruling Minjoo Party Has Plenty Of Momentum Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America The only other significant players are Russia and Japan, neither of which is willing or able to derail a diplomatic process pursued by both Koreas and the U.S. and China.23 Critically, this peace process is being driven by constraints, not preferences. True, Xi Jinping may be irritated by Kim Jong Un and Donald Trump may yearn for a Nobel peace prize. But the underlying factors are the following constraints on these policymakers: North Korea's regime cannot allow foreign domination, whether through war or economics; The U.S. regime cannot allow its homeland to be attacked by North Korea or its regional presence to be eliminated; China's regime cannot allow a Syria-style influx of North Korean refugees into China's Rust-Belt northeast or an American occupation of North Korea; South Korea's regime cannot allow anyone to trigger a war in which Seoul will be the first to be decimated. In each case, these states are bumping up against their constraints, such that the "Moonshine" diplomatic initiative is supported from all angles. Not only are the current U.S. and North Korean leaders planning to meet for the first time in the history, to build on the Moon-Kim summits, but they have already overcome a moment of cold feet that nearly quashed the June 12 summit.24 If the summit falls through, another summit will be scheduled; such is the underlying pressure of the above constraints. South Korean opinion polls demonstrate the pent-up demand for diplomacy that brought Moon and the Minjoo Party to power. The number of South Koreans who "trust" North Korea to denuclearize and pursue peace has shot up from 15% to 65% in recent polls (Chart 16A). Chart 16ASouth Koreans More Trusting Toward North... Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America Chart 16B... Yet Doubt Full Denuclearization Will Occur Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America Chart 17South Koreans Want Unification... Eventually Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America Of course, "denuclearization" is a slippery term - about 64% of South Koreans doubt that the North will really give up its nuclear program. And yet even that number has fallen from 90% at the beginning of this year (Chart 16B). These numbers are volatile but reveal a deeply held public preference for some kind of deal that removes the threat of armed conflict. Indeed, 78% of South Koreans say they ultimately want not only peace but unification with the North (Chart 17). Subjectively, we think the probability of some kind of diplomatic settlement is 95% and the probability of war 5%. The next question is what kind of a settlement will it be? Bottom Line: The current diplomatic track on the Korean peninsula has greater potential than the previous two diplomatic pushes in 2000 and 2007. The different powers remain constrained by the lack of palatable or tolerable options other than diplomacy, yet China's rise and North Korea's missile capabilities have made the status quo unacceptable. Therefore we expect some kind of settlement that reduces tensions and allows for economic engagement. The U.S. Can Accept Less Than Full Denuclearization What about the critical issue of North Korea's strategic standoff with the United States? Will North Korea give up its nuclear program? Can the U.S. accept a deal that does not include complete and verifiable denuclearization? Subjectively, we would put full denuclearization at a 15% probability. It is three times more likely than a war (5% chance), but five times less likely than a lesser settlement (80% chance). The question boils down to whether the United States is capable of a preemptive military strike on North Korea that denies it the ability to inflict devastating casualties on South Korea. Such a strike would require the U.S. to use numerous tactical nuclear weapons on North Korean nuclear and chemical sites as well as artillery units deeply embedded in the hills overlooking Seoul.25 If the U.S. is believed capable of such an attack, then the North will need to retain some of its nuclear deterrent so that it can deter the U.S. from such an attack directly, by threatening U.S. cities. If the U.S. is not believed capable, then the North can afford to trade away its nuclear program and rely on its conventional deterrent of decimating Seoul as its chief security guarantee. Our assessment is that the U.S. is broadly capable of executing such an attack, however little it intends to do so. The U.S. would need to be politically willing to accept the devastation of Seoul, nuclear fallout over Japan, and potentially a second war with China (which might intervene more readily this time than in 1950). This is extremely unlikely to say the least. But given President Trump's hawkishness and the drastic vacillations of today's polarized U.S. public opinion and foreign policy, North Korea cannot gamble that the U.S. would under no circumstances, ever, adopt such a course of action. In other words, North Korea has developed a nuclear deterrent not to trade it away for concessions but to maintain it at some level. National Security Adviser John Bolton said it all in one word: Libya. Libyan President Mohammar Qaddafi unilaterally abandoned his country's nuclear program in 2003, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, to improve relations with the West. This worked until the Arab Spring, when Qaddafi was brutalized and executed after his regime collapsed under pressure of popular rebellion and a NATO bombing campaign. NATO struck his personal convoy, leaving him exposed to rebel militias. In other words, North Korea could be fully compliant and yet the U.S. could betray it. Regime change would be more likely for the U.S. to pursue if the North did not have a nuclear deterrent. In the negotiations, even an offer of total U.S. troop withdrawal from South Korea for denuclearization - which is extremely unlikely - probably cannot convince Kim Jong Un of his personal safety and his regime's security in an era of Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, Syria 2011, Ukraine 2014, and "Zero Dark Thirty."26 Finally, if it is true that North Korea also fears Chinese domination over the long run, then maintaining a nuclear deterrent is all the more important to secure the regime's independence, as it also constrains China. Thus we highly doubt that Pyongyang will fully, verifiably, and irreversibly denuclearize. We reserve a 15% chance simply because its ability to strike Seoul with artillery does give it greater leverage than Libya or other states that faced U.S.-imposed regime change. This fact combined with the possibility of an irresistible package of economic and political benefits from the Americans could conceivably cause the North to change course dramatically. But this is not our baseline case. More likely, Pyongyang can offer, and Washington can accept, mothballing reactors, holding nuclear inspections, freezing the ballistic missile program, and committing to a non-belligerent foreign policy, along with gradual normalization of diplomatic and economic relations. Washington can accept a sub-optimal deal because such a deal preserves the raison d'être for U.S. forces in Korea, yet reduces the threat to the homeland and helps dilute China's influence on the peninsula. As for the 5% chance of war, even if Pyongyang eschews any and all denuclearization, the U.S. may still opt for containment rather than war.27 Bottom Line: The U.S. can settle for "containment" against North Korea, whereas North Korea probably cannot give up its rudimentary nuclear deterrent given its twin fears of American invasion or Chinese domination. The U.S. gains from normalizing relations with the North, given that it enables North Korea to diversify its foreign policy away from China and yet Washington retains its overwhelming nuclear preemptive strike capability in the event that an attack is deemed imminent. North Korea Is The Most Promising Pariah State It is useful to remember how badly communism has served North Koreans relative to their capitalist neighbors. Chart 18 explains the unsustainability of the North's system and the impetus to change. At the same time, South Korea's development path suggests that North Korea has economic potential. There is considerable room to increase basic capital stock - roads, buildings, and basic equipment, etc. - even assuming that North Korea's pace of liberalization prevents the same kind of economic boom that fully capitalist South Korea witnessed in the second half of the twentieth century (Chart 19). Won't liberalizing the economy fatally undermine Kim's totalitarian regime? History teaches otherwise. The reform of communist East Asian regimes like China (1978) and Vietnam (1986) shows that partial liberalization can be pursued without fatally undermining the regime, as long as the regime is willing to do whatever it takes to stay in power, i.e. use domestic security and intelligence forces to suppress opposition and dissent. Communist states in other parts of the world - such as Cuba - also attest to this fact. This is not to say that liberalization poses no threat to Pyongyang. First, liberalization itself can lead to economic consequences, like inflation, that trigger instability, as China experienced in the 1980s. Second, successful liberalization increases household wealth, which can result in growing demand for civil rights and political participation, as occurred under South Korea's right-wing military dictatorship in the 1970s-80s, and as will eventually occur even in China.28 Still, North Korea today is faced with the same predicament that Iran, Myanmar, Cambodia, Cuba, and Zimbabwe face. All of them are trying gingerly to open up their economies, as their sclerotic regimes face a greater threat of social instability from economic opportunity costs than from popular political opposition. They are changing not a moment too soon. Global labor force, trade, and productivity have all slowed in recent decades, marking a contrast to the exuberant external environment that the emerging and frontier markets faced when opening their economies in the late twentieth century (Chart 20). They may still have a cheap labor advantage but they will struggle to develop as rapidly with global potential growth falling. Chart 18A Reason To Reform And Open Up A Reason To Reform And Open Up A Reason To Reform And Open Up Chart 19North Korea Could Follow This Path Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America Chart 20North Korea Joins Global Market As Potential Growth Slows North Korea Joins Global Market As Potential Growth Slows North Korea Joins Global Market As Potential Growth Slows North Korea is better situated than any of these late-bloomers. Its immediate neighbors, South Korea, China, and Japan, each sport current account surpluses and positive international investment positions (Chart 21), giving the North a ready pool of capital to tap as it opens its doors. The global search for yield persists more or less (Chart 22), motivating investors to explore the riskiest and worst-governed countries, and yet North Korea sits in a prosperous corner of the world. South Korean investors can envision high returns from basic productivity-enhancing investments in the North, while accepting that unification and its immense fiscal costs are still a long way away. Chart 21Ample Sources Of Investment For North Korea Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America Chart 22North Korea: Don't Miss The Search For Yield North Korea: Don't Miss The Search For Yield North Korea: Don't Miss The Search For Yield This means that North Korea - if it calms its quarrels with the West - will have alternatives to China's outward investment push (Chart 23), albeit with China remaining the biggest player. North Korea is not a large enough economy to have a major global impact when it opens up, but it is big enough to affect South Korea. It will make available a pool of cheap labor for a country that is otherwise suffering from the worst of low fertility and a shrinking workforce (Chart 24). The North's reserves of thermal coal, which are comparable to Indonesia's (Chart 25), and other commodities, are also likely to be exploited given that South Korea and its neighbors are already scouring the globe for resource plays. Chart 23China's Belt And Road Initiative China's Belt And Road Initiative China's Belt And Road Initiative Chart 24Reunification Would Increase Labor Force Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America Chart 25North Korea Has Sizable Coal Reserves Pyongyang's Pivot To America Pyongyang's Pivot To America In reality, of course, it is the North's overexposure to commodities that is putting pressure on the regime to reform (in addition to international sanctions). China's economy is transitioning to a less resource-intensive model, putting the North's coal and metals exports in long-term jeopardy. The North lacks capital to industrialize and develop a manufacturing sector, and it risks missing out on the new wave of industrialization that is rewarding neighbors like Vietnam, Cambodia, and Myanmar. The slowdown in global trade and globalization threatens to close the window of opportunity for the North. Bottom Line: Oppressive communist regimes have proved capable of selectively opening up to outside trade and investment while maintaining the regime. North Korea is attempting to create a favorable foreign policy environment to take its nascent economic reforms further. The global search for yield, especially by Northeast Asian states, may still offer an opportunity to attract capital. China's economic transition adds a sense of urgency, given North Korea's need to diversify. Investment Conclusions North Korea is small, but independent, and it is pivoting to South Korea and the United States to increase its strategic and economic options. China has an interest in letting this happen, but will try to remain the dominant power. Almost every peace treaty or major diplomatic settlement in human history has involved a series of dramatic ups and downs in the lead-up to the agreement. Diplomatic volatility should increase the closer the different parties get to an agreement, due to the fears and hesitations of losing out in the final compromise. Investors should stay focused on the structural factors. North Korea is more of a geopolitical opportunity than a geopolitical risk for markets today. War is especially unlikely over 2018-19. Hence the North Korean issue is unlikely to disrupt the global economy or threaten a bullish global equity view over this time period. That would be up to other factors. Only if the new round of diplomacy completely and utterly collapses will the tail-risk of war reemerge. U.S.-China tensions, North Korea's nuclear program, and Trump's re-election bid could conceivably lead to a breakdown of diplomacy by 2020. The Trump administration would then return to its "maximum pressure" campaign and the probability of military strikes would rise. However, we put a low probability on such a breakdown occurring and would argue that the grave implications should be seen as a strong constraint driving the different parties to cut a deal. Assuming diplomacy succeeds, it should provide a small tailwind for South Korea's currency and risk assets, which at the moment face a negative environment due to slowing global growth, Chinese reforms, and a strengthening U.S. dollar. First, the end-game itself - Korean unification - is implicitly a positive for removing the risk and uncertainty of conflict and increasing Korea's potential GDP. Germany's unification remains the best analogy, for better or worse. German unification led to a brief decline in total factor productivity, but also a multi-year rally in equities, the deutschmark, and a bullish curve-steepening relative to world markets (Chart 26A). Chart 26AGermany Benefited From Reunification... Germany Benefited From Reunification... Germany Benefited From Reunification... Chart 26B...South Korea Is Not There Yet ...South Korea Is Not There Yet ...South Korea Is Not There Yet South Korea is not yet at the cusp of unification, so the analogy with German assets is premature, but it is not a foregone conclusion that South Korea will suffer as it embarks on the path toward unification. Of course, this year's diplomatic progress has coincided with renewed EM financial turmoil that has clouded any benefits from improved North-South relations (Chart 26 B). Moreover, the burden of unification will be immense given that North Korea is much larger and poorer relative to the South than East Germany was to West Germany, and markets will have to price in this burden by expecting larger South Korean budget deficits in future. Still, we would expect KRW/USD to benefit on the margin, especially given Korea's simultaneous promise to the Trump administration not to engage in competitive devaluation. Second, certain Korean sectors are poised to benefit from integration with the North. Looking at how the different sectors have performed before and after the April 27 inter-Korean summit, relative to their EM counterparts, reveals that industrials, energy, consumer staples, and telecoms are the relative winners (Chart 27).29 Chart 27Winners And Losers Of Inter-Korean Engagement Winners And Losers Of Inter-Korean Engagement Winners And Losers Of Inter-Korean Engagement Chart 28AReal Estate Near The DMZ... Real Estate Near The DMZ... Real Estate Near The DMZ... Chart 28B...Is Optimistic Once Again ...Is Optimistic Once Again ...Is Optimistic Once Again Third, the signal from real estate along the DMZ is loud and clear. Paju is known as the best proxy for improved Korean relations and transaction volumes have spiked since Moon and Kim met on April 27 and declared an end to the Korean War. The move is particularly notable when contrasted with the rest of Gyeonggi province, which is not inherently a "unification" play (Chart 28A & 28B). Similar moves happened in Paju real estate around the time of the first and second inter-Korean summits in 2000 and 2007, but as this report has shown, there is more reason to be optimistic today. This example speaks to the many opportunities for specialized funds to generate returns as development projects get underway. