DM Europe

Highlights So What? U.S.-China relations are still in free fall as we go to press. Why? The trade war will elicit Chinese stimulus but downside risks to markets are front-loaded. The oil risk premium will remain elevated as Iran tensions will not abate any time soon. The odds of a no-deal Brexit are rising. Our GeoRisk Indicators show that Turkish and Brazilian risks have subsided, albeit only temporarily. Maintain safe-haven trades. Short the CNY-USD and go long non-Chinese rare earth providers. Feature The single-greatest reason for the increase in geopolitical risk remains the United States. The Democratic Primary race will heat up in June and President Trump, while favored in 2020 barring a recession, is currently lagging both Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders in the head-to-head polling. Trump’s legislative initiatives are bogged down in gridlock and scandal. The remaining avenue for him to achieve policy victories is foreign policy – hence his increasing aggressiveness on both China and Iran. The result is negative for global risk assets on a tactical horizon and possibly also on a cyclical horizon. A positive catalyst is badly needed in the form of greater Chinese stimulus, which we expect, and progress toward a trade agreement. Brexit, Italy, and European risks pale by comparison to what we have called “Cold War 2.0” since 2012. Nevertheless, the odds of Brexit actually happening are increasing. The uncertainty will weigh on sentiment in Europe through October even if it does not ultimately conclude in a no-deal shock that prevents the European economy from bouncing back. Yet the risk of a no-deal shock is higher than it was just weeks ago. We discuss these three headline geopolitical risks below: China, Iran, and the U.K. No End In Sight For U.S.-China Trade Tensions U.S.-China negotiations are in free fall, with no date set for another round of talks. On March 6 we argued that a deal had a 50% chance of getting settled by the June 28-29 G20 summit in Japan, with a 30% chance talks would totally collapse. Since then, we have reduced the odds of a deal to 40%, with a collapse at 50%, and a further downgrade on the horizon if a positive intervention is not forthcoming producing trade talks in early or mid-June (Table 1). Table 1U.S.-China Trade War: Probabilities Of A Deal By End Of June 2019 GeoRisk Indicators Update: May 31, 2019 GeoRisk Indicators Update: May 31, 2019 We illustrate the difficulties of agreeing to a deal through the concept of a “two-level game.” In a theoretical two-level game, each country strives to find overlap between its international interests and its rival’s interests and must also seek overlap in such a way that the agreement can be sold to a domestic audience at home. The reason why the “win-win scenario” is so remote in the U.S.-China trade conflict is because although China has a relatively large win set – it can easily sell a deal at home due to its authoritarian control – the U.S. win set is small (Diagram 1). Diagram 1Tiny Win-Win Scenario In U.S.-China Trade Conflict GeoRisk Indicators Update: May 31, 2019 GeoRisk Indicators Update: May 31, 2019 The Democrats will attack any deal that Trump negotiates, making him look weak on his own pet issue of trade with China. This is especially the case if a stock market selloff forces Trump to accept small concessions. His international interest might overlap with China’s interest in minimizing concessions on foreign trade and investment access while maximizing technological acquisition from foreign companies. He would not be able to sell such a deal – focused on large-scale commodity purchases as a sop to farm states – on the campaign trail. Democrats will attack any deal that Trump negotiates. While it is still possible for both sides to reach an agreement, this Diagram highlights the limitations faced by both players. Meanwhile China is threatening to restrict exports of rare earths – minerals which are critical to the economy and national defense. China dominates global production and export markets (Chart 1), so this would be a serious disruption in the near term. Global sentiment would worsen, weighing on all risk assets, and tech companies and manufacturers that rely on rare earth inputs from China would face a hit to their bottom lines. Chart 1China Dominates Rare Earths Supply France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator Over the long haul, this form of retaliation is self-defeating. First, China would presumably have to embargo all exports of rare earths to the world to prevent countries and companies from re-exporting to the United States. Second, rare earths are not actually rare in terms of quantity: they simply occur in low concentrations. As the world learned when China cut off rare earths to Japan for two months in 2010 over their conflict in the East China Sea, a rare earths ban will push up prices and incentivize production and processing in other regions. It will also create rapid substitution effects, recycling, and the use of stockpiles. Ultimately demand for Chinese rare earths exports would fall. Over the nine years since the Japan conflict, China’s share of global production has fallen by 19%, mostly at the expense of rising output from Australia. A survey of American companies suggests that they have diversified their sources more than import statistics suggest (Chart 2). Chart 2Import Stats May Be Overstating China’s Dominance U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator The risk of a rare earths embargo is high – it fits with our 30% scenario of a major escalation in the conflict. It would clearly be a negative catalyst for companies and share prices. But as with China’s implicit threat of selling U.S. Treasuries, it is not a threat that will cause Trump to halt the trade war. The costs of conflict are not prohibitive and there are some political gains. Bottome Line: The S&P 500 is down 3.4% since our Global Investment Strategists initiated their tactical short on May 10. This is nearly equal to the weighted average impact on the S&P 500 that they have estimated using our probabilities. Obviously the selloff can overshoot this target. As it does, the chances of the two sides attempting to contain the tensions will rise. If we do not witness a positive intervention in the coming weeks, it will be too late to salvage the G20 and the risk of a major escalation will go way up. We recommend going short CNY-USD as a strategic play despite China’s recent assurances that the currency can be adequately defended. Our negative structural view of China’s economy now coincides with our tactical view that escalation is more likely than de-escalation. We also recommend going long a basket of companies in the MVIS global rare earth and strategic metals index – specifically those companies not based in China that have seen share prices appreciate this year but have a P/E ratio under 35. U.S.-Iran: An Unintentional War With Unintentional Consequences? “I really believe that Iran would like to make a deal, and I think that’s very smart of them, and I think that’s a possibility to happen.” -President Donald Trump, May 27, 2019 … We currently see no prospect of negotiations with America ... Iran pays no attention to words; what matters to us is a change of approach and behavior.” -Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi, May 28, 2019 The U.S. decision not to extend sanction waivers on Iran multiplied geopolitical risks at a time of already heightened uncertainty. Elevated tensions surrounding major producers in the Middle East could impact oil production and flows. In energy markets, this is reflected in the elevated risk premium – represented by the residuals in the price decompositions that include both supply and demand factors (Chart 3). Chart 3The Risk Premium Is Rising In Brent Crude Oil Prices Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Tensions surrounding major oil producers ... are reflected in the elevated risk premium – represented by the residuals in the Brent price decomposition. Already Iranian exports are down 500k b/d in April relative to March – the U.S. is acting on its threat to bring Iran’s exports to zero and corporations are complying (Chart 4). Chart 4Iran Oil Exports Collapsing Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator What is more, the U.S. is taking a more hawkish military stance towards Iran – recently deploying a carrier strike group and bombers, partially evacuating American personnel from Iraq, and announcing plans to send 1,500 troops to the Middle East. The result of all these actions is not only to reduce Iranian oil exports, but also to imperil supplies of neighboring oil producers such as Iraq and Saudi Arabia which may become the victims of retaliation by an incandescent Iran. Our expectation of Iranian retaliation is already taking shape. The missile strike on Saudi facilities and the drone attack on four tankers near the UAE are just a preview of what is to come. Although Iran has not claimed responsibility for the acts, its location and extensive network of militant proxies affords it the ability to threaten oil supplies coming out of the region. Iran has also revived its doomsday threat of closing down the Strait of Hormuz through which 20% of global oil supplies transit – which becomes a much fatter tail-risk if Iran comes to believe that the U.S. is genuinely pursuing immediate regime change, since the first-mover advantage in the strait is critical. This will keep markets jittery. Current OPEC spare capacity would allow the coalition to raise production to offset losses from Venezuela and Iran. Yet any additional losses – potentially from already unstable regions such as Libya, Algeria, or Nigeria – will raise the probability that global supplies are unable to cover demand. Going into the OPEC meeting in Vienna in late June, our Commodity & Energy Strategy expects OPEC 2.0 to relax supply cuts implemented since the beginning of the year. They expect production to be raised by 0.9mm b/d in 2H2019 vs. 1H2019.1 Nevertheless, oil producers will likely adopt a cautious approach when bringing supplies back online, wary of letting prices fall too far. This was expressed at the May Joint Ministerial Monitoring Committee meeting in Jeddah, which also highlighted the growing divergence of interests within the group. Russia is in support of raising production at a faster pace than Saudi Arabia, which favors a gradual increase (conditional on U.S. sanctions enforcement). Both the Iranians and Americans claim that they do not want the current standoff to escalate to war. On the American side, Trump is encouraging Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to try his hand as a mediator in a possible visit to Tehran in June. We would not dismiss this possibility since it could produce a badly needed “off ramp” for tensions to de-escalate when all other trends point toward a summer and fall of “fire and fury” between the U.S. and Iran. If forced to make a call, we think President Trump’s foreign policy priority will center on China, not Iran. But this does not mean that downside risks to oil prices will prevail. China will stimulate more aggressively in June and subsequent months. And regardless of Washington’s and Tehran’s intentions, a wrong move in an already heated part of the world can turn ugly very quickly. Bottom Line: President Trump’s foreign policy priority is China, not Iran. Nevertheless, a wrong move can trigger a nasty escalation in the current standoff, jeopardizing oil supplies coming out of the Gulf region. In response to this risk, OPEC 2.0 will likely move to cautiously raise production at the next meeting in late June. Meanwhile China’s stimulus overshoot in the midst of trade war will most likely shore up demand over the course of the year. Can A New Prime Minister Break The Deadlock In Westminster? “There is a limited appetite for change in the EU, and negotiating it won’t be easy.” - Outgoing U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May Prime Minister Theresa May’s resignation has hurled the Conservative Party into a scramble to select her successor. While the timeline for this process is straightforward,2 the impact on the Brexit process is not. The odds of a “no-deal Brexit” have increased but so has the prospect of parliament passing a soft Brexit prior to any new election or second referendum. The odds of a “no-deal Brexit” have increased. Eleven candidates have declared their entry to the race and the vast majority are “hard Brexiters” willing to sacrifice market access on the continent (Table 2). Prominent contenders such as Boris Johnson and Dominic Raab have stated that they are willing to exit the EU without a deal. Table 2“Hard Brexiters” Dominate The Tory Race GeoRisk Indicators Update: May 31, 2019 GeoRisk Indicators Update: May 31, 2019 Given that the average Tory MP is more Euroskeptic than the average non-conservative voter or Brit, the final two contenders left standing at the end of June are likely to shift to a more aggressive Brexit stance. They will say they are willing to deliver Brexit at all costs and will avoid repeating Theresa May’s mistakes. This means at the very least the rhetoric will be negative for the pound in the coming months. A clear constraint on the U.K. in trying to negotiate a new withdrawal agreement is that the EU has the upper hand. It is the larger economy and less exposed to the ramifications of a no-deal exit (though still exposed). This puts it in a position of relative strength – exemplified by the European Commission’s insistence on keeping the current Withdrawal Agreement. Whoever the new prime minister is, it is unlikely that he or she will be able to negotiate a more palatable deal with the EU. Rather, the new leader will lead a fractured Conservative Party that still lacks a strong majority in parliament. The no-deal option is the default scenario if an agreement is not finalized by the Halloween deadline and no further extension is granted. However, Speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow recently stated that the prime minister will be unable to deliver a no-deal Brexit without parliamentary support. This will likely manifest in the form of a bill to block a no-deal Brexit. Alternatively, an attempt to force a no-deal exit could prompt a vote of no confidence in the government, most likely resulting in a general election.3 Chart 5British Euroskeptics Made Gains In EP Election Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator While the Brexit Party amassed the largest number of seats in the European Parliament elections at the expense of the Labour, Conservative, and UKIP parties (Chart 5), the results do not suggest that British voters have generally shifted back toward Brexit. In fact, if we group parties according to their stance, the Bremain camp has a slight lead over the Brexit camp (Chart 6). Thus, it is not remotely apparent that a hard Brexiter can succeed in parliament; that a new election can be forestalled if a no-deal exit is attempted; or that a second referendum will repeat the earlier referendum’s outcome. Chart 6Bremain Camp Still Dominates Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Bottom Line: While the new Tory leader is likely to be more on the hard Brexit end of the spectrum than Theresa May, this does not change the position of either the European Commission or the British MPs and voters on Brexit. The median voter both within parliament and the British electorate remains tilted towards a softer exit or remaining in the EU. This imposes constraints on the likes of Boris Johnson and Dominic Raab if they take the helm of the Tory Party. These leaders may ultimately be forced to try to push through something a lot like Theresa May’s plan, or risk a total collapse of their party and control of government. Still, the odds of a no-deal exit – the default option if no agreement is reached by the October 31 deadline – have gone up. In the meantime, the GBP will stay weak, gilts will remain well-bid, and risk-off tendencies will be reinforced. GeoRisk Indicators Update – May 31, 2019 Last month BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy introduced ten indicators to measure geopolitical risk implied by the market. These indicators attempt to capture risk premiums priced into various currencies – except for Euro Area countries, where the risk is embedded in equity prices. A currency or bourse that falls faster than it should fall, as implied by key explanatory variables, indicates increasing geopolitical risk. All ten indicators can be found in the Appendix, with full annotation. We will continue to highlight key developments on a monthly basis. This month, our GeoRisk indicators are picking up the following developments: Trade war: Our Korean and Taiwanese risk indicators are currently the best proxies to measure geopolitical risk implications of the U.S.