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Special Report, "The South China Sea: Smooth Sailing?" dated March 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Mattis criticized China's militarization of the South China Sea rocks at the annual Shangri-La Dialogue, accusing Chinese President Xi Jinping of violating his word on this matter. He also criticized China's Belt and Road Initiative. The same week, Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Kenneth McKenzie told a reporter that "the United States military has had a lot of experience in the Western Pacific, taking down small islands," in a thinly veiled hint to China's South China Sea activity. Finally, a report surfaced suggesting that the U.S. is considering sending a warship through the Taiwan Strait. Please see Ben Westcott, "US plans 'steady drumbeat' of exercises in South China Sea: Mattis," CNN, May 31, 2018, available at www.cnn.com; Laignee Barron, "Pentagon Official Says U.S. Can 'Take Down' Man-Made Islands Like Those in the South China Sea," Time, June 1, 2018, available at time.com; "Exclusive: At delicate moment, U.S. weighs warship passage through Taiwan Strait," Reuters, June 4, 2018, available at www.reuters.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize," dated May 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Northeast Asia: Moonshine, Militarism, And Markets," dated May 24, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taiwan Is A Potential Black Swan," dated March 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How To Play The Proxy Battles In Asia," dated March 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Vladimir Putin, Act IV," dated March 7, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Satellite imagery reveals that international sanctions have hindered manufacturing development and increased reliance on trade with China. Please see Yong Suk Lee, "International Isolation and Regional Inequality: Evidence from Sanctions on North Korea," Stanford University, Center on Global Poverty and Development, Working Paper 575 (October 2016), available at globalpoverty.stanford.edu. 12 North Korea's disagreements with China have given rise to a host of academic articles and studies in recent years. For an overview please see Philip Wen and Christian Shepherd, " 'Lips and teeth' no more as China's ties with North Korea fray," Reuters, September 8, 2017, available at www.reuters.com. See also Sebastian Harnisch, "The life and near-death of an alliance: China, North Korea and autocratic military cooperation," Heidelberg University, WISC Conference, Taipei, April 2017; and Weiqi Zhang, "Neither friend nor big brother: China's role in North Korean foreign policy strategy," Palgrave Communications 4:16 (2018), available at www.nature.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 The term is a pun on the original "Sunshine" engagement policy of Moon's predecessors Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun. President Kim's engagement attempt culminated in the first Inter-Korean summit in 2000, but was ultimately derailed by a hawkish turn in U.S. and North Korean policies and the inclusion of North Korea among the "Axis of Evil" following the 9/11 attacks. "Sunshine policy" revived again under President Roh Moo-hyun, leading to the second Inter-Korean summit in 2007. Roh's protégé, Moon, is now reviving the policy. Unfortunately, "moonshine" is saddled with the connotation of fraud and/or poison! 15 The major challenge to his rule came in late 2013 but he nipped it in the bud by executing his uncle Jang Song Taek and purging Jang's faction. He had his half-brother Kim Jong Nam assassinated in Malaysia in 2017. He promoted his sister, Kim Yeo-jong, to deputy chief of the Propaganda Department in the Korean Worker's Party. Kim has taken steps to empower the State Affairs Commission (cabinet), the Korean Worker's Party, and the legislature, the Supreme People's Assembly, vis-à-vis the long-dominant military. He has also reshuffled the military extensively, prior to a significant reshuffle this week that signaled a willingness to compromise with the Americans. See Thomas Fingar et al, "Analyzing The Structure And Performance Of Kim Jong-un's Regime," Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, Stanford University, June 2017, available at fsi.stanford.edu; and Hyonhee Shin, "North Korea's Three New Military Leaders Are Loyal To Kim, Not Policies," Reuters, June 4, 2018, available at reuters.com. 16 William Brown, "Is 'Byungjin' Working? A Look at North Korea's Money," The Peninsula, Korea Economic Institute of America, September 7, 2016, available at keia.org. 17 Please see Andrei Lankov, "The Resurgence of a Market Economy in North Korea," Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, January 2016, available at carnegieendowment.org; Sunchul Choi and Mark A. Myers, "Marketization in North Korea," United States Department of Agriculture, Global Agricultural Information Network Report KS1545, December 9, 2015, available at www.fas.usda.gov. 18 This diplomacy also reinforces Kim's reformist bent. In April 2017 he appointed Ri Su-yong, a close ally, to oversee foreign relations, and resurrected the Foreign Relations Committee within the country's legislature, the Supreme People's Assembly. See Fingar in footnote 15. 19 Please see footnote 6 above. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Trump Re-Establishes America's 'Credible Threat'," dated April 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Does It Pay To Pivot To China?" dated July 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 22 Presidents Moon and Xi agreed to improve bilateral relations, with China removing economic sanctions, on the basis of South Korea promising the "Three No's" - no additional THAAD deployments, no expansion of U.S. missile defense, and no trilateral military alliance with Japan and the U.S. Please see Park Byong-su, "South Korea's "three no's" announcement key to restoring relations with China," Hankyoreh, dated November 2, 2017, available at english.hani.co.kr. 23 Indeed, Russia shares China's desire to prevent North Korea from provoking the U.S. into a greater Pacific military presence, while Japan shares the American desire to reduce the North Korean nuclear and military threat to its homeland. 24 North Korea publicly aired misgivings about the upcoming Trump-Kim summit after the new National Security Adviser, John Bolton, implied that the administration would seek "the Libya model" (unilateral and total nuclear disarmament and dismantlement by North Korea) in its negotiations. North Korea criticized Bolton, a war-hawk who has a negative history with North Korea going back to the George W. Bush administration, putting the summit in jeopardy. The North was also angry about the U.S. and South Korean decision to proceed with annual military exercises ahead of the summit. Further, Chinese President Xi Jinping may have urged Kim Jong Un to tread more carefully, or cancel the summit, during a second meeting between these two presidents in early May. The White House rebuked Bolton's comments, saying the negotiations would follow "the Trump model." 25 Please see Christopher Woolf, "The only effective arms against North Korea's missile bunkers are nuclear weapons, says a top war planner," Public Radio International, August 10, 2017, available at www.pri.org; and Uri Friedman, "North Korea: The Military Options," The Atlantic, dated May 17, 2017, available at www.theatlantic.om. 26 Iraq set a precedent for U.S. preemptive invasion; Syria was a fellow nuclear aspirant and member of the Axis of Evil that suffered both Israeli strikes against its nuclear facilities and economic and political collapse due to mismanagement and international isolation; Ukraine gave up its Soviet nuclear weapons in 1994 with the Budapest Memorandum as a guarantee of its security only to suffer Russian invasion in 2014; and "Zero Dark Thirty" refers to the U.S. Seal Team Six covert raid into the heart of Pakistan to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden. 27 Our own analysis of the "bloody nose" military strike option, which is more likely than a full-blown war but very difficult to prevent from escalating, can be found in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Insights From The Road - The Rest Of The World," dated September 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 28 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "A Long View Of China," dated December 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 29 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "South Korea: A Comeback For Consumer Stocks?" June 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Trade war between China and U.S. is back on; President Trump is politically constrained from making a quick deal with China; Italian uncertainty will last through the summer and beyond; But bond market will eventually price profligacy over Euro Area exit, which favors bear steepening; A new election in Spain is market positive, there are no Euroskeptics in Iberia; Our tactical bearish view is playing out, stay long DXY and expect more summer volatility. Feature Geopolitical risks are rising across the board. This supports our tactically bearish view, elucidated in April.1 In this Client Note, we review our views on trade wars, Italy, and Spain. Is The U.S.-China Trade War Back On? Most relevant for global assets is that the first official salvo of the trade war between China and the U.S. has been fired: the White House announced, on May 29, tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese imports as well as yet-to-be-specified restrictions on Chinese investments in the U.S. and U.S. exports to China.2 We have long raised the alarm on U.S.-China relations, but President Trump threw us a curve-ball last week when Chinese and American negotiators issued a joint statement meant to soothe trade tensions. We responded that "we do not expect the truce to last long."3 Apparently it lasted merely eight days. The significance of the administration's about-face on trade is that it invalidates the conventional view that President Xi and Trump would promptly make a deal to ease tensions. Many of our clients have responded to our bearish view on Sino-American relations by suggesting that Beijing will simply offer to buy more "beef and Boeings," and that Trump will take the deal in order to declare a "quick win." The last ten days should put this view to rest. China did offer to buy more beef explicitly - with the offer of more Boeings also rumored - and yet President Trump rejected the deal. Why? Our suspicion is that President Trump was shocked by the backlash against the deal among Republicans in Congress and conservative commentators in the press. As we have argued since 2016, there is no political constraint to being tough on China on trade. This is a highly controversial view as many in the investment community agree with the narrative that the soybean lobby will prevent a trade war between the U.S. and China. President Trump's election, however, has revealed the preference of the median voter in the U.S. on trade. That preference is far less committed to free trade than previously assumed. Republicans in Congress, once staunch defenders of free trade, have therefore adjusted their policy preference, creating a political constraint to a quick deal with China. Bottom Line: Yes, the trade war is back on. We are re-opening our short China-exposed S&P 500 companies versus U.S. financials and telecoms. Is Italy Going To Leave The Euro Area? The Italian bond market is beginning to price severe geopolitical stress. The 10-year BTP spread versus German bunds has grown 98 basis points since the election (Chart 1), while the 2/10 BTP yield curve has nearly inverted (Chart 2). The latter suggests that investors are beginning to price in default risk, or rather Euro Area exit risk, over the next two years. Chart 1Probability Of Itexit Has Risen... Probability Of Itexit Has Risen... Probability Of Itexit Has Risen... Chart 2...But Two-Year Horizon Is Overstated ...But Two-Year Horizon Is Overstated ...But Two-Year Horizon Is Overstated We have long contended that Italy is the premier developed market political risk.4 Its level of Euroskepticism is empirically higher than that of the rest of Euro Area (Chart 3) and we have expected that Italy would eventually produce a global risk off. It is just not clear to us that this is the moment. Chart 3Italy: No Euro Support Rebound Italy: No Euro Support Rebound Italy: No Euro Support Rebound First, support for the Euro Area remains in the high 50% range and has largely bounced between 55-60% for several years. This is low relative to its Euro Area peers, prompting us to raise the alarm on Italy. But it is also still a majority, showing that Italians are not sold on leaving the Euro Area. Second, the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S) has adjusted its policy towards the euro membership question in view of this polling. In other words, M5S is aware that the median Italian voter is not convinced that exiting the Euro Area is the right thing to do. We would argue that the anti-establishment parties performed well in this year's election precisely because of this strategic decision to abandon their Euroskeptic rhetoric on the currency union. Nonetheless, the deal that M5S signed to form a coalition with the far more Euroskeptic Lega was an aggressive deal that signals that Rome is preparing for a fight against Brussels, the ECB, and core Europe. The proposed tax cuts, unwinding of retirement reforms, and increases in social welfare spending would raise Italy's budget deficit from current 2.3% of GDP to above 7%. Given rules against such profligacy, and given Italy's high debt levels, the coalition might as well be proposing a Euro Area exit. There are three additional concerns aside from fiscal profligacy: New Election: President Sergio Mattarella's choice for interim prime minister - now that M5S and Lega have broken off their attempt to form a government - has no chance of gaining a majority in the current parliament. As such, the president is likely to call a new election. The leaders of M5S and the Lega, as well as the leaders of the center-left Democratic Party (DP), want the election to be held on July 29, ahead of the ferragosto holidays that shuts down the country in August.5 The market does not like the uncertainty of new election as the current M5S-Lega coalition looks likely to win again, only this time with even more seats. As such, the last thing investors want is a summer full of hyperbolic, populist, anti-establishment statements that will undoubtedly be part of the electoral campaigns. Polls: The two populist parties, M5S and the Lega, are gaining in the polls, particularly the latter, which is the more Euroskeptic (Chart 4). This suggests to investors that the more Euroskeptic approach is gaining support. Impeachment: The leader of M5S, Luigi Di Maio, has called for the impeachment of President Mattarella. Di Maio accused Mattarella of overstepping his constitutional responsibility when he denied the populist coalition's preferred candidate for economy minister, Paolo Savona. Impeachment would be a major concern for the markets as Mattarella's mandate is set to expire only in 2022, which means that he remains a considerable constraint on populism until then. Our reading is that Mattarella did not violate the constitution and that he is unlikely to be removed from power, even if the parliament does impeach him.6 Over the next month, investors will watch all three factors closely. In our view, it is positive that the election may take place over the summer - for the first time in Italy's history - as it would reduce the period of uncertainty. Second, it is understandable that investors will fret about Lega's rise in the polls. However, the closer Lega approaches M5S in the polls, the less likely the two parties will be to maintain their current coalition. At some point, it will not be in the interest of M5S to form a coalition with its chief opponent, especially if Lega gains support and therefore demands a greater share of power in the revised coalition deal. A much preferable coalition partner for M5S would be the center-left PD, which will be weaker, and hence more manageable, and would be a better ideological match. Therefore we believe that the market is getting ahead of itself. Italian policymakers are looking for a fight with Brussels, Berlin, and the ECB over fiscal room and profligacy. This is a fight that will take considerable time to resolve and should add a fiscal premium to the long-dated Italian bonds. In fact, May 29 had the biggest day-to-day selloff since 1993 (Chart 5). However, policymakers are not (yet) looking for exit from the Euro Area. As such, risk premium on the 10-year BTPs does make sense, but the sharp move on the 2-year notes is premature. Chart 4Italy's Populists Are Ascendant Italy's Populists Are Ascendant Italy's Populists Are Ascendant Chart 5Market's Reaction Is More Severe Than In 2011 Market's Reaction Is More Severe Than In 2011 Market's Reaction Is More Severe Than In 2011 Bottom Line: Italian policymakers are not looking to exit the Euro Area. Their fight with Brussels, Berlin, and the ECB will last throughout 2018 and makes it dangerous to try to "catch the falling knife" of the BTPs. However, expecting the yield curve to invert is premature as an Italian Euro Area exit over the next two years is unlikely. Over the next ten years, however, we would expect Italy to test the markets with a Euro Area exit attempt. We are sticking to our view that such an event is far more likely to occur following a recession than it is today. Is Spanish Election Threat The Same As Italy? Chart 6Spanish Election Is Market Positive Spanish Election Is Market Positive Spanish Election Is Market Positive Spain is having its own political crisis. The inconclusive June 2016 election produced a minority conservative government, with the center-right People's Party (PP) supported on critical matters by the center-left Socialist Party (PSOE). The leader of the PSOE, Pedro Sanchez, has decided to withdraw his support for the minority government due to alleged evidence of PP corruption, allegations that have dogged the conservatives for years. A vote of confidence on Friday could bring down the government. Why did the PSOE decide to challenge PP now? Because polls are showing that PP is in decline, as is, Podemos, the far-left party that nearly outperformed PSOE in the 2016 election (Chart 6). The greatest beneficiary of the political realignment in Spain, however, is Ciudadanos, a radically centrist and radically pro-European party that originated in Catalonia. Ciudadanos's official platform in the December 2017 regional elections in Catalonia was "Catalonia is my homeland, Spain is my country, and Europe is our future." New elections in Spain are likely to produce a highly pro-market outcome where the centrist and pro-EU Ciudadanos forms a coalition with PSOE. While such a coalition would lean towards more fiscal spending, it would not unravel the crucial structural reforms painfully implemented by Mariano Rajoy's conservative governments since 2012. It also is as far away from Euroskepticism as exists in Europe at the moment. Bottom Line: A new Spanish election would be a market-positive event. The country would have a more stable government, replacing the current minority PP government that has lost all its political capital after implementing painful structural reforms and being dogged by corruption allegations. There is no Euroskeptic political alternative in Spain at the moment. As such, we are recommending that clients go long 10-year Spanish government bonds against Italian.7 Any contagion from Italy to Spain is inappropriate politically and is a misapplied vestige of the early days of the Euro Area crisis when all peripheral bonds traded in concerto. As such, it should be faded. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Expect Volatility... Of Volatility," dated April 11, 2018, and "Are You Ready For 'Maximum Pressure?'" dated May 16, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 According to the White House statement, the specific list of covered imports subjected to tariffs will be announced on June 15. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Some Good News (Trade), Some Bad News (Italy)," dated May 23, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 2016 and "Europe's Divine Comedy Part II: Italy In Purgatorio," dated June 21, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Corriere Della Sera, "Governo: cresce l'ipotesi del voto il 29 luglio. Salvini: "Al voto con Savona candidato," dated May 29, 2018, available at www.corriere.it. 6 Like in the U.S., the threshold for impeachment in Italy is low. Both chambers of parliament merely have to impeach the president with a simple majority. However, in Italy, the trial is not held in the parliament, but rather by the Constitutional Court's 15 judges and an additional 16 specially appointed judges - selected randomly. It is highly unlikely that Mattarella, himself a previous member of the court, would be found guilty, particularly since he acted in accordance with presidential powers outlined in Article 87 of the constitution ("The President shall appoint State officials in the cases provided for by the law") and in accordance with precedent (in 1994, the president then refused to appoint Silvio Berlusconi's personal lawyer as the country's minister of justice). In addition, leader of Lega, Matteo Salvini, has stated that he would not want to see Mattarella impeached. This is likely because the process has a low probability of success. Furthermore, the president cannot disband the parliament and call new elections if impeachment proceedings begin against him. 7 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Hold, Close Or Switch: Reviewing Our Tactical Overlay Trades," dated May 29, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights China-U.S. trade détente goes against our alarmist forecast, prompting us to reassess the view; We do not expect the truce to last long, as China has not given the U.S. what we believe the Trump administration wants; Instead, we see the truce lasting until at least the completion of the North Korea - U.S. summit, at most early 2019; Market is correct to fret about Italy, as the populist agenda will be constrained by the bond market in due course; Stay long DXY, but close our recommendations to short China-exposed S&P 500 companies. Feature Our alarmist view on trade wars appears to be in retreat, or at least "on hold," following the conclusion of the latest trade talks between U.S. and Chinese officials. Global markets breathed a sigh of relief on Monday, after a weekend of extremely positive comments from President Trump's advisers and cabinet members. Particularly bullish were the comments from Trump's top economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, who claimed that China had agreed to reduce its massive trade surplus with the U.S. by $200 billion (Chart 1). Chart 1China, Not NAFTA, Is The Problem China, Not NAFTA, Is The Problem China, Not NAFTA, Is The Problem The official bilateral statement, subsequently published by the White House, was vague. It claimed that "there was a consensus" regarding a substantive - but unquantifiable - reduction in the U.S. trade deficit.1 The only sectors that were mentioned specifically were "United States agriculture and energy exports." China agreed to "meaningfully" increase the imports of those products, which are low value- added commodity goods. With regard to value-added exports, China merely agreed that it would encourage "expanding trade in manufactured goods and services." The two sides also agreed to "attach paramount importance to intellectual property protections," with China specifically agreeing to "advance relevant amendments to its laws and regulations in this area." Subsequent to the declaratory statement, China lowered tariffs on auto imports from 25% to 15%. It will also cut tariffs on imported car parts, to around 6%, from the current average of about 10%. Is that it? Was the consensus view - that China would merely write a check for some Boeings, beef, and crude oil - essentially right? The key bellwether for trade tensions has been the proposed tariffs on $50-$150 billion worth of goods, set to come in effect as early as May 21. According to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, this tariff action is now "on hold." Mnuchin was also supposed to announce investment restrictions by this date, another bellwether that is apparently on hold. This is objective evidence that trade tensions have probably peaked for this year.2 On the other hand, there are several reasons to remain cautious: Section 301 Investigation: Robert Lighthizer, the cantankerous U.S. Trade Representative who spearheaded the Section 301 investigation into China's trade practices that justified the abovementioned tariffs and investment restrictions, immediately issued a statement on Sunday dampening enthusiasm: "Real work still needs to be done to achieve changes in a Chinese system that facilitates forced technology transfers in order to do business in China." In the same statement, Lighthizer added that China facilitates "the theft of our companies' intellectual property and business know-how." In other words, Lighthizer does not appear to be excited by the prospect of trading IP and tech protection for additional exports of beef and crude oil. Political Reaction: The reaction from conservative circles was less than enthusiastic, with both congressional officials and various Trump supporters announcing their exasperation with the supposed deal over the weekend.3 The Wall Street Journal claimed that China refused to put a number - such as the aforementioned $200 billion - in the final statement.4 The implication is that Beijing won this round of negotiations. But President Trump will not want to appear weak. If a narrative emerges that he "lost," we would expect President Trump to pivot back to tariffs and confrontation. Support for free trade has recently rebounded among Republican voters but remains dramatically lower among them than among Democrats (Chart 2). As such, it is a salient issue for the president politically. Chart 2Support For Free Trade Recovering, ##br##But Republicans Still Trail Democrats Some Good News (Trade), Some Bad News (Italy) Some Good News (Trade), Some Bad News (Italy) Chart 3China Already ##br##Imports U.S. Commodities... Some Good News (Trade), Some Bad News (Italy) Some Good News (Trade), Some Bad News (Italy) Investment Restrictions: Senator Cornyn's (Texas, Republican) bill to strengthen the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) process continues to move through the Senate.5 The Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act Of 2017 (FIRRMA) is currently being considered by the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and should be submitted to a vote ahead of the November election. Congress is also looking to pass a bipartisan bill that would prevent President Trump from taking it easy on Chinese telecommunication manufacturer ZTE. Chart 4U.S. Commodity Export Growth Is Solid Some Good News (Trade), Some Bad News (Italy) Some Good News (Trade), Some Bad News (Italy) Chart 5... But Impedes Market Access For Higher Value-Added Goods Some Good News (Trade), Some Bad News (Italy) Some Good News (Trade), Some Bad News (Italy) Beef And Oil Is Not Enough: The U.S. already has a growing market share in China's imports of commodities and crude materials, although it could significantly increase its exports in several categories (Chart 3). As the Chinese people develop middle-class consumption habits, the country was always going to import more agricultural products. And as their tastes matured, the U.S. was always going to benefit, given the higher quality and price point of its agricultural exports. In fact, China's imports of U.S. primary commodity exports have been increasing faster than imports of U.S. manufacturing goods (Chart 4). As such, the statement suggests that the U.S. and China have opted for the easiest compromises (commodities) to grant U.S. greater market access; the U.S. may have fallen short on market access for value-added manufacturing (Chart 5). In addition, there was little acknowledgment of the American demands that China cease forced tech transfers, cut subsidies for SOEs, reduce domestic content requirements under the "Made in China 2025" plan, and liberalize trade for U.S. software and high-tech exporters (Chart 6). Given these outstanding and unresolved issues, there are three ways to interpret the about-face in U.S. trade demands: Geopolitical Strategy is wrong: One scenario is that we are wrong, that the Trump administration is not focused on forced tech transfers and IP theft in any serious way.6 On the other hand, if that is true, the U.S. is also not serious about significantly reducing its trade deficit with China, since structurally, IP theft and non-tariff barriers to trade of high-value exports are a major reason why China has a massive surplus. Instead, the U.S. may only be focused on reducing the trade deficit through assurances of greater market access - a key demand as well, but one that could prove temporary or un-strategic, especially if access is only granted for commodities.7 If this is true, it suggests that President Trump's demands on China are transactional, not geopolitical, as we asserted in March.8 Midterms matter: Another scenario is that President Trump does not want to do anything that would hurt the momentum behind the GOP's polling ahead of the November midterms (Chart 7). The administration can always pick up the pressure on China following the election, given that 2019 is not an election year. Trump's political team may believe that Beijing concessions on agriculture, autos, and energy will be sufficient to satisfy the base until then. By mid-2019, the White House can also use twelve months of trade data to assess whether Beijing has actually made any attempt to deliver on its promises of increased imports from the U.S. Chart 6China's High-Tech Protectionism Some Good News (Trade), Some Bad News (Italy) Some Good News (Trade), Some Bad News (Italy) Chart 7Republicans Are Gaining... Republicans Are Gaining... Republicans Are Gaining... North Korea matters: Along the same vein as the midterms, there is wisdom in delaying trade action against China given the upcoming June 12 summit between President Trump and North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un in Singapore. President Trump's approval ratings began their second surge this year following the announced talks (Chart 8), and it is clear that the administration has a lot of political capital invested in the summit's success. Recent North Korean statements, suggesting that they are willing to break off dialogue, may have been the result of the surprise May 8 meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Kim, the second in two months. As such, President Trump may have had to back off on the imposition of tariffs against China in order to ensure that his summit with Kim goes smoothly. At this point, it is difficult to gauge whether the decision to ease the pressure against China was due to strategic or tactical reasons. We expect that the market will price in both, easing geopolitical risk on equity markets. However, if the delay is tactical - and therefore temporary - then the risk premium would remain appropriate. We do not think that we are wrong when it comes to U.S. demands on China. These include greater market access for U.S. value-added exports and services (not just commodities), as well as a radical change in how China awards such access (i.e., ending the demand that technology transfers accompany FDI and market access). In addition, China still massively underpays for U.S. intellectual property (IP) rights and has been promising to do more on that front for decades (Chart 9). Given that China has launched some anti-piracy campaigns, and given its recent success in other top-down campaigns like shuttering excess industrial capacity, it is hard to believe that Beijing could not crack down on IP theft even more significantly. Chart 8...Thanks To Tax Cuts And Kim Jong-un ...Thanks To Tax Cuts And Kim Jong-un ...Thanks To Tax Cuts And Kim Jong-un Chart 9What Happened To ~$100 Billion IP Theft? Some Good News (Trade), Some Bad News (Italy) Some Good News (Trade), Some Bad News (Italy) Furthermore, U.S. demands on China are not merely about market access and IP. There is also the issue of aggressive geopolitical footprint in East Asia, particularly the South China Sea. The U.S. defense and intelligence establishment is growing uneasy over China's pace of economic and technological development, given its growing military aggressiveness. In fact, over the past two weeks, China has: Landed the Xian H-6K strategic bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons on disputed "islands" in the South China Sea; Installed anti-ship cruise missiles, as well as surface-to-air missiles, on three of its outposts in disputed areas. Of course, if we are off the mark on our view of Sino-American tensions, it would mean that the Trump administration is willing to make transactional economic concessions for geopolitical maneuvering room. In other words, more crude oil and LNG exports in exchange for better Chinese positioning in vital sea and air routes in East Asia. We highly doubt that the Trump administration is making such a grand bargain, even if the rhetoric from the White House often suggests that the "America First" agenda would allow for such a strategic shift. Rather, we think the Trump administration, like the Obama administration, put the South China Sea low on the priority list, but will focus greater attention on it when is deemed necessary at some future date. Bottom Line: Trade tensions between China and the U.S. have almost assuredly peaked in a tactical, three-to-six month timeframe. While still not official, it appears that the implementation of tariffs on $50-$150 billion worth of imports from China, set for any time after May 21, is now on hold. As such, a trade war is on hold. We are closing our short China-exposed S&P 500 companies versus U.S. financials and telecoms, a trade that has returned 3.94% and long European / short U.S. industrials, which is down 2% since inception. This greatly reduces investment-relevant geopolitical risk this summer and makes us far less confident that investors should "sell in May and go away." Our tactical bearishness is therefore reduced, although several other geopolitical risks - such as Iran-U.S. tensions, Italian politics, and the U.S. midterm election- remain relevant.9 We do not think that Sino-American tensions have peaked cyclically or structurally (six months and beyond). The Trump Administration continues to lack constraints when it comes to acting tough on China. As such, investors should expect tensions to renew either right after the summit between Trump and Kim in early June or, more likely, following the November midterm elections. Italy: The Divine Comedy Continues Since 2016, we have noted that Italy remains the premier risk to European markets and politics.10 There are two