-China trade war, as they are both based on trade data. Both measures, as expected, have increased more than our other indicators over the past month on the back of a sharp spike in tensions between the U.S. and China. Currently, the moves are largely due to depreciation in currencies, as trade is only beginning to feel the impact. We believe that we will see trade decline in the upcoming months. Brexit: While it is still too early to see the full effect of Prime Minister May’s resignation captured in our U.K. indicator, it has increased in recent days. We expect risk to continue to increase as a leadership race is beginning among the Conservatives that will raise the odds of a “no-deal exit” relative to “no exit.” EU elections: The EU elections did not register as a risk on our indicators. In fact, risk decreased slightly in France and Germany during the past few weeks, while it has steadily fallen in Spain and Italy. Moreover, the results of the election were largely in line with expectations – there was not a surprising wave of Euroskepticism. The real risks will emerge as the election results feed back into political risks in certain European countries, namely the U.K., where the hardline Conservatives will be emboldened, and Italy, where the anti-establishment League will also be emboldened. In both countries a new election could drastically increase uncertainty, but even without new elections the respective clashes with Brussels over Brexit and Italian fiscal policy will increase geopolitical risk. Emerging Markets: The largest positive moves in geopolitical risk were in Brazil and Turkey, where our indicators plunged to their lowest levels since late 2017 and early 2018. Brazilian risk has been steadily declining since pension reform – the most important element of Bolsonaro’s reform agenda – cleared an initial hurdle in Congress. While we would expect Bolsonaro to face many more ups and downs in the process of getting his reform bill passed, we have a high conviction view that the decrease in our Turkish risk indicator is unwarranted. This decrease can be attributed to the fact that the lira’s depreciation in recent weeks is slowing, which our model picks up as a decrease in risk. Nonetheless, uncertainty will prevail as a result of deepening political divisions (e.g. the ruling party’s attempt to overturn the Istanbul election), poor governance, ongoing clashes with the West, and an inability to defend the lira while also pursuing populist monetary policy. Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy roukayai@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com   France: GeoRisk Indicator Image U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator Image Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Image Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Image Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Image Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Image Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Image Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Image Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Image Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Image What's On The Geopolitical Radar? Image Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled “Policy Risk Sustains Oil’s Unstable Equilibrium,” dated May 23, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 The long list of candidates will be whittled down to two by the end of June through a series of votes by Tory MPs. Conservative Party members will then cast their votes via a postal ballot with the final result announced by the end of July, before the Parliament’s summer recess. 3 A vote of no confidence would trigger a 14-day period for someone else to form a government, otherwise it will result in a general election. Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights So What? Investors should look to European assets for considerable upside. Why? In the Euro Area, investors have constantly overestimated the angst of the median voter towards the currency union. The European Parliament has few real powers, so a fractured European Parliament does not really matter. Europe’s high-beta economy should benefit from a Chinese and global rebound. Stronger European growth will translate into more credit demand and lower non-performing loans, which will boost bank earnings. Go long European banks as a tactical trade, and long European equities versus Chinese equities as a strategic play. We will also consider going long EUR/USD as a strategic play once we get clarity on potential tariffs. Feature Chart 1 Europe’s economy and asset markets continue to underperform in 2019 despite a global policy pivot away from tightening monetary policy and a solid quarter of Chinese credit growth. Investors are broadly unattracted to continental Europe, regularly voicing fears that it is beset by a combination of hazards: from a no-deal Brexit to the ballooning Target 2 imbalances. According to the latest Bank of America Merrill Lynch survey of fund managers, the most crowded trade remains “short European equities” (Chart 1). The doom and gloom are intriguing considering that China is stimulating its economy and will continue to do so as long as trade tensions are elevated. “Higher beta” equities, including Europe and EM, should benefit from this stimulus (Chart 2). Exports, a key growth engine for the currency union, are closely linked to Chinese credit growth (Chart 3). Chart 2Chinese Stimulus Good For "High Beta" Economies Chinese Stimulus Good For "High Beta" Economies Chinese Stimulus Good For "High Beta" Economies Chart 3Europe Will Benefit From Improving Chinese Growth Europe Will Benefit From Improving Chinese Growth Europe Will Benefit From Improving Chinese Growth And yet Europe remains unloved. Given that most client questions focus on the political situation – and that many ask about the upcoming May 23 European Parliament (EP) elections – we focus on both in this analysis. First, we review the latest survey data on the collective sentiment towards Europe and integration. Second, we give our insights regarding the upcoming EP elections. Our broad conclusion is simple. If our house view that global growth is about to bottom is correct, and barring a collapse in U.S.-China trade talks, European assets – primarily equities and the euro – should be the top performers this year.   What Does The European Median Voter Want? The Median Voter Theory is a critical concept for investors. At BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy, we believe that the median voter – not the policymaker – is the price maker in the political market place. Politicians, especially in democracies, are price takers. They are bound by constraints, of which the preferences of the median voter are the most concrete impediments to action. This concept is simple to understand, but difficult to implement. It is far easier to get lost in rumor intelligence-driven analysis of political consultants and journalists who pass on the cocktail party chatter insights gathered through speaking with policymakers. These insights focus on the preferences of the people in power. But their preferences are secondary to those of the median voter. Trust in the EU remains below 50%, but this is in line with or better than the usual trust most governments achieve. Chart 4Support For The Euro Has Been Trending Upwards Support For The Euro Has Been Trending Upwards Support For The Euro Has Been Trending Upwards In the Euro Area, investors have constantly overestimated the angst of the median voter towards the currency union. This has led many investors to keep their money off the table, or take active short positions, even when it was prudent to remain invested. The prime example is the sentiment towards the common currency itself. Support for the euro hit a low in 2013 but has shot up since then across the continent (Chart 4). Even in Italy, the support for the euro is now at an eight-year high. Many investors have remained blind to this empirical fact. Not only has the support for the currency rebounded, but it has done so by converting doubters. Chart 5 shows that the increased support for the common currency – particularly in Spain, Germany, the Netherlands, and Italy – has occurred at the same time as the opposition has fallen. In other words, it is not the “undecideds” that are switching into supporters of the euro, rather it is the opponents who are relenting. Chart 5ASupport For The Common Currency Rising... Support For The Common Currency Rising... Support For The Common Currency Rising... Chart 5B...As Doubters Convert ...As Doubters Convert ...As Doubters Convert Chart 6Support For The EU Also On The Rise Support For The EU Also On The Rise Support For The EU Also On The Rise What of the support for the EU broadly defined? Latest Pew Research polling also shows a strong rebound in support among the public in the largest member states (Chart 6). The last time we published the data – in the summer of 2016 following Brexit – the figures were much lower. Given that for many Europeans the EU is merely another layer of bureaucracy and government, the support level is impressive when put in the international context. Chart 7 shows that the trust in the EU, compared to the trust Europeans have in their own governments, falls somewhere squarely in the middle. When compared to non-European countries, Europeans have considerably more trust in the EU than Americans have in their own government and in line with the sentiment of Japanese towards their own government. In other words, the trust in the EU remains below 50%, but this is in line with or better than the usual trust most governments achieve.   Chart 7 Why has the median voter remained supportive of European institutions despite mixed economic performance? For one, investors – particularly outside continental Europe – continue to overstate how much emphasis Europeans put on “economic prosperity” as a key goal of the integrationist process. Sure, everyone wants a humming economy, but Chart 8 shows that for most large European economies, “peace” and a “stronger say in the world” are more cogent explanations for the EU’s raison d’être than economic performance. Chart 8 Now, a skeptic might argue that this is because the EU has failed to deliver on the promise of prosperity. Nonetheless, the data suggest that Europeans today no longer expect European institutions to focus primarily on economic matters. Geopolitics, particularly security and foreign policy, are not just concerns of the shadowy elites and bureaucrats in Brussels. The median voter is concerned with these matters as well. The one worrying aspect of Chart 8 is that voters in Italy and Spain don’t think the EU means much to them at all. That level of nihilism might be compatible with continued European integration today. However, it also means that both countries, particularly Italy, remain a risk whenever a recession hits. The second reason for the improvement in median voter support of European institutions is that the migration crisis of 2015 – which peaked in October 2015, merely eight months ahead of the fateful referendum in the U.K. – is done and gone (Chart 9). Illegal immigration is an issue of concern, but it has been for over half a century. In fact, every decade has seen a turn against immigration, usually following a recession. It is a recurring problem that will remain a major policy issue for the rest of the century. The path from a “policy problem” to “the end of European integration” is neither direct nor immediate. Third, terrorism has abated as an existential threat to Europe. Chart 10 shows that we have seen the end of the “bull market in terror” in Europe. Unfortunately, the data for that chart only goes to 2017, otherwise it would show an even more jarring collapse in both attacks and casualties. Chart 9The Migration Crisis Is No Longer A Crisis The Migration Crisis Is No Longer A Crisis The Migration Crisis Is No Longer A Crisis Chart 10The "Bull Market In Terror" Is Over The "Bull Market In Terror" Is Over The "Bull Market In Terror" Is Over   The chart is also useful in putting the latest bout of terrorism – mainly of the radical Islamic variety – in its proper historical context. Europe has been riven with far left and nationalist terror (often both) since the late 1960s. The number of casualties per year in the 1970s was nearly two times greater than the peak of the recent bout of radical Islamic terror. This is largely the case even excluding the Troubles in Ireland and Northern Ireland. There is simply no evidence that the European median voter is moving towards Euroskepticism. Although it is difficult to make the connection, we would go on to posit that the abating of the migration crisis and bull market in radical Islamic terror has allowed the median voter in Europe to assess whether breaking apart the EU would truly resolve these crises. Elements of European integration, particularly the common labor market and Schengen Agreement – which is part and parcel of the integrationist evolution – definitely make it easier for migrants and terrorists to cross borders. However, the geopolitical forces that breed both are at least partly, if not completely, non-European in origin. As such, it is not clear how individual European countries that lack any hard power would deal with these events on their own. Thus European integration is not a policy born of strength but of weakness. Chart 11 illustrates this concept empirically. It shows the percent of respondents who think their country could better face the future outside the EU. The dotted line represents the pessimistic view. An astounding 87% of Dutch responders, for example, are pessimistic about the country’s future outside the EU. We pick on the Dutch because they have tended to vote for Euroskeptic parties. Similarly, a very high number of Germans, Finns, Swedes, French, and Spaniards are lacking confidence in “national sovereignty.” Only the Italians are flirting with “going it alone,” although even in their case the momentum for sovereignty appears to have stalled, as it has in traditionally Euroskeptic Austria. Chart 11AEuropeans Lack Confidence In National Sovereignty... Europeans Lack Confidence In National Sovereignty... Europeans Lack Confidence In National Sovereignty... Chart 11B...And Believe They Are Better Off Sticking Together ...And Believe They Are Better Off Sticking Together ...And Believe They Are Better Off Sticking Together Many investors approach European integration with an ideological slant. But charts don’t lie. Since we founded BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy, we have used Euro Area perseverance as the premier example of how an empirically-driven approach to political analysis can generate alpha. There is simply no evidence that the European median voter is moving towards Euroskepticism. A broad trend has existed since 2013 of rising support for the common currency, the euro. And a mini up-cycle in support for broader European institutions appears to be present since 2016, probably due to the combination of Brexit, an abating migration crisis, and the end of the bull market in terror. Bottom Line: The median voter supports both the euro and broad European integration. This is an empirical fact. But … Euroskeptics Are Winning Seats! Chart 12Anti-Establishment Parties Are Gaining Seats Anti-Establishment Parties Are Gaining Seats Anti-Establishment Parties Are Gaining Seats Despite the comfort of our empirical data, the reality is that anti-establishment parties continue to increase their share of parliamentary seats across the continent (Chart 12). In the recent Spanish election, for example, the populist Vox managed to win 10.3% of the vote. Headlines immediately picked up on the extraordinary performance, noting that Euroskeptics have finally established a foothold in Spain. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, the leader of the victorious Socialist Party, has welcomed the characterization as a foil to his program, promising to build a pro-European bloc with other left-leaning parties. Sánchez is playing politics. He understands how broadly European integration is supported in Spain and is trying to paint his opponents – who disagree with him on many issues, but not on Spain’s membership in the EU and EMU – as being on the other side of the median voter’s preferences. In reality, Vox is not a hard Euroskeptic party. It is right wing on immigration, multiculturalism, and the centralization of the Spanish state, but on Europe Vox merely wants less integration from the current, already highly integrated level. Anti-establishment parties are realizing that the median voter does not want to abandon European integration. As such, the right-leaning anti-establishment parties are focusing on anti-immigrant and anti-multicultural policies, while the left-leaning are focusing on anti-austerity politics. But there appears to be an emerging truce on integration. We forecast this transition in our 2016 report titled “After Brexit, N-Exit?” We posited that anti-establishment parties would increasingly focus on anti-immigration policies, while reducing the emphasis on Euroskepticism, in order to remain competitive. We now have a number of examples of this process, from Italy’s Lega to Finland’s the Finns Party. Which brings us to the election at hand: the EP election on May 23. Chart 13 Ironically, the EP election gives Euroskeptics the best chance at winning seats. First, the turnout has been falling for decades (Chart 13) given the dubious relevance of the legislative body (more on that below). Second, Euroskeptic voters tend to be highly motivated during EP elections as they get to vote “against Europe.” Third, ironically, EP elections allow Euroskeptics to build pan-European coalitions with their fellow skeptics. Despite the hype, the latest seat projections give Euroskeptics merely 26% of the seat total in the body, or just under 200 seats in the 750-seat body (Diagram 1). Chart 14 shows that the support for Euroskeptics has actually taken a serious dip following the Brexit referendum, with the overall continent-wide support remaining around 20%. This is broadly the same level at which the support was five years ago, giving Euroskeptic parties no gain in half a decade. Diagram 1Euroskeptics Expected To Hold Only A Quarter Of The Seats European Parliament Election: Much Ado About A Moderately Relevant Event European Parliament Election: Much Ado About A Moderately Relevant Event Chart 14 All that said, if a fifth of Europe’s electorate is voting for anti-integrationist parties in the midst of the most important European-wide election, that must be a bad sign for Europe. Right? Wrong. The media rarely unpacks the Euroskeptics beyond citing their overall support figures. However, we have gone beyond merely citing the three leading Euroskeptic blocs. Instead, we have separated the individual Members of European Parliament (MEPs) from across the three Euroskeptic blocs into four camps: Eastern European Camp – These are MEPs from EU member states that are former members of the Warsaw Pact or former Republics of the Soviet Union. Hardcore Camp – These are committed Euroskeptics who genuinely want their countries to leave European institutions. The Dutch Party for Freedom wants to see the Netherlands leave both the EU and the EMU. However, parties such as the Swedish Democrats and the Finns Party are more nuanced. Nonetheless, we erred on the side of apocalypse and added them all to the hardcore camp. Classical Camp – These are MEPs who would have fit the Euroskeptic definition back in the 1990s. They generally do not have a problem with the EU, but tend to be skeptical of the EMU and definitely do not want to see any further integration (although some would welcome integration on the military front). Italy’s Lega belongs to this camp, at least since the 2017 election, given the reorientation of the party’s policy away from criticizing the EMU and toward anti-immigrant policies.  On The Way Out Camp – The U.K. MEPs will eventually be forced to exit the EP given the eventual departure of the U.K. from the EU. In this camp, we have thrown all the U.K. MEPs who sit in Euroskeptic groupings, which includes both UKIP MEPs and Conservative Party members – even those who are not actually anti-EU. Diagram 2Almost Three Quarters Of Euroskeptic MEPs Are Bluffing European Parliament Election: Much Ado About A Moderately Relevant Event European Parliament Election: Much Ado About A Moderately Relevant Event Diagram 2 shows the distribution of the currently 311 Euroskeptic MEPs. The largest portion, by far, are Eastern European MEPs. The second-largest portion are MEPs from the U.K., who are either on their way out or about to become the “lamest ducks” in the history of any legislature. What does this mean? First, that almost three quarters of the Euroskeptic MEPs are essentially bluffing. Eastern European Euroskepticism is a geopolitical oxymoron. Investors should ignore any Euroskeptic rhetoric from Eastern Europe for two reasons. First, many Eastern European economies remain highly dependent on the EU for structural funding (Chart 15). But even that crude measure does not illustrate the benefit of EU membership. If Eastern and Central European countries were to leave the EU, they would lose access to the common market, a huge economic cost given their close integration with the German manufacturing supply chain. Second, and perhaps more importantly, the EU is a critical geopolitical anchor for the former Warsaw Pact member states. As much as the Polish and Hungarian Euroskeptic MEPs like to speak of the “tyranny of Brussels,” they all remember all too clearly the actual tyranny of Moscow. As such, Eastern Europe’s Euroskepticism is a bluff, a rhetorical political tool to blame the ills of poor governance on Brussels for the sake of domestic political gains. It holds no actual threat to European integration or its institutions given that the alternative to Brussels is… Moscow. Chart 15 This is why the three Euroskeptic blocs will find it difficult to cooperate in the future. The Eastern European-heavy European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) are highly skeptical of Russia, as the largest party in the bloc is the Polish Law and Justice (PiS) Party. The PiS is highly critical of Moscow’s foreign policy and is the ruling party of Poland. Its rhetoric is on occasion illiberal and anti-EU, but it has also changed domestic policy when pressured by Brussels. The ECR is expected to be the smallest Euroskeptic party, with 55 MEPs. The genuinely hard-core Euroskeptic bloc is the Europe of Nations and Freedom (ENF). It is expected to win 58 MEPs and is dominated by genuine, long-time, anti-EU parties such as Marine Le Pen’s National Rally of France (formerly the National Front) and the Dutch Party for Freedom. However, its latest iteration is likely to be dominated by Matteo Salvini’s Lega, which is Italy’s ruling party and has taken a decided turn towards soft Euroskepticism. Finally, the moderately Euroskeptic Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy (EFDD) is expected to win 57 seats. However, its largest bloc are the ruling Italian Five Star Movement (M5S) and an assortment of Euroskeptic British MEPs, including Niger Farage. Italy’s M5S has already toned down its Euroskeptic rhetoric given that it now sits in Rome and runs the EMU’s third-largest economy. Meanwhile, U.K. MEPs will be largely irrelevant, raising the question of whether EFDD should even be classified as Euroskeptic in the next EP. Bottom Line: When all is said and done, the European Parliament election is a much-hyped non-event. By our count, only about 60 out of approximately 190 Euroskeptic MEPs will be actual hard-core Euroskeptics (or, just 8% of the entire EP). The rest are either reformed centrists – the two major Italian parties, Lega and M5S – on their way out – U.K. Euroskeptics – or are just bluffing – all Eastern European MEPs. That said, the EP seat distribution will reflect the polarization and fracturing observed in most national parliaments across of Europe. It is likely that neither the center-left nor the center-right will have enough seats to select the European Commission President. Does Any Of This Even Matter? Does the EP election even matter? To answer this question, we first have to assess whether the European Parliament itself matters. Both the proponents and opponents of the EU overstate the bloc’s supranational institutions: the EP and the Commission. A fractured European Parliament does not really matter ... In fact, the European Parliament has few real powers. The true power in the EU is vested in the European Council. The European Council could be conceived of as an upper chamber of a combined EU legislature, the Senate to the European Parliament’s House of Representatives (to put into U.S. context). It is comprised of the heads of government of EU member states and is therefore elected on the national, not supranational, level. It is, by far, where most power resides in the EU. The Commission, on the other hand, is the EU’s technocratic executive. Its members are not democratically elected, but are chosen by the European Council and approved by both the Council and the EP.1  The EU Commission President is elected according to the Spitzenkandidat system. The party grouping that secures a majority governing coalition in the EP gets to name their leader as the candidate for the European Commission President. This system is not enshrined in EU law, it is merely a convention. In fact, it was designed to try to boost the voting turnout for the EP elections. The idea being that Europe’s voters would turn out to vote if it meant that their votes would ultimately determine who gets to head the European Commission. At the end of the day, the European Council has to approve the Spitzenkandidat. And, according to the letter of the law, the European Council can ultimately even ignore the Spitzenkandidat suggestions of the European Parliament and propose their own head of the European Commission. As such, the fact that Diagram 1 suggests a fractured European Parliament does not really matter. The European Council could, in the end, simply find a consensus candidate and have national governments instruct their MEPs to vote for that candidate in the EP. In fact, the European Parliament has few real powers. It is one of the only legislatures in the world with no actual legislative initiative (i.e., it cannot produce laws!). It gets to hold a ceremonial vote on new EU treaties – the treaties that act as a constitution of the bloc – but cannot veto them. On most important matters – including the EU budget – the Parliament cannot overrule the European Council (the heads of national governments), which means that it cannot subvert the sovereignty of the EU member states. In the political construct that is the EU, it is the upper-chamber that holds all the power (if we are to extend the analogy of the European Council as the “Senate”). Another important thing to remember is that MEPs are rarely unaffiliated. The vast majority are members of national parties on the national level. Few, if any, are actual supranational agents. In fact, most MEPs fall into two categories. They are either young up-and-comers being groomed for a successful career on the national level – the level that actually matters – or they are past-their-expiration-date elders looking for a cushy retirement posting that includes frequent, taxpayer-funded, trips between Brussels and Strasbourg.  Bottom Line: The importance of the EP is vastly overstated by both Europhiles and Euroskeptics. Its role within the EU legislative process has been increasing through treaty evolution and convention. However, the true power in the EU still rests with the national governments and the EP can be sidelined if the European capitals so desire. Furthermore, while the EP is a supranational body with supranational powers, its soul is very much national. This is because most of its MEPs either have an eye on returning to domestic politics or are emeriti of domestic politics looking for one last bout of relevance. Investment Implications Given our sanguine view of European politics, and the BCA House View that global growth should bottom (Chart 16), investors should look to European assets for considerable upside. This is particularly the case if the U.S. and China overcome their cold feet and conclude a trade deal. Our colleague Peter Berezin, BCA’s Chief Investment Strategist, has proposed that investors go long European banks as a tactical trade. Peter has pointed out that banks are now trading at distressed valuations (Chart 17).2  Given a Chinese and global rebound, and barring a total relapse into trade war, Europe’s high-beta economy should benefit, leading to higher bond yields in core European markets.This has tended to help European bank stocks in the past (Chart 18). Stronger economic growth will also translate into more credit demand and lower non-performing loans. This will boost bank earnings (Chart 19). Chart 16Growth Is Recovering In The U.S. And China Growth Is Recovering In The U.S. And China Growth Is Recovering In The U.S. And China Chart 17European Banks: A Good Value Play European Banks: A Good Value Play European Banks: A Good Value Play Chart 18Euro Area: Higher Bond Yields Bode Well For Bank Stocks Euro Area: Higher Bond Yields Bode Well For Bank Stocks Euro Area: Higher Bond Yields Bode Well For Bank Stocks Chart 19More Credit, Fatter Bank Earnings More Credit, Fatter Bank Earnings More Credit, Fatter Bank Earnings In addition, U.S. dollar outperformance is long-in-the-tooth. If global growth is truly bottoming, and assuming a trade deal is done,  then the policy divergence that has favored the greenback should be over (Chart 20). As such, we will consider going long EUR/USD as a strategic play once we get clarity on China tariffs and potential tariffs on U.S. auto imports (the latter risk is rising from 35% to 50% given Trump’s willingness to take risks this year). Chart 20If Trade War Subsides, Dollar May Fall If Trade War Subsides, Dollar May Fall If Trade War Subsides, Dollar May Fall Chart 21A Reversal In Tech Outperformance Supports Long Europe/China A Reversal In Tech Outperformance Supports Long Europe/China A Reversal In Tech Outperformance Supports Long Europe/China Finally, Dhaval Joshi, BCA’s Chief European Strategist, believes that Europe is a clear tactical overweight to China.3 Part of the reason is that the two markets are mirror opposites of each other in terms of sector skews. China is overweight technology and underweight healthcare, while Europe is overweight healthcare and underweight technology. The year-to-date outperformance by global technology stocks relative to healthcare is long in the tooth and ripe for a correction (Chart 21). Given our positive structural assessment of European political risk, we recommend going long European equities and short China as a strategic play.   Marko Papic Consulting Editor marko@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      For the American context, the Commission would be what the various U.S. Departments would look like if they were serving at the pleasure of the U.S. Senate. While the analogy is not perfect, it does capture the fact that the EU’s executive is controlled by the European Council. 2      Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “King Dollar Is Due For A Breather,” dated April 26, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see BCA Research European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Suffering Market Vertigo,” dated May 2, 2019, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.  