reasons for the view. First, Italy has retained a higher baseline level of Euroskepticism relative to the rest of Europe (Chart 10). While support for the common currency has risen in other member states since 2013, it has remained between 55%-60% in Italy. This is unsurprising given the clearly disappointing economic performance in Italy relative to that of its Mediterranean peers (Chart 11). Chart 10Italy Remains A Relative Euroskeptic Italy Remains A Relative Euroskeptic Italy Remains A Relative Euroskeptic Chart 11Lagging Economy Explains Cyclical Euroskepticism Lagging Economy Explains Cyclical Euroskepticism Lagging Economy Explains Cyclical Euroskepticism Italy's Euroskepticism, however, is not merely a product of economic malaise. Chart 12 shows that a strong majority of Europeans are outright pessimistic about the future of their country outside of the EU. But when Italians are polled in that same survey, the population is increasingly growing optimistic about the option of exit (Chart 13). The only other EU member state whose citizens are as optimistic about a life outside the bloc is the U.K., where population obviously voted for Brexit. Chart 12Europeans Are Pessimists About EU Exit... Europeans Are Pessimists About EU Exit... Europeans Are Pessimists About EU Exit... Chart 13...But Italians Are More Like Brits ...But Italians Are More Like Brits ...But Italians Are More Like Brits Furthermore, Italian respondents have begun to self-identify as Italian only, not as "European" also, which breaks with another long-term trend in the rest of the continent (Chart 14) and is also reminiscent of the U.K. The second reason to worry about Italy is its economic performance. Real GDP is still 5.6% below its 2008 peak, while domestic demand continues to linger at 7.9% below its pre-GFC levels (Chart 15). As we posited at the end of 2017, the siren song of FX devaluation would become a powerful political elixir in the 2018 election, as populist policymakers blame Italy's Euro Area membership for the economic performance from Chart 15.11 Chart 14Italians Feel More Italian Italians Feel More Italian Italians Feel More Italian Chart 15Italian Demand Never Fully Recovered Italian Demand Never Fully Recovered Italian Demand Never Fully Recovered Is the Euro Area to blame for Italy's ills? No. The blame lies squarely at the feet of Italian policymakers, who flubbed efforts to boost collapsing productivity throughout the 1990s and 2000s (Chart 16). There was simply no pressure on politicians to enact reforms amidst the post-Maastricht Treaty convergence in borrowing costs. Italy punted reforms to its educational system, tax collection, and corporate governance. Twenty years of complacency have led to a massive loss in global market share (Chart 17). Chart 16Italy Has A Productivity Problem Some Good News (Trade), Some Bad News (Italy) Some Good News (Trade), Some Bad News (Italy) Chart 17Export Performance Is A Disaster Export Performance Is A Disaster Export Performance Is A Disaster While it is difficult to prove a counterfactual, we are not sure that even outright currency devaluation would have saved Italy from the onslaught of Asian manufacturing in the late 1990s. Euro Area imports from EM Asia have surged from less than 2% of total imports to nearly 10% in the last twenty years. Italy began losing market share to Asia well before the euro was introduced on January 1, 1999, as Chart 18 illustrates. The incoming populist government is unfortunately coming to power with growing global growth headwinds (Chart 19), with negative implications for Italy (Chart 20). These are likely to act as a constraint on plans by the Five Star Movement (M5S) and Lega coalition to blow out the budget deficit in pursuit of massive tax cuts, reversals of pension reforms, minimum wage hikes, and a proposal to increase spending on welfare. Our back-of-the-envelope calculation sees Italy's budget deficit growing to over 7% in 2019 if all the proposed reforms were enacted, well above the 3% limit imposed by the EU on its member states. Chart 18Italy Lost Market Share Amid Globalization Italy Lost Market Share Amid Globalization Italy Lost Market Share Amid Globalization Chart 19Tepid Global Growth... Tepid Global Growth... Tepid Global Growth... Chart 20...Is Bad News For Italy ...Is Bad News For Italy ...Is Bad News For Italy How would the EU Commission react to these proposals, given that Italy would break the rules of the EU Stability and Growth Pact (SGP)? We think the question is irrelevant. The process by which the EU Commission enforces the rules of the SGP is the Excessive Deficit Procedure (EDP), which would take over a year to put into place.12 First, the Commission would have to review the 2019 budget proposed by the new Italian government in September 2018. It would likely tell Rome that its plans would throw it into non-compliance with SGP rules, at which point the EU Commission would recommend the opening of a Significant Deviation Procedure (SDP). If Italy failed to follow the recommendations of the SDP, the Commission would then likely throw Italy into EDP at some point in the first quarter of 2019, or later that year.13 And what happens if Italy does not conform to the rules of the EDP? Italy would be sanctioned by the EU Commission by forcing Rome to make a non-interest-bearing deposit of 0.2% GDP.14 (Because it makes perfect sense to force a country with a large budget deficit to go into an even greater budget deficit.) Even if Rome complied with the sanctions, the punishment would only be feasible at the end of 2019, most likely at the end of Q1 2020. The point is that the above two paragraphs are academic. The Italian bond market would likely react much faster to Rome's budget proposals. The EU Commission operates on an annual and bi-annual timeline, whereas the bond market is on a minute-by-minute timeline. Given the bond market reaction thus far, it is difficult to see how Rome could be given the benefit of the doubt from investors (Chart 21). Investors have been demanding an ever-greater premium on Italian bonds, relative to their credit rating, ever since the election (Chart 22). Chart 21Uh Oh Spaghettio! Uh Oh Spaghettio! Uh Oh Spaghettio! Chart 22Bond Vigilantes Are Coming Some Good News (Trade), Some Bad News (Italy) Some Good News (Trade), Some Bad News (Italy) As such, the real question for investors is not whether the EU Commission can constrain Rome. It cannot. Rather, it is whether the bond market will. Rising borrowing costs would obviously impact the economy via several transmission channels, including overall business sentiment. But the real risk is Italy's banking sector. Domestic financial institutions hold 45% of Italian treasury bonds (BTPs) (Chart 23), which makes up 9.3% of all their assets, an amount equivalent to 77.8% of their capital and reserves (Chart 24). Foreign investors own 32%, less than they did before the Euro Area crisis, but still a significant amount. Chart 23Foreign Investors Still Hold A Third Of All Italian Debt Some Good News (Trade), Some Bad News (Italy) Some Good News (Trade), Some Bad News (Italy) Chart 24Italian Banks Also Hold Too Many BTPs Italian Banks Also Hold Too Many BTPs Italian Banks Also Hold Too Many BTPs In 2011, when the Euro Area crisis was raging, Italian 10-year yields hit 7%, or a spread of more than 500 basis points over German bunds. This was equivalent to an implied probability of a euro area breakup of 20% over the subsequent five years (Chart 25).15 What would happen if the populists in Rome followed through with their fiscal plans by September 2018 by including them in the 2019 budget? The bond market would likely begin re-pricing a similar probability of a Euro Area breakup, if not higher. In the process, Italian bonds could lose 20%-to-30% of their value - assuming that German bunds would rally on risk-aversion flows - which would result in a potential 15%-to-25% hit to Italian banks' capital and reserves. With the still large overhang of NPLs, Italian banks would be, for all intents and purposes, insolvent (Chart 26). Chart 25In 2011, Italian Spreads Signal Euro Break-Up In 2011, Italian Spreads Signal Euro Break-Up In 2011, Italian Spreads Signal Euro Break-Up Chart 26Italian Banks Still Carry Loads Of Bad Loans Italian Banks Still Carry Loads Of Bad Loans Italian Banks Still Carry Loads Of Bad Loans The populist government in Rome may not understand this dynamic today, but they will soon enough. This is perhaps why the leadership of both parties has decided to appoint a relatively unknown law professor, Guiseppe Conte, as prime minister. Conte is, according to the Italian press, a moderate and is not a Euroskeptic. It will fall to Conte to try to sell Europe first on as much of the M5S-Lega fiscal stimulus as he can, followed by the Italian public on why the coalition fell far short of its official promises. If the coalition pushes ahead with its promises, and ignores warnings from the bond market, we can see a re-run of the 2015 Greek crisis playing out in Italy. In that unlikely scenario, the ECB would announce publicly that it would no longer support Italian assets if Rome were determined to egregiously depart from the SGP. The populist government in Rome would try to play chicken with the ECB and its Euro Area peers, but the ATM's in the country would stop working, destroying its credibility with voters. In the end, the crisis will cause the populists to mutate into fiscally responsible Europhiles, just as the Euro Area crisis did to Greece's SYRIZA. For investors, this narrative is not a reassuring one. While our conviction level that Italy stays in the Euro Area is high, the scenario we are describing here would still lead to a significant financial crisis centered on the world's seventh-largest bond market. Bottom Line: Over the next several months, we would expect bond market jitters concerning Italy to continue, supporting our bearish view on EUR/USD, which we are currently articulating by being long the DXY (the EUR/USD cross makes up 57.6% of the DXY index). Given global growth headwinds, which are already apparent in the European economic data, and growing Italian risks, the ECB may also turn marginally more dovish for the rest of the year, which would be negative for the euro. Our baseline expectation calls for the new coalition government in Rome to back off from its most populist proposals. We expect that Italy will eventually flirt with overt Euroskepticism, but this would happen after the next recession and quite possibly only after the next election. If we are wrong, and the current populist government does not back off, then we could see a global risk-off due to Italy either later this summer, or in 2019. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Joint Statement of the United States and China Regarding Trade Consultations," dated May 19, 2018, available at whitehouse.gov. 2 President Trump later tweeted that the announced deal was substantive and "one of the best things to happen to our farmers in many years!" 3 The most illustrative comment may have come from Dan DiMicco, former steel industry CEO and staunch supporter of President Trump on tariffs, who tweeted "Did president just blink? China and friends appear to be carrying the day." 4 Please see Bob Davis and Lingling Wei, "China Rejects U.S. Target For Narrowing Trade Gap," The Wall Street Journal, dated May 19, 2018, available at wsj.com. 5 Please see "S. 2098 - 115th Congress: Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act Of 2017," dated May 21, 2018, available at www.govtrack.us. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Year Two: Let The Trade War Begin," dated March 14, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump's Demands On China," dated April 4, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War," dated March 6, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Are You Ready For 'Maximum Pressure?'" dated May 16, 2018; and "Expect Volatility... Of Volatility," dated April 11, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy Part II: Italy In Purgatorio," dated June 21, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see, The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, "Excessive deficit procedure (EDP)," available at eur-lex.europa.eu. 13 Have you been missing the European alphabet soup over the past three years? 14 The EU Commission can also suspend financing from the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF), but Italy has never participated in a bailout and thus could not be sanctioned that way. 15 Please see BCA European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Threats And Opportunities In The Bond Market," dated April 7, 2016, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Divergence between U.S. and global economic outcomes is bullish for the U.S. dollar and bad for EM assets; Maximum Pressure worked with North Korea, but it may not with Iran, putting upside pressure on oil; An election is the only way to resolve split over Brexit and the new anti-establishment coalition in Italy is not market positive; Historic election outcome in Malaysia and the prospect of a weakened Erdogan favors Malaysian over Turkish assets; Reinitiate long Russian vs EM equities in light of higher oil price and reopen French versus German industrials as reforms continue unimpeded in France. Feature "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far." - Theodore Roosevelt, in a letter to Henry L. Sprague, January 26, 1900. May started with a geopolitical bang. On May 4, a high-profile U.S. trade delegation to Beijing returned home after two days of failed negotiations. Instead of bridging the gap between the two superpowers, the delegation doubled it.1 On May 8, President Trump put his Maximum Pressure doctrine - honed against Pyongyang - into action against Iran, announcing that the U.S. would withdraw from the Obama administration's Iran nuclear deal - also referred to as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). These geopolitical headlines were good for the U.S. dollar, bad for Treasuries, and generally miserable for emerging market (EM) assets (Chart 1).2 We have expected these very market moves since the beginning of the year, recommending that clients go long the DXY on January 31 and go short EM equities vs. DM on March 6.3 Chart 1EM Breakdown? EM Breakdown? EM Breakdown? Chart 2U.S. Dollar Rallies When Global Trade Slows U.S. Dollar Rallies When Global Trade Slows U.S. Dollar Rallies When Global Trade Slows Geopolitical risks, however, are merely the accelerant of an ongoing process of global growth redistribution. A key theme for BCA's Geopolitical Strategy this year has been the divergent ramifications of populist stimulus in the U.S. and structural reforms in China. This political divergence in economic outcomes has reduced growth in the latter and accelerated it in the former, a bullish environment for the U.S. dollar (Chart 2).4 Data is starting to support this narrative: Chart 3Global Growth On A Knife Edge Global Growth On A Knife Edge Global Growth On A Knife Edge Chart 4German Data... German Data... German Data... The BCA OECD LEI has stalled, but the diffusion index shows a clear deterioration (Chart 3); German trade is showing signs of weakness, as is industrial production and IFO business confidence (Chart 4); Another bellwether of global trade, South Korea, is showing a rapid deterioration in exports (Chart 5); Global economic surprise index is now in negative territory (Chart 6). Chart 5...And South Korean, Foreshadows Risks ...And South Korean, Foreshadows Risks ...And South Korean, Foreshadows Risks Chart 6Unexpected Slowdown In Global Growth Unexpected Slowdown In Global Growth Unexpected Slowdown In Global Growth Meanwhile, on the U.S. side of the ledger, wage pressures are rising as the number of unemployed workers and job openings converge (Chart 7). Given the additional tailwinds of fiscal stimulus, which we see no real chance of being reversed either before or after the midterm election, the U.S. economy is likely to continue to surprise to the upside relative to the rest of the world, a bullish outcome for the U.S. dollar (Chart 8). In this environment of U.S. outperformance and global growth underperformance, EM assets are likely to suffer. Chart 7U.S. Labor Market Is Tightening U.S. Labor Market Is Tightening U.S. Labor Market Is Tightening Chart 8U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD Additionally, it does not help that geopolitical risks will weigh on confidence and will buoy demand for safe haven assets, such as the U.S. dollar. First, U.S.