Highlights So what? Quantifying geopolitical risk just got easier. Why?   In this report we introduce 10 proprietary, market-based indicators of country-level political and geopolitical risk. Featured countries include France, U.K., Germany, Italy, Spain, Russia, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, and Brazil. Other countries, and refinements to these beta-version indicators, will come in due time. We remain committed to qualitative, constraint-based analysis. Our GeoRisk Indicators will help us determine how the market is pricing key risks, so we can decide whether they are understated or overstated. Feature For the past three months we have been tracking a “Witches’ Brew” of political risks that threaten the late-cycle bull market. Some of these risks have abated for the time being: the Fed is on pause, China’s stimulus has surprised to the upside, and Brexit has been delayed. Other risks we have flagged, however, are heating up: Iran And Oil Market Volatility: Surprisingly the Trump administration has chosen not to extend oil sanction waivers on Iran from May 2, putting 1.3 million barrels per day of oil on schedule to be removed from international markets by an unspecified time.  It remains to be seen how rapidly and resolutely the administration will enforce the sanctions on specific allies and partners (Japan, India, Turkey) as well as rivals (China, others). Because the decision coincides with rising production risks from renewed fighting in Libya and regime failure in Venezuela, we expect President Trump to phase in the new enforcement over a period of months, particularly on China and India. But official rhetoric is draconian. Hence the potential for full and immediate enforcement is greater than we thought. In the short term, individual political leaders, and very powerful nations like the United States, can ignore material economic and political constraints. Since the Trump administration’s decision exemplifies this point, geopolitical tail risks will get fatter this year and next. Global oil price volatility and equity market volatility will increase with sanction enforcement actions and retaliation. We would think that Trump’s odds of reelection will marginally suffer, though for now still above 50%, as any full-fledged confrontation with Iran will raise the chances of an oil price-induced recession. U.S.-EU Trade War: Neither the Trump administration nor the U.S. has a compelling interest in imposing Section 232 tariffs on imports of autos and auto parts. Nevertheless the risk of some tariffs remains high – we put it at 35% – because President Trump is legally unconstrained. The decision is technically due by May 18 but Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow has said Trump may adjust the deadline and decide later. Later would make sense given the economic and financial risks of the administration’s decision to ramp up the pressure on Iran.1 But the risk that tariffs will pile onto a weak German and European economy will hang over investors’ heads. U.S.-China Talks Not A Game Changer: The ostensible demand that China cease Iranian oil imports immediately and the stalling of U.S. diplomacy with North Korea are not conducive to concluding a trade deal in May. We have highlighted many times that strategic tensions will persist even if Beijing and Washington quarantine these issues to agree to a short-term trade truce. The June 28-29 G20 meeting in Japan remains the likeliest date for a summit between Presidents Trump and Xi Jinping, but even this timeframe could be too optimistic. Continued uncertainty or a weak deal will fail to satisfy financial markets expecting a very positive outcome.   With a 70% chance that U.S. tariffs on China will not increase this year and, contingent on a U.S.-China deal, only a 35% chance that the U.S. slaps tariffs on German cars, we sound optimistic to some clients. But the Trump administration’s decision on Iran is highly market-relevant and portends greater volatility. We expect to see a geopolitical risk premium creep higher into oil markets as well as a greater risk of “Black Swan” events in strategically critical or oil-producing parts of the Middle East. There is limited research devoted to quantifying geopolitical risk. We are late in the business cycle and President Trump has emphatically decided to increase rather than decrease geopolitical risk. Quantifying Geopolitical Risk Geopolitical analysis has taken a bigger role in investors’ decision-making over the last decade. Surveys show that geopolitical risks rank among global investors’ top concerns overall. In the oft-cited Bank of America Merrill Lynch survey, geopolitical and related issues have dominated the “top tail risk” responses for the past half-decade (Chart 1). In other surveys, the most worrisome short-term risks are mostly political or geopolitical in nature, ranking above socio-economic and environmental risks (Chart 2). Chart 1 Chart 2 Despite this high level of concern, there is limited research devoted to quantifying geopolitical risk. Isolating and measuring the range of risks under this umbrella term remains a challenge. As such, for many investors, geopolitics remains an ad hoc, exogenous factor that is often mentioned but rarely incorporated into portfolio construction. For the past four decades the predominant ways of measuring political or geopolitical risk have been qualitative or semi-qualitative. The Delphi technique, developed on the basis of low-quality data sets in social sciences, relies on pooled expert opinions.2 Independently selected experts are asked to provide risk assessments and their responses are then interpreted by analysts to create a measure of risk. Another semi-qualitative method of measuring geopolitical risk ranks countries according to a set of political and socio-economic variables. These variables – such as governance, political and social stability, corruption, law and order, or formal and informal policies – are extremely important but inherently difficult to quantify.3 These results are useful but suffer from dependency on expert opinion, data quality, and institutional biases. More importantly, these methods are slow to react to breaking events in a rapidly changing world. The same goes for bottom-up assessments using political intelligence. The weakness of these methods is that it is highly unlikely that they will produce statistically significant estimates of risk. The odds of getting a “silver bullet” insight from a “key insider” are decent for simple political systems, but not in the complex jurisdictions that host the vast majority of global, liquid investments. Quantitative approaches to measuring geopolitical risk have since become more widespread. The most prominent method is based on quantifying the occurrence of words related to political and geopolitical tensions that appear in international newspapers. These word-counts typically include terms like “terrorism,” “crisis,” “war,” “military action,” etc. As a result, the indices reflect incidents of physical violence or other “Black Swan” events that may not have direct relevance to financial markets. Moreover, while news-based indices accurately capture dramatic one-time peaks at the time of a crisis, they are largely flat aside from these, as they rely on popular topics rather than underlying structural trends (Chart 3). They fail to capture geopolitical developments associated with electoral cycles, protest movements, paradigm shifts in economic policy, or other policy changes.4 Notice, for instance, that the fall of the Soviet Union in late 1991 and the resulting chaos in Russia and many other parts of the emerging world hardly register in Chart 3. Chart 3News-Based Indices Only Capture Crisis Peaks, Not Geopolitical Developments News-Based Indices Only Capture Crisis Peaks, Not Geopolitical Developments News-Based Indices Only Capture Crisis Peaks, Not Geopolitical Developments Introducing BCA’s GeoRisk Indicators The past 70 years have taught BCA Research to listen and respect the market. Why would we suddenly follow the media instead? Most quantitative geopolitical indicators begin with the premise that journalists and the news-reading public have accurately emphasized the most relevant risks and uncertainties. They proceed to quantify the terms of these assessments with increasingly sophisticated methods. This approach solves only part of the puzzle. News-based indices ... fail to capture geopolitical developments associated with underlying policy changes. At BCA Geopolitical Strategy, we aim to generate geopolitical alpha.5 This means identifying where financial media and markets overstate or understate geopolitical risks. We do not primarily aim to predict events or crises. As such, traditional news-based indicators that capture only major events, even those ex post facto, are of little relevance to our analysis. What is needed is a better way to quantify how the market is calculating risks. We start with a simple premise: the market is the greatest machine ever created for gauging the wisdom of the crowd. Furthermore, it puts its money where its predictions are, unlike other methods of geopolitical risk quantification which have no “value at risk.” Chart 4USD/RUB Captures Geopolitical Risk In Russia... USD/RUB Captures Geopolitical Risk In Russia... USD/RUB Captures Geopolitical Risk In Russia... To this end, we have introduced market-based indicators over the years that rely on currency movements, which are often the simplest and most immediate means of capturing the process of pricing risk. In 2015, for instance, we introduced an indicator that measures Russia’s geopolitical risk premium (Chart 4). It is constructed using the de-trended residual from a regression of USD/RUB against USD/NOK and Russian CPI relative to U.S. CPI. We can show empirically that it captures geopolitical risk priced into the ruble, as the indicator increases following critical incidents. These include the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine in 2014; the warnings that Russia aimed to stage a “spring offensive” in Ukraine in 2015; Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War later that year; and the poisoning of former intelligence agent Sergei Skripal in the U.K. in 2018 and subsequent tensions. Using similar methods, we created a proxy to capture geopolitical risk in Taiwan, based on USD/JPY and USD/KRW exchange rates and relative Taiwanese/American inflation (Chart 5). The indicator tracks well with previous cross-strait crises. It jumped upon Taiwan’s election of President Tsai Ing-wen and her pro-independence government in January 2016 – and this was well before any tensions actually flared. It even registered a small increase upon her controversial phone call congratulating Donald Trump upon winning the U.S. election. Chart 5...And USD/TWD Captures Geopolitical Risk In Taiwan ...And USD/TWD Captures Geopolitical Risk In Taiwan ...And USD/TWD Captures Geopolitical Risk In Taiwan This year we have expanded on this work, constructing a set of ten standardized GeoRisk Indicators for five developed economies and five emerging economies: U.K., France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Russia, Turkey, Brazil, Korea, and Taiwan. Indicators for the U.S., China, and others will be rolled out in a future report. These indicators attempt to capture risk premiums priced into the various currencies – except for Euro Area countries, where the risk is embedded in equity prices. In each case, we look at whether the relevant assets are decreasing in value at a faster rate than implied by key explanatory variables. The explanatory variables consist of (1) an asset that moves together with the dependent variable while not responding to domestic geopolitical risks, and (2) a variable to capture the state of the economy. This set of indicators differs from our earlier indicators in the following ways: We aim to create a simple methodology that we can apply consistently to all countries, both in the DM and EM universes. We therefore omitted using regression models that can prove to be quite whimsical. Instead, we simply looked at the deviation of the dependent variable from the explanatory variables, all in expanding standardized terms, to create the GeoRisk proxy. We wanted an indicator that would immediately respond to priced-in risks, so we opted for a daily frequency rather than the weekly frequency we used in our initial work. To get as accurate of a signal as possible, we use point-in-time data. Since economic data tends to be released with a one-to-two-month lag, we lagged the economic independent variable to correspond to its release date. All ten indicators are shown in the Appendix. Across all countries, they track well with both short-term events and long-term trends in geopolitical risk. In the case of France, for example, the indicator steadily climbs during the period of domestic tensions and protests in the early 2000s; as the European debt crisis flares up; again during the rise of the anti-establishment Front National and the Russian military intervention in Ukraine; and finally during the U.S. trade tariffs and Yellow Vest protests (Chart 6). Our GeoRisk indicators isolate risks that either originate internally or otherwise affect the country more so than others. Similarly, in Germany, there is a general increase in perceived risk as Chancellor Gerhard Schröder implements structural reforms in the early 2000s; another increase leading up to the leadership change as Angela Merkel is elected Chancellor; another during the global and European financial crises; another during the Ukraine invasion and refugee influx; and finally another with the U.S.-China trade war (Chart 7). Chart 6Our French Indicator Picks Up Domestic And European Unrest Our French Indicator Picks Up Domestic And European Unrest Our French Indicator Picks Up Domestic And European Unrest Chart 7Greater German Risk Amid The Trade War Greater German Risk Amid The Trade War Greater German Risk Amid The Trade War   We have annotated each country’s GeoRisk indicator heavily in the appendix so that readers can see for themselves the correspondence with political events. The indicators are affected by international developments – like the Great Recession – but we have done our best to isolate risks that either originate internally or otherwise affect the country more than other countries. (As a consequence, the Great Recession is muted in some cases.) What are the indicators telling us now? Most obviously, they highlight the extreme risk we have witnessed in the U.K. over the now-delayed March 29 Brexit deadline. We would bet against this risk as the political reality has demonstrated that a “hard Brexit” is very low probability: the U.K. has the ability to back off unilaterally while the EU is willing to extend for the sake of regional stability. In this sense the pound is a tactical buy, which our foreign exchange strategist Chester Ntonifor has highlighted.6 Our U.K. risk indicator has been fairly well correlated with the GBP/USD since the global financial crisis and it suggests that the pound has more room to rally (Chart 8). Chart 8Betting Against A Hard Brexit, the GBP Is A Tactical Buy Betting Against A Hard Brexit, the GBP Is A Tactical Buy Betting Against A Hard Brexit, the GBP Is A Tactical Buy Meanwhile, Spanish risks are overstated while Italy’s are understated. As for the emerging world, Turkish risks should be expected to spike yet again, as divisions emerge within the ruling coalition in the wake of critical losses in local elections and a failure to reassure investors over monetary policy and the currency. Brazilian risks will probably not match the crisis points of the impeachment and the 2018 election, at least not until controversial pension reforms reach a period of peak uncertainty over legislative passage. Both our new Russian indicator and its prototype are collapsing (see Chart 4 above). This captures the fact that we stand at a critical juncture in Russian affairs, where President Putin is attempting to shift focus to domestic stability even as the U.S. and the West maintain pressure on the economy to deter Russia from its aggressive foreign policy. Given that both Putin’s and the government’s approval ratings are low amid rising oil prices, the stage is set for Russia to take a provocative foreign policy action meant to distract the populace from its poor living conditions. Venezuela is the obvious candidate, but there are others. Moscow will want to test Ukraine’s newly elected, inexperienced president; it may also make a show of support for Iran. With Russia equities having rallied on a relative basis over the past year and a half, and with the Iranian waiver decision already boosting oil prices as we go to press, the window of opportunity to buy Russian stocks is starting to close. (We remain overweight relative to EM on a tactical horizon; our Emerging Markets Strategy is also overweight.) Going forward, we will update these risk indicators regularly as needed and publish the full appendix at the end of every month along with our long-running Geopolitical Calendar. We will also fine-tune the indicators as new information comes to light. In other words, here we present only the beta version. We hope that these indicators will help inform investors as to the direction, and even magnitude, of political risks as the market prices them. Our GeoRisk indicators are not predictive, as establishing a trend is not a prediction. The main purpose of this exercise is to answer the critical question, “What is already priced in?” How is the market currently calculating geopolitical risk for a country? After that, it is the geopolitical strategist’s job to unpack this question through qualitative, constraint-based analysis. It is when our qualitative assessments disagree with what is priced in that we can generate geopolitical alpha.    Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic Consulting Editor marko@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      See Sean Higgins, “Auto tariffs decision could be delayed, Kudlow says,” Washington Examiner, April 3, 2019, www.washingtonexaminer.com. 2      Norman C. Dalkey and Olaf Helmer-Hirschberg, “An Experimental Application of the Delphi Method to the Use of Experts,” Management Science, Vol. 9, Issue: 3 (April 1963) pp. 458- 467. 3      Darryl S. L. Jarvis, “Conceptualizing, Analyzing and Measuring Political Risk: The Evolution of Theory and Method,” Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy Research Paper No. LKYSPP08-004 (July 2008).  William D. Coplin and Michael K. O'Leary, "Political Forecast For International Business," Planning Review, Vol. 11 Issue: 3 (1983) pp.14-23. The PRS Group, “Political Risk Services”™ (PRS) or the “Coplin-O’Leary Country Risk Rating System”™ Methodology. Daniel Kaufmann, Aart Kraay, and Massimo Mastruzzi, “The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and Analytical Issues,” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 5430 (September 2010). 4      Scott R. Baker, Nicholas Bloom, and Steven J. Davis, “Measuring Economic Policy Uncertainty,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 131, Issue 4, November 2016 (July 2016) pp.1593–1636. Dario Caldara and Matteo Iacoviello, “Measuring Geopolitical Risk,” Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board, Working Paper (January 2018). 5      Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Five Myths On Geopolitical Forecasting,” dated July 9, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6      Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, “Not Out Of The Woods Yet,” April 5, 2019, available at www.bcaresearch.com.   Appendix Appendix France France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix U.K. U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Germany Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Italy Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Spain Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Russia Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Korea Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Taiwan Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Turkey Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Brazil Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator What’s On The Geopolitical Radar? Chart 19      Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights So What? It makes sense for long-term investors to buy the GBP. However, short-term investors should instead buy the 2-year call while selling 3-month ones. Why? The U.K. electorate is not staunchly Euroskeptic. In fact, Bregret has already set in. Volatility is the only sure bet over the tactical and strategic time horizons. The most likely scenario is that Theresa May either resigns and is replaced by a soft-Brexit Tory, or that she agrees to a long-term extension to give the U.K. time to call a new election. Brexit is unsustainable over the secular time horizon. Our low-conviction view is that in the long term, the U.K. will remain inside the European Union. Feature The hour is late in the ongoing Brexit saga. The original deadline, once spoken of with religious reverence, will be tossed aside for one, potentially two, extensions. In this analysis, we attempt to consider the state of Brexit from multiple time horizons. First, we offer our tactical view, what will happen in the next several weeks and months. Second, we offer our strategic view, surveying the Brexit process to the end of the year. Third, we consider the secular view and attempt to answer the question of whether the U.K. will ever fully exit the EU. We then assign investment recommendations across the three time horizons. The Conservative Party has wrapped itself into an intellectual pretzel trying to deliver on a referendum that the pro-Brexit Tories promised would not mean losing access to the Common Market. How Did We Get Here? In March 2016, three months ahead of the fateful June referendum, BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy published a joint report on the topic that drew three conclusions: The probability of Brexit was understated by the market. “According to our modeling results, roughly 64% of Tory undecided voters would have to swing to the “Stay” camp in order to ensure that the vote crosses the 50% threshold in favour of continued EU membership … Conventional wisdom suggests that the probability of Brexit is around 30%, anchoring to the 1975 referendum results. Our own analysis of current polling data suggests that it is much closer to 50%, as in too close to call.” The biggest loser of Brexit, domestically, would be the Conservative Party. “The risk is that the British populace realizes that leaving the EU was a sub-optimal result and that little sovereignty was recovered. As such, there could be a backlash against the Tories in the next general election. In this scenario, the winner would not necessarily be UKIP, but rather the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party – as close to the Michael Foot-led opposition in the early 1980s as any Labour Leadership.” The EU would survive, intact, with no further “exits.” “European integration is therefore a gambit for relevance by Europe’s declining powers. Brexit will not create centrifugal forces that tear the EU apart, and could in fact enhance the sinews that bind EU member states in a bid for 21st century geopolitical relevance.” Thus far, all three predictions have proven prescient. Not only was the probability of Brexit understated, but the electorate actually voted to exit the EU.1 The Conservative Party has wrapped itself into an intellectual pretzel trying to deliver on a referendum that the pro-Brexit Tories – a minority in the party – promised would not mean losing access to the Common Market. And the EU has not only seen no other “exits,” but has held firm and united in the negotiations with the U.K. while witnessing an increase in the support for its troubled currency union, both in the Euro Area in aggregate as well as in crisis-ridden Italy (Chart 1). Chart 1The Euro Area Stands Unified The Euro Area Stands Unified The Euro Area Stands Unified The net assessment we conducted in 2016 correctly gauged what the Brexit referendum was about and what it was not about. Our view was that behind the angst lay factors too general to be laid at the feet of European integration. Decades of supply-side reforms combined with competition from emerging economies led to a sharp rise in U.K. income inequality (Chart 2), the erosion of its manufacturing economy (Chart 3), and the ballooning of the country’s financial sector (Chart 4). As a result, the U.K.’s income inequality and social mobility were, in 2016 as today, much closer to those of its Anglo-Saxon peer America than to those of its continental European neighbors (Chart 5). Chart 2Brits Saw Inequality Surge Brits Saw Inequality Surge Brits Saw Inequality Surge Chart 3Manufacturing Jobs Collapsed Manufacturing Jobs Collapsed Manufacturing Jobs Collapsed Chart 4The Financial Bubble Burst The Financial Bubble Burst The Financial Bubble Burst Chart 5 The underlying economic angst has continued to influence British politics since Brexit. Campaigning on an anti-austerity platform in the summer of 2017, the Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn nearly won the general election, only underperforming the Conservative vote by 2% (Chart 6). The election was supposed to politically recapitalize Theresa May and allow her to lead the U.K. out of the EU. But the failure to secure a single-party majority created the political math in the House of Commons that is today preventing the prime minister from executing on Brexit. There are simply not enough committed Brexiters in Westminster to deliver on the relatively hard Brexit – no access to the EU Common Market or customs union – that Prime Minister May has put on offer (Chart 7). Chart 6 Chart 7 The decision not to pursue a customs union arrangement with the EU is particularly disastrous. As our colleague Dhaval Joshi – Chief Strategist of BCA’s European Investment Strategy – has pointed out, remaining in the customs union would have protected the cross-border supply chains that are vital to many U.K. businesses and would have avoided a hard customs border on the island of Ireland.2 However, the slim margin of the Tory victory in 2017 has boosted the influence of the 20-to-40 hard-Brexiters in the party. They pushed Theresa May to the extreme, where a customs union arrangement – let alone access to the Common Market – became politically unpalatable. The underlying economic angst has continued to influence British politics since Brexit. Had the British electorate genuinely wanted “Brexit über alles,” or the relatively hard Brexit on offer today, the margin of victory for Leave would have been greater. Furthermore, the electorate would not have come so close to giving the far-left Corbyn – who nonetheless supports the softest-of-soft Brexits – a majority in mid-2017. The slim margin of victory effectively tied May’s hands in her subsequent negotiations with both the EU and her own party. But there was more to the 2016 referendum than just general malaise centered on the economy and inequality. There were idiosyncratic events that provided tailwinds for the Leave campaign. Or, as we put it in 2016: Certainly, a number of ills have befallen the continent in quick succession: the euro area sovereign debt crisis, Russian military intervention in Ukraine, rampant migrant inflows from Africa and the Middle East, and terrorist attacks in France. It is no surprise that the U.K. populace wants to think twice about tying itself even more closely to a Europe apparently on the run from the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. The two issues we would particularly focus on were the migrant crisis and terrorist attacks in Europe. Data ahead of the referendum clearly gave credence to the view that the influx of migrants was raising “concerns about immigration and race.” This angst was primarily focused on EU migrants who came to the U.K. legally (Chart 8), but the influx of millions of migrants into the EU in 2015 – peaking at 172,000 in the month of October – certainly bolstered the anxiety in the U.K. (Chart 9).3 Chart 8EU Migrants A Source Of Anxiety In 2016 EU Migrants A Source Of Anxiety In 2016 EU Migrants A Source Of Anxiety In 2016 Chart 9The Refugee Crisis Boosted Brexit Vote The Refugee Crisis Boosted Brexit Vote The Refugee Crisis Boosted Brexit Vote Terrorism was another concern. In the 18 months preceding the referendum, continental Europe experienced 13 deadly terror attacks. Two were particularly egregious: the November 2015 Paris terror attack that led to 130 deaths, and the March 2016 Brussels terror attack that led to 32 deaths. The idiosyncratic events that provided tailwinds behind Brexit … were the migrant crisis and terrorist attacks in Europe. Both the migration and terror crises, however, were temporary and caused by idiosyncratic variables with short half-lives. BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy argued that both would eventually abate. The migration crisis would subside due to firming European attitudes towards asylum seekers and the exhaustion of the supply of migrants as the Syrian Civil War drew to its tragic close. The extremist Islamic terror attacks would dwindle due to the decrease in the marginal utility of terror that has been observed in previous waves of terrorism (Chart 10). Neither forecast was popular with our client base, but both have been spot on. Chart 10Fewer Attacks Due To Declining Marginal Utility Of Terror Fewer Attacks Due To Declining Marginal Utility Of Terror Fewer Attacks Due To Declining Marginal Utility Of Terror The point is that the British electorate was never as Euroskeptic as the Euroskeptics cheering on Brexit thought. Support for EU integration has waxed and waned for decades (Chart 11). Instead, a combination of macro-malaise caused by the general plight of the middle class – the same factors that have given tailwinds to populist policymakers across developed markets – and idiosyncratic crises in the middle of this decade created the context in which the public voted to leave the EU. Whatever the vote was for, we can say with a high degree of certainty that it was not in favor of the current deal on offer, a relatively hard Brexit. After all, the pro-Leave Tories almost universally campaigned in favor of remaining in the Common Market post-Brexit.4 Chart 11Data Does Not Support Euroskeptic U.K. Data Does Not Support Euroskeptic U.K. Data Does Not Support Euroskeptic U.K. Today, Bregret has clearly set in. Not only on the specific issue of whether the U.K. should leave the EU – where the gap between Bremorseful voters and committed Brexiters is now 8% (Chart 12), a 12% swing since just after the referendum – but also on the more existential question of whether U.K. citizens feel European (Chart 13). Chart 12Bregret Has Set In... Bregret Has Set In... Bregret Has Set In... Chart 13...And Brits Feel More European ...And Brits Feel More European ...And Brits Feel More European The political reality of Bregret is the most important variable in predicting Brexit. Not only is it difficult for Prime Minister May to deliver her relatively hard Brexit in Westminster due to the mid-2017 electoral math, but it is especially the case when the electorate does not want it. Yes, the mid-2016 referendum is an expression of a democratic will that must be respected. But no policymaker wants to respect the referendum at the cost of disrespecting the current disposition of the median voter, which is revealed through polls. Doing so will cost them in the next election. The British electorate was never as Euroskeptic as the Euroskeptics cheering on Brexit thought. Reviewing “how we got here” is essential in forecasting the tactical, strategic, and secular time horizons in the ongoing Brexit imbroglio. To this task we now turn. Bottom Line: The U.K. electorate is not staunchly Euroskeptic: data clearly support this fact. The Brexit referendum simply came at the right time for the Leave vote, as the secular forces of middle-class discontent combined with idiosyncratic crises of migration and terror. Three years following the referendum, the discontent remains unaddressed by British policymakers while the idiosyncratic crises have abated. As such, Bregret has set in, creating a new reality that U.K. policymakers must respond to if they want to retain political capital. Where Are We Going? The Tactical And Strategic Time Horizons The EU has offered a two-step delay to the Article 50 deadline of March 29. The first option is a delay until May 22, but only if Theresa May successfully passes her Brexit plan through Westminster. The second option is a delay until April 12. This would come in effect if the House of Commons rejects the deal on offer. The short time frame is supposed to pressure London to come up with the next steps, which the EU has inferred would either be to get out of the bloc