-China trade relations will continue to dominate the news flow this summer. President Trump's positive tweets on the smartphone giant ZTE aside, the U.S. and China have not reached a substantive agreement and upcoming deadlines on trade-related matters remain a risk (Table 1). Table 1Protectionism: Upcoming Dates To Watch Are You Ready For "Maximum Pressure?" Are You Ready For "Maximum Pressure?" Second, President Trump's application of Maximum Pressure on Iran will cause further volatility and upside pressure on the oil markets. The media was caught by surprise by the president's announcement that he is withdrawing the U.S. from the JCPOA, which is puzzling given that the May 12 expiration of the sanctions waiver was well-telegraphed (Chart 9). It is also surprising given that President Trump signaled his pivot towards an aggressive foreign policy by appointing John Bolton and Mike Pompeo - two adherents of a hawkish foreign policy - to replace more middle-of-the-road policymakers. It was these personnel changes, combined with the U.S. president's lack of constraints on foreign policy, that inspired us to include Iran as the premier geopolitical risk for 2018.5 Chart 9Iran: Nobody Was Paying Attention! Iran: Nobody Was Paying Attention! Iran: Nobody Was Paying Attention! Iran-U.S. Tensions: Maximum Pressure Is Real Last year, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy correctly forecast that President Trump's Maximum Pressure doctrine would work against North Korea. First, we noted that President Trump reestablished America's "credible threat," a crucial factor in any negotiation.6 Without credible threats, it is impossible to cajole one's rival into shifting away from the status quo. The trick with North Korea, for each administration that preceded President Trump, was that it was difficult to establish such a credible threat given Pyongyang's ability to retaliate through conventional artillery against South Korean population centers. President Trump swept this concern aside by appearing unconcerned with what were to befall South Korean civilians or the Korean-U.S. alliance. Second, we noted in a detailed military analysis that North Korean retaliation - apart from the aforementioned conventional capacity - was paltry.7 President Trump called Kim Jong-un's bluff about targeting Guam with ballistic missiles and kept up Maximum Pressure throughout a summer full of rhetorical bluster. As tensions rose, China blinked first, enforcing President Trump's demand for tighter sanctions. China did not want the U.S. to attack North Korea or to use the North Korean threat as a reason to build up its military assets in the region. The collapse of North Korean exports to China ultimately starved the regime of hard cash and, in conjunction with U.S. military and rhetorical pressure, forced Kim Jong-un to back off (Chart 10). In essence, President Trump's doctrine is a modification of President Theodore Roosevelt's maxim. Instead of "talking softly," President Trump recommends "tweeting aggressively".8 It is important to recount the North Korean experience for several reasons: Maximum Pressure worked with North Korea: It is an objective fact that President Trump was correct in using Maximum Pressure on North Korea. Our analysis last year carefully detailed why it would be a success. However, we also specifically outlined why it would work with North Korea. Particularly relevant was Pyongyang's inability to counter American economic pressure and rhetoric with material leverage. Kim Jong-un's only objective capability is to launch a massive artillery attack against civilians in Seoul. Given his preference not to engage in a full-out war against South Korea and the U.S., he balked and folded. Trump is tripling-down on what works: President Trump, as all presidents before him, is learning on the job. The North Korean experience has convinced him that his Maximum Pressure tactic works. In particular, it works because it forces third parties to enforce economic sanctions on the target nation. If China were to abandon its traditional ally North Korea and enforced painful sanctions, the logic goes, then Europeans would ditch Iran much faster. Iran is not North Korea: The danger with applying a Maximum Pressure tactic against Iran is that Tehran has multiple levers around the Middle East that it could deploy to counter U.S. pressure. President Obama did not sign the JCPOA merely because he was a dove.9 He did so because the deal resolved several regional security challenges and allowed the U.S. to pivot to Asia (Chart 11). Chart 10Maximum Pressure Worked On Pyongyang Maximum Pressure Worked On Pyongyang Maximum Pressure Worked On Pyongyang Chart 11Iran Nuclear Deal Had A Strategic Imperative Iran Nuclear Deal Had A Strategic Imperative Iran Nuclear Deal Had A Strategic Imperative To understand why Iran is not North Korea, and how the application of Maximum Pressure could induce greater uncertainty in this case, investors first have to comprehend why the U.S.-Iran nuclear deal was concluded in the first place. Maximum Pressure Applied To Iran The 2015 U.S.-Iran deal resolved a crucial security dilemma in the Middle East: what to do about Iran's growing power in the region. Ever since the U.S. toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003, the fulcrum of the region's disequilibrium has been the status of Iraq. Iraq is a natural geographic buffer between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the two regional rivals. Hussein, a Sunni, ruled Iraq - 65% of which is Shia - either as an overt client of the U.S. and Saudi Arabia (1980-1988), or as a free agent largely opposed to everyone in the region (from 1990s onwards). Both options were largely acceptable to Saudi Arabia, although the former was preferable. Iran quickly seized the initiative in Iraq following the U.S. overthrow of Hussein, which created a vast vacuum of power in the country. Elite members of the country's Revolutionary Guards (IRGC), the so-called Quds Force, infiltrated Iraq and supplied various Shia militias with weapons and training that fueled the anti-U.S. insurgency. An overt Iranian ally, Nouri al-Maliki, assumed power in 2006. Soon the anti-U.S. insurgency evolved into sectarian violence as the Sunni population revolted and various Sunni militias, supported by Saudi Arabia, rose up against Shia-dominated Baghdad. The U.S. troops stationed in Iraq quickly became either incapable of controlling the sectarian violence or direct targets of the violence themselves. This rebellion eventually mutated into the Islamic State, which spread from Iraq to Syria in 2012 and then back to Iraq two years later. The Obama administration quickly realized that a U.S. military presence in Iraq would have to be permanent if Iranian influence in the country was to be curbed in the long term. This position was untenable, however, given U.S. military casualties in Iraq, American public opinion about the war, and lack of clarity on U.S. long-term interests in Iraq in the first place. President Obama therefore simultaneously withdrew American troops from Iraq in 2011 and began pressuring Iran on its nuclear program between 2011 and 2015.10 In addition, the U.S. demanded that Iran curb its influence in Iraq, that its anti-American/Israel rhetoric cease, and that it help defend Iraq against the attacks by the Islamic State in 2014. Tehran obliged on all three fronts, joining forces with the U.S. Air Force and Special Forces in the defense of Baghdad in the fall 2014.11 In 2014, Iran acquiesced in seeing its ally al-Maliki replaced by the far less sectarian Haider al-Abadi. These moves helped ease tensions between the U.S. and Iran and led to the signing of the JCPOA in 2015. From Tehran's perspective, it has abided by all the demands made by Washington during the 2012-2015 negotiations, both those covered by the JCPOA overtly and those never explicitly put down on paper. Yes, Iran's influence in the Middle East has expanded well beyond Iraq and into Syria, where Iranian troops are overtly supporting President Bashar al-Assad. But from Iran's perspective, the U.S. abandoned Syria in 2012 - when President Obama failed to enforce his "red line" on chemical weapons use. In fact, without Iranian and Russian intervention, it is likely that the Islamic State would have gained a greater foothold in Syria. The point that its critics miss is that the 2015 nuclear deal always envisioned giving Iran a sphere of influence in the Middle East. Otherwise, Tehran would not have agreed to curb its nuclear program! To force Iran to negotiate, President Obama did threaten Tehran with military force. As we have detailed in the past, President Obama established a credible threat by outsourcing it to Israel in 2011. It was this threat of a unilateral Israeli attack, which Obama did little to limit or prevent, that ultimately forced Europeans to accept the hawkish American position and impose crippling economic sanctions against Iran in early 2012. As such, it is highly unlikely that a rerun of the same strategy by the U.S., this time with Trump in charge and with potentially less global cooperation on sanctions, will produce a different, or better, deal. The recent history is important to recount because the Trump administration is convinced that it can get a better deal from Iran than the Obama administration did. This may be true, but it will require considerable amounts of pressure on Iran to achieve it. At some point, we expect that this pressure will look very much like a preparation for war against Iran, either by U.S. allies Israel and Saudi Arabia, or by the U.S. itself. First, President Trump will have to create a credible threat of force, as President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did in 2011-2012. Second, President Trump will have to be willing to sanction companies in Europe and Asia for doing business with Iran in order to curb Iran's oil exports. According to National Security Advisor John Bolton, European companies will have by the end of 2018 to curb their activities with Iran or face sanctions. The one difference this time around is Iraqi politics. Elections held on May 13 appear to have resulted in a surge of support for anti-Iranian Shia candidates, starting with the ardently anti-American and anti-Iranian Shia Ayatollah Muqtada al-Sadr. Sadr is a Shia, but also an Iraqi nationalist who campaigned on an anti-Tehran, anti-poverty, anti-corruption line. If the election signals a clear shift in Baghdad against Iran, then Iran may have one less important lever to play against the U.S. and its allies. However, we are only cautiously optimistic about Iraq. Pro-Iranian Shia forces, while in a clear minority, still maintain the support of roughly half of Iraqi Shias. And al-Sadr may not be able to govern effectively, given that his track record thus far mainly consists of waging insurgent warfare (against Americans) and whipping up populist fervor (against Iran). Any move in Baghdad, with U.S. and Saudi backing, to limit Iranian-allied Shia groups from government could lead to renewed sectarian conflict. Therein lies the key difference between North Korea and Iran. Iran has military, intelligence, and operational capabilities that North Korea does not. This is precisely why the U.S. concluded the 2015 deal in the first place, so that Iran would curb those capabilities regionally and limit its operations to the Iranian "sphere of influence." In addition, Iran is constrained against reopening negotiations with the U.S. domestically by the ongoing political contest between the moderates - such as President Hassan Rouhani - and the hawks - represented by the military and intelligence nexus. Supreme Leader Khamenei sits somewhere in the middle, but will side with the hawks if it looks like Rouhani's promise of economic benefits from the détente with the West will fall short of reality. The combination of domestic pressure and capabilities therefore makes it likely that Iran retaliates against American pressure at some point. While such retaliation could be largely investment-irrelevant - say by supporting Hezbollah rocket attacks into Israel or ramping up military operations in Syria - it could also affect oil prices if it includes activities in and around the Persian Gulf. Bottom Line: We caution clients not to believe the narrative that "Trump is all talk." As the example in North Korea suggests, Trump's rhetoric drove China to enforce sanctions in order to avert war on the Korean Peninsula. We therefore expect the U.S. administration to continue to threaten European and Asian partners and allies with sanctions, causing an eventual drop in Iranian oil exports. In addition, we expect Iran to play hardball, using its various proxies in the region to remind the Trump administration why Obama signed the 2015 deal in the first place. Could Trump ultimately be right on Iran as he was on North Korea? Absolutely. It is simply naïve to assume that Iran will negotiate without Maximum Pressure, which by definition will be market-relevant. Impact On Energy Markets BCA Energy Sector Strategy believes that the re-imposition of sanctions could result in a loss of 300,000-500,000 b/d of production by early 2019.12 This would take 2019 production back down to 3.3-3.5 MMB/d instead of growing to nearly 4.0 MMb/d as our commodity strategists have modeled in their supply-demand forecasts. In total, Iranian sanctions could tighten up the outlook for 2019 oil markets by 400,000-600,000 b/d, reversing the production that Iran has brought online since 2016 (Chart 12). Is the global energy market able to withstand this type of loss of production? First, Chart 13 shows that the enormous oversupply of crude oil and oil products held in inventories has already been cut from 450 million barrels at its peak to less than 100 million barrels today. Surplus inventories are destined to shrink to nothing by the end of the year even without geopolitical risks. In short, there is no excess inventory cushion. Chart 12Current And Future Iran Production Is At Risk Current And Future Iran Production Is At Risk Current And Future Iran Production Is At Risk Chart 13Excess Petroleum Inventories Are All But Gone Excess Petroleum Inventories Are All But Gone Excess Petroleum Inventories Are All But Gone Second, spare capacity within the OPEC 2.0 alliance - Saudi Arabia and Russia - is controversial. Many clients believe that OPEC 2.0 could easily restore the 1.8 MMb/d of production that they agreed to hold off the market since early 2017. However, our commodity team has always considered the full number to be an illusion that consists of 1.2 MMb/d of voluntary cuts and around 500,000 b/d of natural production declines that were counted as "cuts" so that the cartel could project an image of greater collaboration than it actually has achieved (Chart 14). In fact, some of the lesser "contributors" to the OPEC cut pledged to lower 2017 production by ~400,000 b/d, but are facing 2018 production levels that are projected to be ~700,000 b/d below their 2016 reference levels, and 2019 production levels are estimated to decline by another 200,000 b/d (Chart 15). Chart 14Primary OPEC 2.0 Members Are ##br##Producing 1.0 MMb/d Below Pre-Cut Levels Primary OPEC 2.0 Members Are Producing 1.0 MMb/d Below Pre-Cut Levels Primary OPEC 2.0 Members Are Producing 1.0 MMb/d Below Pre-Cut Levels Chart 15Secondary OPEC 2.0 "Contributors"##br## Can't Even Reach Their Quotas Secondary OPEC 2.0 "Contributors" Can't Even Reach Their Quotas Secondary OPEC 2.0 "Contributors" Can't Even Reach Their Quotas Third, renewed Iran-U.S. tensions may only be the second-most investment-relevant geopolitical risk for oil markets. Our commodity team expects Venezuelan production to fall to 1.23 MMb/d by the end of 2018 and to 1 MMb/d by the end of 2019, but these production levels could turn out to be optimistic (Chart 16). Venezuelan production declined by 450,000 b/d over the course of 21 months (December 2015 to September 2017), followed by another 450,000 b/d plunge over the past six months (September 2017 to March 2018), as the country's failing economy goes through the death spiral of its 20-year socialist experiment. The oil production supply chain is now suffering from shortages of everything, including capital. It is difficult to predict what broken link in the supply chain is most likely to impact production next, when it will happen, and what the size of the production impact will be. The combination of President Trump's Maximum Pressure doctrine applied to Iran, continued deterioration in Venezuelan production, and the inability of OPEC 2.0 to surge production as fast as the market thinks is unambiguously bullish for oil prices. Oil markets are currently pricing in a just under 35% probability that oil prices will exceed $80/bbl by year-end (Chart 17).13 We believe these odds are too low and will take the other side of that bet. Indeed, we think that the odds of Brent prices ending above $90/bbl this year are much higher than the 16% chance being priced in the markets presently, even though this is up from just under 4% at the beginning of the year. Chart 16Venezuela Is A Bigger Risk Venezuela Is A Bigger Risk Venezuela Is A Bigger Risk Chart 17Market Continues To Underestimate High Oil Prices Are You Ready For "Maximum Pressure?" Are You Ready For "Maximum Pressure?" Bottom Line: Our colleague Bob Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist, also expects higher volatility, as news flows become noisier. The recommendation by BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy is to go long Feb/19 $80/bbl Brent calls expiring in Dec/18 vs. short Feb/19 $85/bbl calls, given our assessment that the odds of ending the year above $90/bbl are higher than the market's expectations. A key variable to watch in the ongoing saga will be President Trump's willingness to impose secondary sanctions against European and Asian companies doing business with Iran. We do not think that the White House is bluffing. The mounting probability of sanctions will create "stroke of pen" risk and raise compliance costs to doing business with Iran, leading to lower Iranian exports by the end of the year. Europe Update: Political Risks Returning Risks in Europe are rising on multiple fronts. First, we continue to believe that the domestic political situation in the U.K. regarding Brexit is untenable. Second, the coalition of populists in Italy - combining the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S) and the Euroskeptic Lega - appears poised to become a reality. Brexit: Start Pricing In Prime Minister Corbyn Since our Brexit update in February, the pound has taken a wild ride, but our view has remained the same.14 PM May has an untenable negotiating position. The soft-Brexit majority in Westminster is growing confident while the hard-Brexit majority in her own Tory party is growing louder. We do not know who will win, but odds of an unclear outcome are growing. The first problem is the status of Northern Ireland. The 1998 Good Friday agreement, which ended decades of paramilitary conflict on the island, established an invisible border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Membership in the EU by both