without a deal or to plan for a long-term extension. Although there are no official conditions to awarding a long-term extension, it is clear that the EU only envisages three options: Renegotiate the terms of Brexit, to include either a customs union or full Common Market membership (a softer Brexit); Hold a general election to break the impasse; Hold another referendum. The EU is suggesting that it could deny the U.K. an extension if London does not come back with a plan. There are two reasons why we would call the EU’s bluff. First, it is likely an attempt to help May get the deal through the House of Commons by creating a sense of urgency. Second, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in December 2018 that the U.K. could “revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing.”5 The only requirement is that the notification be sent to Brussels prior to March 29 (or, in the case of a mutually agreed upon extension, prior to April 12). It is increasingly likely that, after the deal on offer fails, Theresa May will have to go “hat-in-hand” to the EU to ask for a much longer extension. She will have until April 12 to ask for that extension, but it would require participation in the European Parliamentary (EP) elections on May 23. Prime Minister May has said that the U.K. will not hold those elections. We beg to differ. Not holding the election would allow the EU to end the U.K.’s membership in the bloc, which would by default mean contravening the Parliament’s will to reject a no-deal Brexit (which it did in a rebuke to the government in March). As such, the U.K. will absolutely hold an EP election in May. Yes, it will be a huge embarrassment to the Conservative government. And we would venture that the election would turn out a huge pro-EU majority from the U.K., given that it is the Europhile side of the aisle that is now excited and activated, further embarrassing the ruling government. The most likely scenario is that Theresa May either resigns and is replaced by a soft-Brexit Tory, or that she agrees to a long-term extension to give the U.K. time to call a new election. The most likely scenario, therefore, is that Theresa May either resigns and is replaced by a soft-Brexit Tory, or that she agrees to a long-term extension to give the U.K. time to call a new election. As we have been arguing throughout the year, the only way to break the impasse without calling a referendum – is to call a new election. A new election would be contested almost exclusively on the issue of Brexit – unlike the 2017 election, which Jeremy Corbyn managed to be almost exclusively contested on the issue of austerity. As such, the winner would have a clear political mandate to pursue the Brexit of their choice. If it is Jeremy Corbyn, this would mean a second referendum, given his recent conversion to supporting one. If Theresa May remains prime minister, it would be her relatively hard Brexit option; if another Tory replaces her, it would potentially be a softer Brexit. Intriguingly, Theresa May is coming up to the average “expiry date” of a “takeover” prime minister, which is 3.3 years (Chart 14). Chart 14 Why do we think that Theresa May would be replaced with a soft Brexit Tory? Because there are simply not enough members of parliament in the Conservative Party caucus to elect a hard Brexiteer. Furthermore, the current deal on offer, which is a form of hard Brexit, clearly has no chance of passing in the House of Commons. Theresa May herself did not support the Leave campaign, but she converted into a hard Brexiteer due to the pressures in the Conservative Party caucus. If, on the other hand, we are wrong and the Conservative Party elects a hard Brexit Tory as leader, the odds of losing the election to the Labour Party would increase. Furthermore, the impasse in the House of Commons would not be resolved as Theresa May would be replaced by a prime minister with essentially the same approach to Brexit. Confused? You are not alone. Diagram 1 illustrates the complexity of the tactical (0-3 months) and strategic (3-12 months) time horizons. There are so many options over the next six months alone that we ran out of space in our diagram to consider the consequences of the general election. Diagram 1Confused? You Are Not Alone The State Of Brexit The State Of Brexit Needless to say, an election would induce volatility in the market as it would put Jeremy Corbyn close to the premiership. While he has now promised a second referendum, his government would also implement policies that could, especially in the short term, agitate the markets. Our forecasts of the currency moves alone suggest that volatility is the only sure bet over tactical and strategic time horizons. We do not have a high-conviction view on a directional call on the pound or U.K. equities. However, global growth concerns, combined with political uncertainty, should create a bond-bullish environment. Bottom Line: Over the course of the year, political uncertainty will remain high in the United Kingdom. A general election is the clearest path to breaking the current deadlock. However, it is not guaranteed, as Labour’s recent decline in the polls appears to be reversing since Jeremy Corbyn finally succumbed to the demands that he support a new referendum (Chart 15). Chart 15Labour Party Revives On Referendum Support Labour Party Revives On Referendum Support Labour Party Revives On Referendum Support The Secular Horizon BCA Geopolitical Strategy believes that the median voter is the price maker in the political market place. Politicians are merely price takers. This is why Theresa May’s notion that the sanctity of the 2016 referendum cannot be abrogated is doubly false. First, she cannot truly claim from the slim 52%-48% result that U.K. voters want her form of Brexit. The referendum therefore may be a sacred expression of the democratic will, but her “no customs union” Brexit option is not holy water: It is an educated guess at best, pandering to hard Brexit Tories (a minority of the electorate) at worst. Given that 48% of the electorate wanted to remain in the EU and that a large portion of Brexit voters wanted a Common Market membership as part of Brexit, it is mathematically obvious that the softest of soft Brexit options was the desire of the median voter in June 2016. An election would induce volatility to the market as it would put Jeremy Corbyn close to the premiership. Furthermore, polling data (presented in Chart 12 and Chart 13) now clearly show that the median voter is migrating away from even the softest of soft Brexit options to the “Stay” camp. Bregret has set in and a strong plurality of voters no longer supports Brexit. The question behind Chart 12 is unambiguous. It clearly asks, “In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the EU?” What does all of this infer for the long term, or secular, horizon? First, an election this year could usher in a Labour government that delivers a new referendum. At this time, given the polling data and the geopolitical context, sans terror and migration crises, we would expect such a referendum to lead to a win for the Stay camp. Second, an election that produces a soft Brexit prime minister or negotiated outcome would allow the U.K. to leave the EU in an orderly fashion. A new Tory prime minister, pursuing a soft Brexit outcome, could even entice some Labour MPs to cross the aisle and support such an exit from the bloc. However, over a secular time horizon of the next two-to-three years, we doubt that a soft Brexit outcome would be viable. Investors have to realize that the vote on leaving the EU does not conclude the U.K. long-term deal with the bloc. That negotiating phase will last during the transition phase, over the next two-to-three years, and would conclude in yet another Westminster vote – and likely crisis – at the end of the period. If this deal entails membership in the Common Market, our low- conviction view over the long term is that it will ultimately fail. Take the financial community’s preferred soft Brexit option, the so-called super soft “Norway Plus” option. A Norway Plus option would entail the highest loss of sovereignty imaginable, given that the U.K. would essentially pay full EU membership fees with no ability to influence the regulatory policies that London would have to abide by. There is also a debate as to whether London would be able to constrict immigration from the EU under that option over the long term, a key demand of Brexiters.6 As such, the only viable option would be to switch to a customs union relationship. However, we fear that even this option may no longer be available to U.K. policymakers. Conservative Party leaders have wasted too much time and lost too much of the public’s good will. With only 40% of the electorate now considering Brexit the correct decision, it is possible that even a customs union arrangement will be unacceptable by the end of the transition period. Aside from the electorate’s growing Bregret, there is also the economic logic – or lack thereof – behind a customs union. A customs union would ensure the unfettered transit of goods between the U.K. and the continent, but not of services. This arrangement greatly favors the EU, not the U.K., as the latter has a wide (and growing) deficit in goods and an expanding surplus in services with the bloc (Chart 16). Chart 16Services Are Key For The U.K. Services Are Key For The U.K. Services Are Key For The U.K. The only logic behind selecting a customs union over the Common Market is that a customs union would allow the U.K. to conclude separate trade deals with the rest of the world. While that may be a fantasy of the few remaining laissez-faire free traders in the U.K. Conservative Party, the view hardly represents the desire of the median voter. Other than a potential trade deal with the U.S., it is practically inconceivable to expect the U.K. electorate to support a free trade agreement with China or India, both of which would likely entail an even greater loss of blue-collar jobs. Even a trade deal with the U.S. would likely face political opposition, given that the U.K. is highly unlikely to be given preferential treatment by an economy seven times its size.7 The Conservative Party has wasted its window of opportunity to push a hard, or moderately hard, Brexit through Parliament. The fact of the matter is that the Conservative Party has wasted its window of opportunity to push a hard, or moderately hard (customs union), Brexit through Parliament. Bregret has set in, as the doyens of Brexit increasingly pursued an unpopular strategy. On the other hand, a Brexit that retains the U.K. membership in the Common Market has never had much logic to begin with. Where does this leave the U.K. in the long term? Given the time horizon and the uncertainty on multiple fronts, our low-conviction view is that it leaves the U.K. inside the European Union. Bottom Line: The combination of increasing Bregret, lack of economic logic behind a customs union membership alone, and the lack of a political logic behind a Common Market membership, suggests that Brexit is unsustainable over the secular time horizon. This imperils the ultimate deal between the U.K. and the EU, which we think will not be able to pass the House of Commons in two-to-three years when it comes up for approval. This is a low-conviction view, however, as political realities can change. Support for Brexit could turn due to exogenous factors, such as a global recession that renews the Euro Area economic imbroglio or a major geopolitical crisis. Both are quite likely over the secular time horizon. Investment Implications Today, cable is cheap, trading at an 18% discount to its long-term fair value as implied by purchasing-power parity models (Chart 17). The growing probability that the U.K. may, down the road, remain in the European Union means that, at current levels the pound is indeed attractive, especially against the U.S. dollar. Chart 17Cable Attractive On Higher Odds Of Bremain Cable Attractive On Higher Odds Of Bremain Cable Attractive On Higher Odds Of Bremain However, when it comes to short-term dynamics, the picture is much murkier. The low probability of a no-deal Brexit implies limited downside. However, the path to get the U.K. to abandon the current relatively hard Brexit is also one that involves a new election. This implies that before a resolution is reached, multiple scenarios are possible, including one where Corbyn becomes the next prime minister. Jeremy Corbyn could be the most left-of center leader of any G-10 nation since Francois Mitterrand in France in the early 1980s. Mitterrand’s audacious nationalization and left-leaning policies were met with a collapse in the French franc (Chart 18). Chart 18A Left-Wing Leader Bodes Ill For The Currency A Left-Wing Leader Bodes Ill For The Currency A Left-Wing Leader Bodes Ill For The Currency Global growth also has an impact on cable. Despite all the noise around Brexit, the reality remains that exports constitute 30% of U.K. GDP, a larger contribution to output than in the euro area. This means that if global growth deteriorates, GBP/USD will face another headwind. If, however, global growth improves, then cable would face a new tailwind. Since BCA is of the view that global growth will likely trough by the summer, we are inclined to be positive on the pound. It makes sense for long-term investors to buy the GBP … short-term investors should buy the 2-year call while selling 3-month ones. Netting out all those factors, it makes sense for long-term investors to buy the GBP, using the dips along the way to build a larger position in this currency. Even on a six-to-twelve-month basis, the path of least resistance for cable is likely upward. The problem is that risk-adjusted returns are likely to be poor as volatility will remain very elevated. We therefore recommend that short-term investors instead buy the 2-year call while selling 3-month ones (Chart 19). Chart 19Volatility Will Be A Challenge For Short Term Investors Volatility Will Be A Challenge For Short Term Investors Volatility Will Be A Challenge For Short Term Investors Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Mathieu Savary, Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst mathieu@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 At the time of publication of our March report, we still had a low-conviction view that the vote would swing towards Stay at the last moment. 2 Please see BCA Research European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Important Message From The Currency Markets,” dated March 14, 2019, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Trying to play up the threat of unchecked migration, the U.K. Independence Party ran a famous campaign poster showing hundreds of refugees on a road under the title of “Breaking Point – The EU has failed us all.” Despite the fact that the U.K. accepted only around 10,000 Syrian refugees since the 2015 crisis. Germany has accepted over 700,000 while Canada – which is located across the Atlantic Ocean on a different continent – accepted over 40,000. Even the impoverished Serbia has accepted more Syrian refugees than the U.K. ­4 One of the most prominent Leave supporters, Boris Johnson, famously quipped after the referendum result that “There will continue to be free trade and access to the single market.” 5 Please see The European Court of Justice, “Judgement Of The Court,” In Case C-621/18, dated December 10, 2018, available at curia.europa.eu. 6 Proponents of the Norway Plus option point out that Article 112(1) of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement allows for restriction of movement of people within the area. However, these restrictions are intended to be used in times of “serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties.” It certainly appears to be an option for London to restrict EU migration, but it is not clear whether Europe would agree for this to be a permanent solution. Liechtenstein has been using Article 112 to impose quantitative limitations on immigration for decades, but that is because its tiny geographical area is recognized as a “specific situation” that justifies such restrictions. 7 President Donald Trump may want to give the U.K. preferential trade terms on the basis of the filial Anglo-Saxon relationship alone, but it is highly unlikely that the increasingly protectionist Congress would do the same. There is also no guarantee that President Trump will be around to bring such trade negotiations across the finish line.

Highlights So What? The late-cycle rally still faces non-trivial political hurdles. Why? U.S.-China trade talks, the U.S. threat of tariffs on auto imports, and Brexit continue to pose risks. A shocking revelation from the Mueller report could have a temporary negative impact on equity markets. A bombshell would increase Trump’s chances of removal from office. We give 35% odds to tarrifs on autos and auto parts, and 10% odds to a hard Brexit. Feature In our February 6 report we outlined how a “Witches’ Brew” of geopolitical risks had the potential to short-circuit the late-cycle equity rally. A month later, that brew is still bubbling. President Donald Trump’s approval rating has rebounded but going forward it faces challenges from negative headlines (Chart 1). These include a soaring trade deficit, a large influx of illegal immigrants on the southern border, a weak jobs report for February, a setback in North Korean diplomacy, and an intensification of the scandals plaguing Trump’s inner circle. Chart 1Don't Get Comfortable Just Yet, Mr. President Don't Get Comfortable Just Yet, Mr. President Don't Get Comfortable Just Yet, Mr. President Each of these issues calls into question the effectiveness of Trump’s core policies and the stability of his administration, though in reality they are only potentially problematic. While Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s forthcoming report poses a tail risk, the substantial threat remains Trump’s trade policy.  Indeed, investors face “the persistence of uncertainties related to geopolitical factors” and the “threat of protectionism,” according to European Central Bank President Mario Draghi, who spoke as he rolled out a new round of monetary stimulus for Europe and its ailing banks. What did Draghi have in mind? The obvious culprits are the U.S.-China trade talks, the U.S. threat of tariffs on auto imports, and Brexit. There were other issues – such as “vulnerabilities in emerging markets” – but the first three are the most likely to have turned Draghi’s head. The global economic outlook is likely to improve on the back of Chinese stimulus and policy adjustments by the ECB and Federal Reserve. But growth has not yet stabilized and financial markets face additional volatility due to the fact that none of these “geopolitical factors” is going to be resolved easily. The good news is that Trump, overseeing a precarious economy ahead of an election, has an incentive to play softball rather than hardball.  Mueller’s Smoking Gun? News reports suggest that Mueller will soon issue the final report of his investigation into President Trump’s election campaign links with Russia. There is really only one way in which the Mueller report could be market relevant: it could produce smoking-gun evidence that results in non-trivial impeachment proceedings. Any scandal big enough to remove Trump from office or clearly damage his reelection chances is significant because financial markets would dislike the extreme policy discontinuity (Chart 2). Anything short of this will be a red herring for markets, though admittedly many of our clients disagree. Chart 2 Very little is known about what Mueller will report and how he will interpret his mandate. Mueller’s investigation may or may not make it to the public in full form, at least initially, and he may or may not make any major additional indictments. Congress will strive to get access to the report, which is internal to the Justice Department, while spin-off investigations will proliferate among lower-level federal district attorneys and congressional committees. The legal battle, writ large, will run into the 2020 election and beyond. House Democrats alone can decide whether to bring articles of impeachment against Trump, but the case would be struck down in the Senate if it did not rest on ironclad evidence of wrongdoing that implicated Trump personally. Republican Senators will not jump ship easily – especially not 18 of them. That would require a sea change in grassroots support for Trump. Trump’s approval among Republicans remains the indicator to watch, and it is still strong (Chart 3). If this number crashes in the aftermath of the Mueller report, then Trump could find himself on a Nixonian trajectory, implying higher odds of a Senate conviction (Chart 4). At that point, markets would begin discounting a Democratic sweep in 2020, with business sentiment and risk assets likely to drop at the prospect of higher taxes and increased regulation (Chart 5). Chart 3 Chart 4 Chart 5A 2020 Democratic Sweep Would Dent Business Sentiment A 2020 Democratic Sweep Would Dent Business Sentiment A 2020 Democratic Sweep Would Dent Business Sentiment After all, if scandals remove Trump from office, then not only is a Democrat likely to win the White House, but any Democrat is likely to win – even a non-centrist like Bernie Sanders or other Democratic candidates like Kamala Harris who have swung hard to the left. Meanwhile, the odds of Democrats taking control of the Senate (while keeping the House) will rise. With Democratic candidates flirting with democratic socialism and proposing a range of left-wing policies, the prospect of full Democratic control of the legislative and executive branches would weigh on financial markets. We doubt that the Mueller report can fall short of a smoking gun while still dealing a fatal blow to Trump. The Democrats control the House, so if the scandal grows to gigantic proportions, they will impeach. Yet if they impeach without an ironclad case, Trump will be acquitted. And if Trump is acquitted, it is hard to see how his chances of reelection would fall. The impeachment of former President Bill Clinton looms large over Democrats, since it ended up boosting his popularity. If Democrats are overzealous to no end, it will help Trump’s campaign. If Trump should then win re-election, he will have veto power and likely a GOP Senate, so his policies will remain in place. The outcome for markets would be policy continuity, though the market-positive aspects of Trump’s first term may not be improved while the market-negative aspects, such as his trade policy and foreign policy, may reboot. Mueller is an all-or-nothing prospect: he either leads us to the equivalent of the Watergate Tapes or not. Lesser crimes are unlikely to have a decisive impact on the election. But volatility is likely to go up as the report comes due, just as it did during the Lewinsky scandal (Chart 6), at least until the dust settles and there is clarity on impeachment. And an equity sell-off at dramatic points in the saga cannot be ruled out, especially if global factors combine with actual impeachment (Chart 7). Chart 6Impeachment Proceedings Likely To Raise Vol... Impeachment Proceedings Likely To Raise Vol... Impeachment Proceedings Likely To Raise Vol... Chart 7… And Potentially Dampen Returns ...And Potentially Dampen Returns ...And Potentially Dampen Returns Bottom Line: A specific, shocking revelation from the Mueller report could have a negative impact on equity markets and risk assets, but any such moves would be temporary as long as the growth and earnings backdrop remain positive and Mueller does not drop a bombshell that increases Trump’s chances of removal from office. Separating The Budget From The Border The president faces adverse developments on the southern border after having initiated a controversial national emergency in order to transfer military funds to construct new barriers. The U.S. has seen an abnormally large increase in apprehensions and attempted entries this year (Charts 8A & 8B). Ultimately the influx calls attention to the porous southern border and as such may help to justify Trump’s policy focus. For now it raises the question of why the administration’s tough tactics are failing to deter immigrants. Meanwhile his emergency declaration has divided the Republican Party, with several members likely to join with Democrats in a resolution of disapproval that Trump will veto. Chart 8 Chart 8 Congress will not be able to override the veto, but Trump’s decree also faces challenges in the judicial system. We doubt that the Supreme Court will rule against him but it certainly is possible. The ruling is highly likely to come before the election. Meanwhile Trump is kicking off the FY2020 budget battle with his newest request of $8.6 billion for the border wall and cuts to a range of discretionary non-defense spending. The presidential budget is a fiction – it is based on unrealistic cuts to a range of government programs. Any budget that is passed will bear no relation to the administration’s proposals. Opinion polls referenced above clearly demonstrate that Trump’s approval rating suffered from the recent government shutdown. This does not mean that he will conclude the next budget battle by the initial deadline of October 1 or that a late-2019 shutdown is impossible. He might accept a short shutdown to try to secure defense spending that would arguably legitimize his repurposing of military funds for border construction. But his experience early this year means that the odds of another long-running, bruising shutdown are low. Might Trump refuse to raise the debt ceiling later this year to get his way on the wall? This is even less likely than a shutdown due to the negative impact that a debt ceiling constraint would have on social security recipients and bond markets. Trump also has the most to lose if the 2011 budget caps snap back into place in 2020 due to any failure of the FY2020 negotiations (Chart 9). As such, the debt ceiling – which the Treasury Department can keep at bay until the end of the fiscal year in October – and the 2020 budget may be resolved together this time around. Chart 9 In short, Trump will be forced to punt on congressional funding for the wall later this year and will have to campaign on it again in November 2020, with the slogan “Finish the Wall.” This is a market-positive outcome, as the hurdles to fiscal spending in 2020 are likely to be reduced: Trump will have to concede to some Democratic priorities and abandon his proposed cuts. The Democrats, for their part, are likely to have enough moderates to get the next budget over the line with Republican support. To illustrate, Republicans only need 21 votes for a majority, while no fewer than 26 Democrats were recently chastised by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for cooperating with Republicans. The implication is that a bipartisan majority can be found. Since Trump cannot get his budget cuts, and does not really even want them, the projected contraction of the budget deficit in 2020 will be reduced or erased (Chart 10). On the margin, this would support higher inflation and bond yields.  Chart 10 The biggest threat to Trump’s reelection is still the risk that the long business cycle will expire by November next year. However, the exceedingly low February payrolls print was misleading – the unemployment rate fell and wage growth was firm (Chart 11). American households are in relatively good shape and that bodes well for Trump, for the time being. Chart 11American Households Are In Good Shape American Households Are In Good Shape American Households Are In Good Shape Bottom Line: The economy is relatively well supported and Trump and the Democrats are ultimately likely to cooperate on the budget under the table, reducing the risks of a debt ceiling breach, or an extended government shutdown later this year, or a fall off the 2020 stimulus cliff. The Trade Deficit: Trump’s Pivot To Europe Trade policy is where Trump’s challenges merge with Draghi’s woes. The U.S. trade deficit lurched upwards to a ten-year high of $621 billion in 2018 (Chart 12). The trade deficit is uniquely important to Trump because he campaigned on an unorthodox protectionist agenda in order to reduce it. It will be very difficult for him to evade the consequences if the deficit is higher, as a share of GDP, in November 2020 than it was in January 2017. Chart 12Trade Deficit Jump Is A Blow To Trump Trade Deficit Jump Is A Blow To Trump Trade Deficit Jump Is A Blow To Trump The underlying cause of the rising deficit is that a growing American economy at full employment with a relatively strong dollar will suck in larger quantities of imports. This effect is overriding any that Trump’s tariffs have had in discouraging imports. Meanwhile the global slowdown, reinforced by trade retaliation and negative sentiment, are harming U.S. exports (Chart 13). The administration’s policies of fiscal stimulus combined with encouraging private investment are guaranteed to lead to a higher current account deficit, barring an offsetting (and highly unlikely) rise in private saving. The current account deficit must equal the gap between domestic saving and investment and a rising fiscal deficit represents a drop in saving. Chart 13Trade War Hurting U.S. Exports Trade War Hurting U.S. Exports Trade War Hurting U.S. Exports What does the trade deficit imply for the U.S.