made the removal of a physical border a simple affair. But if the U.K. exits the bloc, and takes Northern Ireland with it, presumably a physical barrier would have to be reestablished, either in Ireland or between Northern Ireland and the rest of the U.K. The former would jeopardize the Good Friday agreement, the latter would jeopardize the U.K.'s integrity as a state. The EU, led on by Dublin's interests, has proposed that Northern Ireland maintain some elements of the EU acquis communautaire - the accumulated body of EU's laws and obligations - in order to facilitate the effectiveness of the 1998 Good Friday agreement. For many Tories in the U.K., particularly those who consider themselves "Unionists," the arrangement smacks of a Trojan Horse by the EU to slowly but surely untie the strings that bind the U.K. together. If Northern Ireland gets an exception, then pro-EU Scotland is sure to ask for one too. The second problem is that the Tories are divided on whether to remain part of the EU customs union. PM May is in favor of a "customs partnership" with the EU, which would see unified tariffs and duties on goods and services across the EU bloc and the U.K. However, her own cabinet voted against her on the issue, mainly because a customs union with the EU would eliminate the main supposed benefit of Brexit: negotiating free trade deals independent of the EU. It is unclear how PM May intends to resolve the multiple disagreements on these issues within her party. Thus far, her strategy was to simply put the eventual deal with the EU up for a vote in Westminster. She agreed to hold such a vote, but with the caveat that a vote against the deal would break off negotiations with the EU and lead to a total Brexit. The threat of such a hard Brexit would force soft Brexiters among the Tories to accept whatever compromise she got from Brussels. Unfortunately for May's tactic, the House of Lords voted on April 30 to amend the flagship EU Withdrawal Bill to empower Westminster to send the government back to the negotiating table in case of a rejection of the final deal with the EU. The amendment will be accepted if the House of Commons agrees to it, which it may, given that a number of soft Brexit Tories are receptive. A defeat of the final negotiated settlement could prolong negotiations with the EU. Brussels is on record stating that it would prolong the transition period and give the U.K. a different Brexit date, moving the current date of March 2019. However, it is unclear why May would continue negotiating at that point, given that her own parliament would send her back to Brussels, hat in hand. The fundamental problem for May is the same that has plagued the last three Tory Prime Ministers: the U.K. Conservative Party is intractably split with itself on Brexit. The only way to resolve the split may be for PM May to call an election and give herself a mandate to negotiate with the EU once she is politically recapitalized. This realization, that the probability of a new election is non-negligible, will likely weigh on the pound going forward. Investors would likely balk at the possibility that Jeremy Corbyn will become the prime minister, although polling data suggests that his surge in popularity is over (Chart 18). Local elections in early May also ended inconclusively for Labour's chances, with no big outpouring for left-leaning candidates. Even if Labour is forced to form a coalition with the Scottish National Party (SNP), it is unlikely that the left-leaning SNP would be much of a check on Corbyn's Labour. Chart 18Corbyn's Popularity Is In Decline Corbyn's Popularity Is In Decline Corbyn's Popularity Is In Decline Bottom Line: Theresa May will either have to call a new election between now and March of next year or she will use the threat of a new election to get hard-Brexit Tories in line. Either way, markets will have to reprice the probability of a Labour-led government between now and a resolution to the Brexit crisis. Italy: Start Pricing In A Populist Government Leaders of Italy's populist parties - M5S and Lega - have come to an agreement on a coalition that will put the two anti-establishment parties in charge of the EU's third-largest economy. Markets are taking the news in stride because M5S has taken a 180-degree turn on Euroskepticism. Although Lega remains overtly Euroskeptic, its leader Matteo Salvini has said that he does not want a chaotic exit from the currency bloc. Is the market right to ignore the risks? On one hand, it is a positive development that the anti-establishment forces take over the reins in Italy. Establishment parties have failed to reform the country, while time spent in government will de-radicalize both anti-establishment parties. Furthermore, the one item on the political agenda that both parties agree on is to radically curb illegal migration into Italy, a process that is already underway (Chart 19). On the other hand, the economic pact signed by both parties is completely and utterly incompatible with reality. It combines a flat tax and a guaranteed basic income with a lowering of the retirement age. This would blow a hole in Italy's budget, barring a miraculous positive impact on GDP growth. The market is likely ignoring the coalition's economic policies as it assumes they cannot be put into action. This is not because Rome is afraid to flout Brussels' rules, but because the bond market is not going to finance Italian expenditures. Long-dated Italian bonds are already cheap relative to the country's credit rating (Chart 20), evidence that the market is asking for a premium to finance Italian expenditures. This is despite the ongoing ECB bond buying efforts. Once the ECB ends the program later this year, or in early 2019, the pressure on Rome from the bond market will grow. Chart 19European Migration Crisis Is Over European Migration Crisis Is Over European Migration Crisis Is Over Chart 20Italian Bonds Still Require A Risk Premium Are You Ready For "Maximum Pressure?" Are You Ready For "Maximum Pressure?" We suspect that both M5S and Lega are aware of their constraints. After all, neither M5S leader Luigi Di Maio nor Lega's Salvini are going to take the prime minister spot. This is extraordinary! We cannot remember the last time a leader of the winning party refused to take the top political spot following an election. Both Di Maio and Salvini are trying to pass the buck for the failure of the coalition. In one way, this is market-positive, as it suggests that the anti-establishment coalition will do nothing of note during its mandate. But it also suggests that markets will have to deal with a new Italian election relatively quickly. As such, we would warn investors to steer clear of Italian assets. Their performance in 2017, and early 2018, suggests that the market has already priced in the most market-positive outcome. Yes, Italy will not leave the Euro Area. But no, there is no "Macron of Italy" to resolve its long-term growth problems. Bottom Line: The Italian government formation is not market-positive. Italian bonds are cheap for a reason. While it is unlikely that the populist coalition will have the room to maneuver its profligate coalition deal into action, the bond market may have to discipline Italian policymakers from time to time. In the long term, none of the structural problems that Italy faces - many of which we have identified in a number of reports - will be tackled by the incoming coalition.15 This will expose Italy to an eventual resurgence in Euroskepticism at the first sight of the next recession. Emerging Markets: Elections In Malaysia And Turkey Offer Divergent Outcomes As we pointed out at the beginning of this report, an environment of rising U.S. yields, a surging dollar, and moderating global growth is negative for emerging markets. In this context, politics is unlikely to make much of a difference. The recently announced early election in Turkey is a case in point. Markets briefly cheered the announced election (Chart 21), before investors realized that there is unlikely to be a consolidation of power behind President Erdogan (Chart 22). Even if Erdogan were to somehow massively outperform expectations and consolidate political capital, it is not clear why investors would cheer such an outcome given his track record, particularly on the economy, over the past decade. Chart 21Investors Briefly Cheered Ankara's Snap Election Investors Briefly Cheered Ankara's Snap Election Investors Briefly Cheered Ankara's Snap Election Chart 22Is Erdogan In Trouble? Is Erdogan In Trouble? Is Erdogan In Trouble? Malaysia, on the other hand, could be the one EM economy that defies the negative macro context due to political events. Our most bullish long-term scenario for Malaysia - a historic victory for the opposition Pakatan Harapan coalition - came to pass with the election on May 9 (Chart 23).16 Significantly, outgoing Prime Minister Najib Razak accepted the election results as the will of the people. He did not incite violence or refuse to cede power. Rather, he congratulated incoming Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and promised to help ensure a smooth transition. This marks the first transfer of power since Malaysian independence in 1957. It was democratic and peaceful, which establishes a hugely consequential and market-friendly precedent. How did the opposition pull off this historic upset? Ethnic-majority Malays swung to the opposition; Mahathir's "charismatic authority" had an outsized effect; Barisan Nasional "safety deposits" in Sabah and Sarawak failed; Voters rejected fundamentalist Islamism. What are the implications? Better Governance - Governance has been deteriorating, especially under Najib's rule, but now voters have demanded improvements that could include term-limits for prime ministers and legislative protections for officials investigating wrongdoing by top leaders (Chart 24). Economic Stimulus - Pakatan Harapan campaigned against some of the painful pro-market structural reforms that Najib put in place. They have promised to repeal the new Goods and Services Tax (GST) and reinstate fuel subsidies. They have also proposed raising the minimum wage and harmonizing it across the country. While these pledges will be watered down,17 they are positive for nominal growth in the short term but negative for fiscal sustainability in the long term. Chart 23Comfortable Majority For Pakatan Harapan Coalition Are You Ready For "Maximum Pressure?" Are You Ready For "Maximum Pressure?" Chart 24Voters Want Governance Improvements Are You Ready For "Maximum Pressure?" Are You Ready For "Maximum Pressure?" The one understated risk comes from China. Najib's weakness had led him to court China and rely increasingly on Chinese investment as an economic strategy. Mahathir and Pakatan Harapan will seek to revise all Chinese investment (including under the Belt and Road Initiative). This review is not necessarily to cancel projects but to haggle about prices and ensure that domestic labor is employed. Mahathir will also try to assert Malaysian rights in the South China Sea. None of this means that a crisis is impending, but China has increasingly used economic sanctions to punish and reward its neighbors according to whether their electoral outcomes are favorable to China,18 and we expect tensions to increase. Investment Conclusion On the one hand, in the short run, the picture for Malaysia is mixed. Pakatan Harapan will likely pursue some stimulative economic policies, but these come amidst fundamental macro weaknesses that we have highlighted in the past - and may even exacerbate them. On the other hand, a key external factor is working in the new government's favor: oil. With oil prices likely to move higher, the Malaysian ringgit is likely to benefit (Chart 25), helping Malaysian companies make payments on their large pile of dollar-denominated debt and improving household purchasing power, a key election grievance. Higher oil prices are also correlated with higher equity prices. Over the long run, we have a high-conviction view that this election is bullish for Malaysia. It sends a historic signal that the populace wants better governance. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy has found that improvements in governance are crucial for long-term productivity, growth, and asset performance.19 Hence, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy recommends clients go long Malaysian equities relative to EM. Now is a good entry point despite short-term volatility (Chart 26). We also think that going long MYR/TRY will articulate both our bullish oil story as well as our divergent views on political risks in Malaysia and Turkey (Chart 27). Chart 25Oil Outlook Favors Malaysian Assets Oil Outlook Favors Malaysian Assets Oil Outlook Favors Malaysian Assets Chart 26Long Malaysian Equities Versus EM Long Malaysian Equities Versus EM Long Malaysian Equities Versus EM Chart 27Higher Oil Prices Favor MYR Than TRY Higher Oil Prices Favor MYR Than TRY Higher Oil Prices Favor MYR Than TRY We are re-initiating two trades this week. First, the recently stopped out long Russian / short EM equities recommendation. We still believe that the view is on strong fundamentals, at least in the tactical and cyclical sense.20 Russian President Vladimir Putin has won another mandate and appears to be focusing on domestic economy and the constraints to Russian geopolitical adventurism have grown. The Trump administration has apparently also grown wary of further sanctions against Russia. However, our initial timing was massively off, as tensions between Russia and West did not peak in early March as we thought. We are giving this high-risk, high-reward trade another go, particularly in light of our oil price outlook. Second, we booked 10.26% gains on our recommendation to go long French industrials versus their German counterparts. We are reopening this view again as structural reforms continue in France unimpeded. Meanwhile, risk of global trade wars and a global growth slowdown should impact the high-beta German industrials more than the French. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Senior Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com 1 Washington's demand that China cut its annual trade surplus has grown from $100 billion, announced previously by President Trump, to at least $200 billion. 2 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EM: A Correction Or Bear Market?" dated May 10, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "'America Is Roaring Back!' (But Why Is King Dollar Whispering?),"dated January 31, 2018, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War," dated March 6, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China," dated February 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "Trump Re-Establishes America's 'Credible Threat,'" dated April 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Insights From The Road - The Rest Of The World," dated September 6, 2017, and "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Instead of a "big stick," President Trump would likely also recommend a "big nuclear button." 9 This is an important though obvious point. We find that many liberally-oriented clients are unwilling to give President Trump credit for correctly handling the North Korean negotiations. Similarly, conservative-oriented clients refuse to accept that President Obama's dealings with Iran had a strategic logic, even though they clearly did. President Obama would not have been able to conclude the JCPOA without the full support of U.S. intelligence and military establishment. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Out Of The Vault: Explaining The U.S.-Iran Détente," dated July 15, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 While there was no confirmed collaboration between Iranian ground forces in Iraq and the U.S. Air Force, we assume that it happened in 2014 in the defense of Baghdad. The U.S. A-10 Warthog was extensively used against Islamic State ground forces in that battle. The plane is most effective when it has communication from ground forces engaging enemy units. Given that Iranian troops and Iranian backed Shia militias did the majority of the fighting in the defense of Baghdad, we assume that there was tactical communication between U.S. and the Iranian military in 2014, a whole year before the U.S.-Iran nuclear détente was concluded. 12 Please see BCA Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Geopolitical Certainty: OPEC Production Risks Are Playing To Shale Producers' Advantage," dated May 9, 2018, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Feedback Loop: Spec Positioning & Oil Price Volatility," dated May 10, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Bear Hunting And A Brexit Update," dated February 14, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 14, 2016, and "Europe's Divine Comedy Party II: Italy In Purgatorio," dated June 21, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "How To Play Malaysia's Elections (And Thailand's Lack Thereof)," dated March 21, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 For instance, the proposed Sales and Services Tax (SST) is more like a rebranding of the GST than a true abolition. And while fuel subsidies will be reinstated - weighing on the fiscal deficit - they will have a quota and only certain vehicles will be eligible. It will not be a return to the old pricing regime where subsidies were unlimited and were for everyone. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Does It Pay To Pivot To China?" dated July 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Ranking EM Countries Based on Structural Variables," dated August 2, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Vladimir Putin, Act IV," dated March 7, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The grand U.S.-China strategic negotiation is focused on Korea and trade - only Korea is seeing good news; The trade war is expanding to include investment - and Chinese capital account liberalization is the silver bullet; Capital account openness has mixed benefits for EMs, yet the risks are dire. China's policymakers will move only gradually; If Trump demands faster liberalization, a full-blown trade war is more likely; Favor DM equities over EM. Feature The American and Chinese economies have diverged for years (Chart 1), threatening to remove the constraint on broader strategic disagreements. Amidst the uncertainty, a grand U.S.-China negotiation is taking place, focused on two primary dimensions: Korea and trade. Chart 1Economic Constraint To Conflict Erodes Economic Constraint To Conflict Erodes Economic Constraint To Conflict Erodes On the Korea front, the news is mostly positive.1 The leaders of North and South Korea have held their third summit, promising an end to hostilities and a new beginning for economic engagement and possibly denuclearization. They are laying the groundwork for U.S. President Donald Trump to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong Un sometime this month, or in June. From China's point of view, the North Korean developments are mostly positive. A belligerent North Korea provides the U.S. and its allies with a reason to build up their military assets in the region, which can also serve to contain China. A calmer North Korea removes this reason and, over the long run, holds out the potential for the reduction of U.S. troops in South Korea. On net, China has benefited from the opening up of the formerly reclusive Vietnamese and Myanmar economies and stands to do the same if North Korea follows suit. On U.S.-China trade, however, the news is not so good.2 The two countries have just seen another high-level embassy conclude without progress, all but ensuring that relations will get worse before they get better. Investors should prepare for the U.S. to take additional punitive measures and for China to retaliate in kind. The U.S. Treasury Department is on the verge of imposing landmark new restrictions on Chinese investment by May 21 or sooner. Congress, separate from the Trump administration and in a notable sign of bipartisan unity, is considering legislation that would do the same. This is independent from Trump's impending tariffs on $50-$150 billion worth of Chinese goods, which could also come as early as May 21. In other words, the U.S.-China economic conflict is rotating from trade to investment. Hence, in this report, we take a look at the "Holy Grail" of American demands on China: capital account liberalization. So far the Trump administration has not pushed its demands this far. That is a good thing, because China is not willing to move quickly on this front. Rapid and complete opening to global capital flows is a "red line" for China, so it is an important indicator of whether the two great powers are heading toward a full-blown trade war. The Uncertainties Of Capital Account Liberalization A country's capital account covers foreign direct investment (FDI), portfolio investment, cross-border banking transactions, and other miscellaneous international capital flows. Since the 1960s, especially since 1989, developed market economies in the West have encouraged the free flow of capital across national borders (Chart 2). As with the free flow of goods, services, and labor, the flow of capital promised integrated markets and more efficient uses of resources. Just as freer trade would lower prices, spur competition, and improve efficiency and innovation, so would the unfettered movement of capital. Trading partners could use savings to invest in each other's areas of productive potential that lacked funds. In this sense, capital flows were nothing but future trade flows: today's cross-border investment would be tomorrow's production of freely tradable goods.3 The laissez-faire, Anglo-Saxon economies promoted capital account liberalization for several reasons. First, economic theory and practice supported free trade as a means of increasing wealth, and free trade requires some degree of capital liberalization. Furthermore, liberalization played to the advantage of London and New York City, as international financial hubs, and both the U.S. and the U.K. sought to expand their role as providers of global reserve currencies.4 The European Community also sought freer capital flows due to the fact that the creation of the common market, at minimum, required it for trade financing. In the 1980s, France's bad experience with capital controls led it to adopt a more laissez-faire approach, prompting a convergence across Europe to the Anglo-Saxon model. Capital account liberalization joined free trade, fiscal conservatism, and deregulation as part of the "Washington Consensus" orthodoxy. Major economies were encouraged to liberalize their capital accounts if they wanted to join the OECD, like Japan, or if they sought economic and financial assistance from the IMF (Table 1).5 And yet the empirical evidence of the benefits of capital account liberalization is surprisingly mixed. There is not a clear causal connection between free movement of capital and improved macroeconomic variables like higher rates of growth, investment, or productivity. Relative to other kinds of international liberalization - of labor markets, for example - capital account liberalization is likely to bring small gains to growth rates (Table 2). Chart 2Global Capital Flows Expand China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks Table 1Capital Account Liberalization: A Timeline China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks Table 2Economic Benefits Of Open Borders China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks We can illustrate this point simply by showing that emerging market economies with more open capital accounts, whether defined by the IMF's Capital Account Openness Index or by the ratio of direct and portfolio capital flows to GDP, do not necessarily have higher potential GDP growth or productivity (Chart 3 A&B). A change in openness also does not correlate with a change in growth potential or productivity. Chart 3AEM Capital Openness Not Obviously Correlated With Potential Growth (1) China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks Chart 3BEM Capital Openness Not Obviously Correlated With Potential Growth (2) China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks This conclusion can be reinforced by looking at portfolio investment. Portfolio investment is usually one of the last types of investment to be deregulated. Hence a large ratio of portfolio investment to GDP is a proxy for capital liberalization. However, emerging markets that rank high in this regard do not record higher potential growth, productivity, or capital productivity contributions to GDP growth (Chart 4). Chart 4EM: Larger Foreign Stock Inflows Not Correlated With Capital Productivity China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks While the benefits of capital account liberalization are debatable, the risks are dire. It has contributed to, if not caused, a number of financial crises in recent decades. Latin America saw a series of such crises from 1982-89. Mexico's peso crisis of 1994 also owed much of its severity to destabilizing capital flows. Japan opened its capital account in 1979 and over the succeeding decade experienced a rollercoaster of massive capital influx, culminating in the property bubble and financial crash of 1990. Thailand, South Korea, and other Asian countries suffered the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997-98 as a result of premature and poorly sequenced liberalization. All of these countries faced different financial and economic circumstances, and the crises had different causes, but what they shared in common was a relatively recent openness to large inflows and outflows of global capital that triggered or exacerbated currency moves and liquidity shortages.6 This is not to say that there are not benefits to capital account liberalization, or that the benefits never outweigh the costs. The major multilateral global institutions continue to believe that capital account liberalization is optimal policy, if only because the richest, freest, best governed, and most advanced economies have all liberalized. Capital account openness is positively correlated with "rule of law" governance indicators. And back-of-the-envelope exercises such as those shown above suggest that developed market economies do see higher potential growth and capital productivity as a result of capital account liberalization, at least up to a point (Charts 5A & 5B). Chart 5ADM: Capital Openness Is Correlated With Potential Growth (1) China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks Chart 5BDM: Capital Openness Is Correlated With Potential Growth (2) China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks While a number of countries have experienced financial and economic crises after opening their capital accounts, studies have shown that the causal connection is not always clear (the crisis did not necessarily stem from capital account liberalization).7 The removal of barriers to entry or exit of capital does not have a unidirectional effect but can exacerbate capital flows when times are good or bad. Moreover, some research shows that countries are more likely to suffer financial crises from capital controls than from the removal of them.8 And it is very difficult for countries with open current accounts (free trade) to enforce rigid capital controls anyway, since the distinction between capital flows covering trade transactions and other capital flows is difficult in practice to enforce, resulting in leakage. Because of the link between trade and capital, no country has ever fully and permanently reversed liberalization.9 The academic debate rages on, but from a political point of view, two things are clear. First, the best practices of the most advanced countries suggest that capital account liberalization is optimal policy. Second, policymakers in less open economies are faced with uncertainty and a range of views from economic advisers, orthodox and unorthodox. In the wake of crises in recent decades, this uncertainty has made them less inclined over the years to trust to economic orthodoxy or the "Washington Consensus" when making critical decisions about capital flows. Rather, opening is likely when economic problems call for a change in tack, while capital controls are likely when flows are considered excessive or destabilizing. Bottom Line: Capital account liberalization is the best practice among advanced economies but the risk-reward ratio for policymakers in EMs and partly closed economies is likely skewed to the downside. China's Stalled Capital Account Liberalization Chart 6China's Fear Of Capital Flight China's Fear Of Capital Flight China's Fear Of Capital Flight In recent years China's policymakers have struggled with the problem of capital account liberalization. In the aftermath of the global financial crisis they announced that they would speed up the process. In 2015 they pledged to complete it by 2020, only to re-impose capital controls when financial turmoil that year prompted large capital outflows (Chart 6). In 2017 President Xi Jinping claimed that the country remains committed to gradual liberalization. We have argued that his administration would ease these controls later rather than sooner, in order to pursue tricky domestic financial reforms first.10 As we have seen (Chart 3 above), China lies on the low end of the IMF's "Capital Account Openness" index, which ranks countries across the world based on six economic indicators and 12 asset classes. By this measure, China is slightly more open than India - a notoriously hermetic economy - and less open than the Philippines. China's closed capital account is also clear from its international investment position. China has fewer international assets and liabilities, as a share of output, than the U.S., Japan, Europe, or South Korea (Charts 7A & 7B). China's international assets are largely the result of its government's $3.1 trillion in foreign exchange reserves, as well as outward FDI. As for its liabilities, China has opened up to FDI more so than portfolio investment or other capital flows. This is because FDI is long-term capital that tends to be more closely tied to real production; it is difficult to unwind it in times of crisis. China allows inward and outward FDI to gain knowhow, technology, and natural resources. It is more closed, however, to short-term capital flows, such as dollar-denominated bank debt, currency speculation, and portfolio investment. Typically it is these short-term flows that are most destabilizing, especially when countries are newly open to them. Chart 7AChina Has Fewer Foreign Assets, Mostly Official Forex Reserves China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks Chart 7BChina Has Fewer Foreign Liabilities, Mostly FDI China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks Western economies, however, stand to benefit if China opens up to these shorter-term capital flows. They have a comparative advantage in financial services and thus can rebalance their relationships with China if it gives its households and corporations more freedom to manage their wealth in foreign currencies and assets. It is logical that China's FDI and portfolio investment in western countries would rise if Chinese investors were allowed to go abroad, simply because the latter would wish to diversify their portfolios for the first time. China's neighbors and trade partners would receive a windfall of new investments. Meanwhile they would gain new investment opportunities, as private capital would be able to venture into China, and flee out of it, more easily.11 Western countries are also increasingly agitating for China to loosen its inward capital restrictions. Despite China's openness to FDI relative to other capital flows, it is still one of the world's most restrictive countries in which to invest long-term capital (Chart 8). China's heavy restrictions have granted monopolies to Chinese companies, depriving foreigners of the fruits of China's growth. This is especially important as China moves into consumer- and services-oriented growth. Western countries have a comparative advantage in high-end consumer goods and services relative to low-end goods and manufacturing in general, where they have largely lost out to Chinese competition in recent decades. Chart 8China Is Highly Restrictive Toward Foreign Direct Investment China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China, too, stands to benefit from freer capital flows, and policymakers believe there is a self-interest in liberalizing. But Beijing has repeatedly demonstrated that it wants to move very gradually because of the skewed risk-reward assessment. China's harrowing experience with capital flight in 2014-16 has vindicated this policy.12 It is not necessarily capital account opening per se that causes destabilizing capital outflows - it is also the macro and financial environment. And China has all the hallmarks of an economy that could suffer a crisis from premature liberalization, including: Large macro imbalances (Chart 9); An immature and shallow financial system (Chart 10); Lack of information transparency; Weak rule of law. Chart 9China Has Macro Imbalances China Has Macro Imbalances China Has Macro Imbalances Chart 10China's Financial System Is Shallow China's Financial System Is Shallow China's Financial System Is Shallow Bottom Line: It is guaranteed that China will not pursue capital account liberalization rapidly. It will continue to take small steps, and ultimately "two steps forward and one step back" if necessary to maintain overall stability. Will China Liberalize? By the same logic, why should China liberalize at all? The 2014-16 crisis not only revealed the dangers of too-rapid opening but also the dangers of an inflexible currency and draconian capital controls. When Chinese authorities devalued the yuan in August 2015, they made the capital flight (and global panic) worse. Since then, by imposing strict capital controls, China's leaders have signaled to domestic and foreign investors (1) that they are unwilling to allow global capital flows to discipline their fiscal or monetary policies (a negative sign for China's macro fundamentals), and (2) that they may deny investors the rights of their property or even confiscate it.13 This is why China has made important policy changes since the 2014-16 crisis. First, it has maintained a more flexible "managed float" of the RMB, allowing it to trade more freely along with a basket of currencies that belong to major trading partners and abandoning the dollar peg. Various measures of the exchange rate - offshore deliverable forwards, spot rates, and the exchange rate at interest rate parity - have converged, revealing an exchange rate that is more market-oriented, i.e. less heavily managed by the People's Bank of China (Chart 11).14 This process is being pursued with the long-term interest of rebalancing the economy - making it more flexible and less fixed to an export-led manufacturing model. It is also necessary in order to internationalize the yuan, which is a long and rocky road but, it is hoped, will eventually reduce foreign exchange risk to China's economy (Chart 12). One of the main reasons that governments, including China, have maintained closed capital accounts is to control exchange rates. As currencies float more freely, the economy becomes better able to withstand large or volatile capital flows. At the same time, the yuan will never be a global reserve currency if China never opens the capital account. Chart 11The RMB Is Floating A Bit More Freely The RMB Is Floating A Bit More Freely The RMB Is Floating A Bit More Freely Chart 12The RMB Is Going Global ... Slowly The RMB Is Going Global ... Slowly The RMB Is Going Global ... Slowly Second, while tight capital controls remain in place, Beijing is pursuing long-delayed reforms to the financial sector and fiscal and legal systems to allow for better financial regulation, supervision, and transparency. For instance, the new central bank Governor Yi Gang's reported desire to genuinely liberalize domestic deposit interest rates will prepare China's banks for greater competition with each other, and hence ultimately to greater competition from abroad. This in turn will improve allocation of capital across the economy. Another example is the expansion of the domestic and offshore bond markets - and gradual formalization of the local government debt market - in order to deepen the financial sector.15 These reforms are desirable in themselves but also necessary for eventual capital account liberalization, as countries with deep domestic financial markets have less vulnerability to new surges of foreign inflows or outflows. Naturally, the reform process is taking place on China's timeline. Since Beijing stresses overall stability above all else, it is gradual. But we would expect the Xi administration to continue with piecemeal opening measures through the coming years, so that by 2021, the capital account is materially more open than it is today. As for full liberalization, it is beyond our forecasting horizon. Xi's goal of turning China into a "modern socialist country" by 2035 is not too late of a timeframe to consider, given the potential for serious setbacks. But such delayed progress raises the prospect of a clash with the U.S. A risk to this view is that China backslides yet again on the internal reforms, making it impossible to move to the subsequent stage of opening up to international flows. Vested financial and non-financial corporate interests often oppose capital account liberalization. State-controlled companies, for instance, will gradually have to compete more intensely for capital that comes from better disciplined domestic banks, all while watching small and medium-sized rivals gain market share due to the newfound access to foreign capital, which makes them more competitive.16 Backsliding will, again, antagonize the West. Bottom Line: China is preparing to open its capital account further, as we are in the "two steps forward" phase following Xi Jinping's political recapitalization in 2017. A New Front In The U.S.-China Trade War The U.S. has long argued that China maintains excessive capital controls that violate the conditions of China's accession to the World Trade Organization in 2001.17 The following statement, from one of the U.S. government's annual reports on China's compliance with the WTO, was written before the Trump administration took office and is typical of such reports and of the overall U.S. position: Although China continues to consider reforms to its investment regime ... many aspects of China's investment regime, including lack of a substantially liberalized market, maintenance of administrative approvals and the potential for a new and overly broad national security review system, continue to cause foreign investors great concern ... China has added a variety of restrictions on investment that appear designed to shield inefficient or monopolistic Chinese enterprises from foreign competition.18 The Trump administration's own reports on China's WTO compliance have amplified such criticisms.19 Remember that it was partly China's lack of WTO compliance that the Trump administration highlighted as justification for the sanctions announced in March under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act. In particular, the administration argues that U.S.-China investment relations are not fair or reciprocal, i.e. that the U.S. does not have as great of investment access in China as vice versa (Chart 13). Even in FDI, where China is relatively open and the bilateral sums are fairly reciprocal, the U.S. share is smaller than that of comparable developed economies, such as Japan and Europe (Chart 14). While it is not a foregone conclusion that this is the result of discriminatory policies, the U.S. argues that it suffers from unfair practices. What is clear is that China designates a number of sectors "strategic," excluding them from foreign investment, and places caps on foreign ownership. The two countries tried but failed to conclude a bilateral investment treaty under the Obama administration, which was meant to resolve this problem and stimulate private capital flows. China also has not implemented a nationwide foreign investment "negative list," which it has promised since 2013.20 A negative list would explicitly designate sectors that are off-limits to foreign investment and thus implicitly liberalize investment in all others. Chart 13The U.S. Wants Investment Reciprocity China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks Chart 14The U.S. Wants More Investment Access China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks The U.S. is also demanding greater reciprocity for its banks to lend to Chinese borrowers. China is well-known for heavily restricting foreign bank access, with foreign loans accounting for only 2.75% of total. The U.S. grants much larger market access to Chinese lenders than vice versa (Chart 15). While there are perfectly good reasons for U.S. banks to hold a smaller share of China's total cross-border bank loans than European banks and comparable Asian banks (U.S. banks focus on their large domestic market while European and Japanese banks are bigger international lenders), nevertheless the Americans will see their smaller market share as evidence that American market access can go up (Chart 16). Chart 15The U.S. Wants Banking Reciprocity China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks Chart 16The U.S. Wants More Banking Access China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks Thus the silver bullet for the Trump administration would be to demand accelerated, full capital account liberalization from Beijing. This would address the above problems of investment access while also constituting a larger demand for China to hasten structural reforms that would favor American interests. This is why American officials have urged China to liberalize during high-level bilateral dialogues in the past - while knowing that the reform itself was of such significance that China would only move gradually.21 Chart 17Is The RMB Undervalued? Is The RMB Undervalued? Is The RMB Undervalued? So far the Trump administration has not demanded that China accelerate capital account liberalization, perhaps knowing that it would be a non-starter for China.22 One reason may be the expectation that the RMB could depreciate. True, the yuan is roughly at fair value in real effective terms, after a 7.4% appreciation since Trump's inauguration. However, China's 2014-16 capital flight episode suggests that, under the circumstances of a rapid opening of the capital account, outflow pressure could resume and the currency could fall. This would, at least for a time, drive down CNY/USD, contrary to Trump's oft-repeated desire that the currency appreciate. Trump adheres to a view that the RMB is structurally undervalued, as illustrated here by the IMF's purchasing power parity model, which suggests that it should rise by 45% against the greenback (Chart 17). Given Trump's rhetoric, it may not be far-fetched to suggest that Trump is disinclined to push for capital account liberalization and would rather see China maintain its current "managed" system in order to manage the CNY/USD even further upward. The broader point, however, is that previous U.S. administrations have pushed for faster capital account liberalization, and the Trump administration could eventually follow suit. This would mark a major escalation in the standoff, since China possibly cannot, and certainly will not, deliver such a momentous structural change on a timeline imposed by a foreign power. Bottom Line: Rapid capital account liberalization represents China's "red line" in the trade talks. If Trump pushes his demands this far, then he will be seen as threatening China's stability and will be rebuffed. This is a pathway to a full-blown trade war. Investment Conclusions Capital account liberalization is by no means the only indicator for gauging whether the U.S. and China are heading toward a full-blown trade war. As things stand, Trump will soon impose Section 301 tariffs, China will retaliate, and Trump will retaliate to the retaliation. This is our definition of a trade war. Not only is Trump threatening tariffs on $50-$150 billion worth of imports. He is now demanding that China reduce the U.S.'s trade deficit by $200 billion, or 53% of the total, twice as much as earlier. To give an indication of how significant such a change would be for China over the long haul, Table 3 provides a very simple scenario analysis of what would happen to China's trade surplus, current account surplus, and GDP growth rate if the U.S. reduced its bilateral trade deficit by 10%, 33%, or 50%. It shows that if the deficit fell by 33%, Trump's initial goal, then China's current account balance would fall to less than one percent of GDP, and GDP growth would slow down to 6.24% for the year. Table 3Scenario Analysis: Trump Slashes U.S. Trade Deficit With China China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks Table 4 takes the worst-case scenario for China, in which the U.S. cuts the deficit by 50%, while oil prices average $90/bbl due to oil price shocks from unplanned production outages in Iran (where Trump is re-imposing sanctions), or Venezuela or others, amid a very tight global oil market.23 China's current account surplus would go negative, while GDP growth would fall to 5.32%! Table 4Scenario Analysis: Trump Slashes Deficit, Oil Prices Soar China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks These scenarios are significant because they are not very far-fetched. Instead, they show how easily China could undergo a symbolic transition into a "twin deficit" country - a country with an estimated 13% budget deficit and a negative current account balance. Such a development would not necessarily have immediate concrete ramifications. But it would, if it became a trend, mark a turning point in which China begins exporting rather than importing global wealth. It would cause global investors to scrutinize the country in different ways than before and to question the status and long-term trajectory of China's traditional buffers against financial and economic challenges: the country's large national savings and foreign exchange reserves. These scenarios are merely suggestive and meant to show the gravity of Trump's threats and the seriousness with which Xi will take them. In the current U.S.-China trade conflict, if China allows the CNY/USD to weaken - the logical way of alleviating tariff impacts - then it will be depreciating the currency in Trump's face: conflict will intensify. It is not clear how long the conflict will last or how bad it will get, so investors would be wise to hedge their exposure to stocks along the U.S.-China value chain, favoring small caps and domestic plays in both countries. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy recommends staying long DM equities relative to EM equities. We are short Chinese technology stocks outright, and short China-exposed S&P 500 stocks. By contrast, BCA's China Investment Strategy service continues to recommend that investors stay overweight Chinese stocks excluding the technology sector (versus global ex-tech stocks) over the coming 6-12 months with a short leash. As highlighted in this report, the near-term risks to China from the external sector are clearly to the downside, which supports the decision of the China Investment Strategy team to place Chinese stocks on downgrade watch for Q2.24 This watch remains in effect for the coming two months, a period during which we hope fuller clarity on the U.S.-China trade dispute and the pace of decline in China's industrial sector will emerge. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump's Demands On China," dated April 4, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Barry Eichengreen, "Capital Account Liberalization: What Do Cross-Country Studies Tell Us?" World Bank Economic Review 15:3 (2001), 341-65. Available at documents.worldbank.org. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Is King Dollar Facing Regicide?" dated April 27, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Jeff Chelsky, "Capital Account Liberalization: Does Advanced Economy Experience Provide Lessons for China?" World Bank Economic Premise 74 (2012), available at openknowledge.worldbank.org. 6 Please see Donald J. Mathieson and Liliana Rojas-Suarez, "Liberalization of the Capital Account: Experiences and Issues," International Monetary Fund, March 15, 1993, available at www.imf.org; Ricardo Gottschalk, "Sequencing Trade and Capital Account Liberalization: The Experience of Brazil in the 1990s," United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and United Nations Development Programme Occasional Paper (2004), available at unctad.org; see also Sarah M. Brooks, "Explaining Capital Account Liberalization In Latin America: A Transitional Cost Approach," World Politics 56:3 (2004), 389-430. 7 Please see Peter Blair Henry, "Capital Account Liberalization: Theory, Evidence, and Speculation," Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Working Paper 2007-32 (2006); see also Eichengreen in footnote 1 above. 8 Please see Reuven Glick, Xueyan Guo, and Michael Hutchison, "Currency Crises, Capital-Account Liberalization, and Selection Bias," The Review of Economics and Statistics 88:4 (2006), 698-714, available at www.mitpressjournals.org. 9 Please see M. Ayhan Kose and Eswar Prasad, "Capital Accounts: Liberalize Or Not?" International Monetary Fund, Finance and Development, dated July 29, 2017, available at www.imf.org. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "How To Read Xi Jinping's Party Congress Speech," dated October 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 This western interest in Chinese capital account liberalization exists entirely aside from any of the aforementioned capital flight pressures from Chinese investors, which could reignite again. Foreign countries would welcome such inflows to some extent but not to the point that they become destabilizing at home or abroad. 12 The earliest rumored deadline for capital account liberalization was the seventeenth National Party Congress of the Communist Party in 2007. Please see Derek Scissors, "Liberalization In Reverse," The Heritage Foundation, May 4, 2009, available at www.heritage.org. 13 Eichengreen highlighted these points with regard to the literature and observations on capital account liberalization across a range of countries. They are highly relevant to China today. 14 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Has The RMB Gone Too Far?" dated February 1, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Embracing Chinese Bonds," dated July 6, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 16 Raghuram G. Rajan and Luigi Zingales, "The Great Reversals: The Politics of Financial Development in the Twentieth Century," Journal of Financial Economics 69 (2003), 5-50, available at faculty.chicagobooth.edu. 17 China did not commit to fully liberalizing the capital account as part of its WTO accession agreements, but rather the U.S. cites China's use of capital controls as a means of violating other WTO commitments regarding market access, subsidization, etc. At the time China joined the WTO, it was widely believed that its commitments would include gradual liberalization. For instance, the State Administration of Foreign Exchange lifted capital controls imposed during the Asian Financial Crisis in September 2001. Please see Lin Guijun and Ronald M. Schramm, "China's Foreign Exchange Policies Since 1979: A Review of Developments and an Assessment," China Economic Review 14:3 (2003), 246-280, available at www.sciencedirect.com. 18 U.S. Trade Representative, "2015 Report To Congress On China's WTO Compliance," December 2015, available at ustr.gov. 19 U.S. Trade Representative, "2017 Report To Congress On China's WTO Compliance," January 2018, available at ustr.gov. 20 Please see U.S. Department of State, "2012 U.S. Model Bilateral Investment Treaty," available at www.state.gov. See also U.S. Department of the Treasury, "Joint U.S.-China Economic Track Fact Sheet of the Fifth Meeting of the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue," July 12, 2013, available at www.treasury.gov. 21 See, for instance, U.S. Department of the Treasury, "2015 U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue Joint U.S.-China Fact Sheet - Economic Track," June 6, 2015, available at www.treasury.gov. 22 However, Michael Pillsbury, director of the Center for Chinese Strategy at the Hudson Institute and an adviser on Trump's transition team, has argued that the Trump administration's endgame is to implement the well-known World Bank and China State Council Development Research Center report, China 2030, which full-throatedly endorses capital account liberalization. Please see Robert Delaney, "Donald Trump's trade endgame said to be the opening of China's economy," South China Morning Post, April 3, 2018, available at www.scmp.com. For the report, see "China 2030: Building a Modern, Harmonious, and Creative Society," 2013, available at www.worldbank.org. 23 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Expect Volatility ... Of Volatility," dated April 11, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 24 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Chinese Stocks: Trade Frictions Make For A Tenuous Overweight," dated March 28, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com.