-China talks? On one hand, the U.S. could put more pressure on China after feeling political heat from the large deficit. On the other hand, China has always offered to reduce the bilateral trade deficit directly through bulk purchases of goods, particularly commodities. It is Trump’s top negotiator, Robert Lighthizer, who has insisted that China make structural changes to reduce trade imbalances on a long-term and sustainable basis.1  In a sign of progress, the U.S. and China have reportedly arrived at a currency agreement. No details are known and therefore it is impossible to say if it would mean a more “market-oriented” renminbi, which could fluctuate and have a variable impact on the trade deficit, or a renminbi that is managed to be stronger against the dollar, which would tend to weigh on the deficit, as Trump might wish. The two negotiating teams are working on the text of five other structural issues that should also mitigate the deficit. Moreover, China’s new foreign investment law, if enforced, could increase American market access by leveling the playing field for foreign firms. However, there is still no monitoring mechanism, the two presidents have not scheduled a final signing summit, and the deterioration in North Korean peace talks also works against any quick conclusion. If Trump concludes a deal, the next question for investors is whether he will impose Section 232 tariffs on auto and auto imports on the EU and other partners (Chart 14). Chart 14 The European Commission’s top trade negotiator, Cecilia Malmstrom, recently met with Lighthizer in Washington to discourage tariffs. She refused to admit agriculture into the negotiations, as per a U.S.-EU joint statement in July 2018, but proposed equalizing tariffs on industrial goods as a way for both sides to make a positive start (Chart 15). She said that the U.S. repealing the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs are necessary for any final deal. And she reiterated that any new tariffs (e.g., the proposed Section 232 tariffs on autos and auto parts) would prevent a deal and provoke immediate retaliation on $23 billion worth of American exports. Chart 15 Malmstrom also said that the EU would prefer to work with the U.S. on reforming the World Trade Organization and addressing China’s trade violations. This approach fits with that of Japan, which has joined the U.S. and EU in trilateral discussions toward reforming the global trade architecture in a bid to mitigate U.S. protectionism and constrain China. The problem with the EU’s position is that once the U.S. and China make a trade deal, the U.S. will not have as immediate of a need to form a trade coalition against China (other than in dealing with WTO issues). Moreover, Japan will be forced to accept a deal with the U.S. in short order. A rotation of Trump trade policy to focus on Europe is likely. We give 35% odds to tariffs on autos and auto parts. The USMCA will increase the cost of production in North America while Europe is so far excluding cars from negotiations with the U.S., so there is room for a clash. But any tariffs on autos will be less sweeping than those against China. Trump will play softball rather than hardball for the following reasons: The public is less skeptical of trade with Europe and Japan than with China. The auto sector is heavily concentrated in the Red States and many states that are heavily exposed to trade with the EU are also critical to Trump’s reelection (Map 1). Chart Section 232 tariffs that are required to be enacted by May 18 would have plenty of time to impact the U.S. economy negatively by November 2020. Congress and the defense establishment are against a trade war with U.S. allies, while bipartisanship reigns when it comes to tougher actions toward China. The bilateral trade deficit is less excessive with Europe than with China (see Chart 12 above). The U.S. carmaker and auto parts lobby are unanimously against the tariffs – and in fact has called for the removal of the steel and aluminum tariffs in a stance that echoes that of the EU. The existing steel and aluminum tariffs provide Trump with leverage in the negotiations with the EU and Japan, whereas the U.S. has agreed not to impose new tariffs on these partners while trade negotiations are underway. New tariffs would nix negotiations and ensure that the ensuing quarrels are long and drawn out, with a necessarily worse economic impact. To initiate a new trade war in the wake of the U.S.-China war would be to undercut the positive impact on trade, financial conditions, and sentiment that is supposedly driving Trump’s desire for a China deal in the first place. The U.S. eventually will need to build a trilateral coalition to hold China to account and ensure that it does not slide back into its past mercantilist practices. Even limited or pinprick tariffs will have an adverse impact on equity markets, given that they will hit Europe at a time when its economy is decelerating dangerously and when Brexit uncertainty is already weighing on European assets and sentiment (see next section).  This may be why both the U.K. and Germany have recently softened their positions on Chinese telecom company Huawei, which they have been investigating for national security concerns related to the rollout of 5G networks. They are signaling that they are not going to sacrifice their relationship with China if the U.S. is dealing with China bilaterally while threatening to turn around and slap tariffs on their auto exports. If the U.S. goes ahead with tariffs – on the basis that its China agreement allows it to isolate Europe – the EU will not be a pushover, as exports to the U.S. only amount to 2.6% of GDP (Chart 16). The result of the U.S.-China quarrel has been a deepening EU-China trade relationship and that trend is set to continue (Chart 17), especially if the U.S. continues to use punitive measures that increase the substitution effect and the strategic value of the Chinese and European markets to each other. Chart 16The EU Will Not Be A Pushover In Face Of U.S. Tariffs The EU Will Not Be a Pushover In Face Of U.S. Tariffs The EU Will Not Be a Pushover In Face Of U.S. Tariffs Chart 17EU-China Trade Relationship Deepening EU-China Trade Relationship Deepening EU-China Trade Relationship Deepening Bottom Line: In the wake of any U.S.-China agreement, we give a 35% chance that Trump will impose tariffs on European cars and car parts. Such tariffs are not our base case because they are unlikely to shrink the U.S. trade deficit and would have a negative impact on the Red State economy. But lower magnitude tariffs cannot be ruled out – and the impact on the euro and European industrial sector would clearly be detrimental in the short run. Assuming that global and European growth is recovering, a tariff shock to Europe’s carmakers could present a good opportunity to buy on the dip. Any U.S.-EU trade war will ultimately be shorter-lived and less disruptive than the U.S.-China trade war, which is likely to resume at some point even if Presidents Trump and Xi get a deal this year. The United Kingdom: Snap Election More Likely A series of important votes is taking place in Westminster this week, with the end result likely to be an extension to negotiations over a withdrawal deal at the EU Council summit on March 21. Conditional on that extension, the odds of a new election are sharply rising. The first vote, as we go to press on Tuesday, has resulted in a rejection of Prime Minister Theresa May’s exit plan by 149 votes – the second rejection after her colossal defeat in January by 230 votes. The loss was expected because the EU has not offered a substantial compromise on the contentious Irish “backstop” arrangement, which would keep Northern Ireland and/or the U.K. in the European Customs Union beyond the transition date of December 31, 2020. All that was offered was an exit clause for the U.K. sans Northern Ireland. But Northern Ireland is part of the U.K. and the introduction of additional border checks on the Irish Sea would mark a new division within the constitutional fabric. This is unacceptable to the Conservative Party and especially to the Democratic Union Party of Northern Ireland, which gives May her majority in parliament. On Wednesday, we expect the vote for a “no deal” exit, in which the U.K. simply leaves the EU without any arrangements as to the withdrawal (or future relationship), to fail by an even larger margin than May’s plan. Leaving without a deal would cause a negative economic shock due to the automatic reversion to relatively high WTO tariff levels with the EU, which receives 46% of the U.K.’s exports and is thus vital in the maintenance of its trade balance and terms of trade (Chart 18). It is impossible to see parliament voting in favor of such an outcome – parliament was never the driving force behind Brexit, with most MPs preferring to remain in the EU.     Chart 18No Deal Brexit A Huge Blow To U.K. No Deal Brexit Huge Blow To U.K. No Deal Brexit Huge Blow To U.K. The risk is that parliament should fail repeatedly to pass the third vote this week, a motion asking the EU for an extension period to the March 29 “exit day.” This is unlikely but possible. In this case, the supreme decision-making body of the U.K. will be paralyzed. A bloodbath will ensue in which the country will either see Prime Minister May ousted, a snap election called, or both. If the extension passes, the EU Council is likely to go along with the decision. It is in the EU’s near-term economic interest not to trigger a crash Brexit and in its long-term interest to delay Brexit until the U.K. public decides they would rather stay after all. The problem is that it will not want to grant an extension for longer than July, when new Members of the European Parliament take their seats after the May 23-26 EU elections. The U.K. may be forced to put up candidates for the election. What good would an extension do anyway? The likeliest possibility is, yet again, a new election. The conditions are not yet ripe for a second referendum, though the odds are rising that one will eventually occur. The Labour Party has fallen in the opinion polls amidst Jeremy Corbyn’s indecisive leadership and a divisive platform change within the party to push for a second Brexit referendum (Chart 19). An election now gives May’s Conservatives an opportunity to build a larger and stronger majority – after all, in the U.K. electoral system, the winner takes all in each constituency, so the Tories would pick up most of the seats that Labour loses. May’s faction might be able to strengthen its hand vis-à-vis hard Brexiters who have less popular support yet currently have the numbers to block May’s withdrawal plan. Chart 19A New Election Would Be Opportunistic A New Election Would Be Opportunistic A New Election Would Be Opportunistic Theresa May might be unwilling to call an election given her fateful mistake of calling the snap election of 2017. If she demurs, she could face an internal party coup. There is a slim chance that a hard Brexiter could take the helm, bent on steering the U.K. out of the EU without a deal. Parliament, however, would rebel against such a leader. Ultimately, the economic and financial constraints of a crash Brexit are too hard and we expect that the votes will reflect this fact, whether in an adjusted exit deal or a new election. But both outcomes require an extension.  However, we must point out that the constitutional and geopolitical constraints alone are not sufficient to prevent a crash out: parliament is the supreme lawmaking authority and there is no other basis for the U.K. to leave in an orderly fashion. The United Kingdom has survived worse, as many hard Brexiters will emphasize. A crash is a mistake that can happen. But the odds are not higher than 10%-20% given the stakes (Diagram 1). Diagram 1The Path To Salvation Remains Fraught With Dangers The Witches’ Brew Keeps Bubbling… The Witches’ Brew Keeps Bubbling… With the EU economy not having stabilized and the U.S. contemplating Section 232 trade tariffs, Brexit is all the more reason to be wary of sterling, the euro, and European equities in the near term, especially relative to the U.S. dollar and U.S. equities. Gilts can rally even in the event of an extension given the uncertainty that this would entail, though the BCA House View is neutral. Bottom Line: Expect parliament to ask for an extension. At the same time, the odds of a new election have risen sharply. The absence of a new election could lead to a power struggle within the Tory party that could escalate the risk of a hard Brexit, though we still place the odds at 10%. A second referendum is rising in probability but will only become possible after the dust settles from the current crisis. Investment Conclusions The ECB’s stimulus measures are positive for European and global growth over a 6-to-12-month time frame. They suggest that financial assets could be supported later in the year, depending in great part on what happens in China. China’s combined January and February total social financing growth reinforces our Feb 20 report arguing that the risk of stimulus is now to the upside. As People’s Bank Governor Yi Gang put it, the slowdown in total social financing last year has stopped. The annual meeting of the National People’s Congress also resulted in largely accommodative measures on top of this credit increase. Nevertheless, stimulus operates with a lag, and for the reasons outlined above we are not yet willing to favor EUR/USD or European equities within developed markets. A 35% chance of tariffs is non-negligible. We expect U.S. equities to outperform within the developed world and Chinese equities to outperform within the emerging world on a 6-to-12 month basis.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Lighthizer now has bipartisan support in Congress, whose members will lambast Trump if he squanders the historic leverage he has built up in exchange for a shallow deal that only temporarily weighs on the trade deficit. 

Highlights So What? The yellow vest movement has not soured our optimistic view on France – if anything, it tells us it is time to turn more bullish. Why? The constraints on Macron pursuing reforms are overstated; he has no choice but to double-down.  France has multiple tailwinds: strong demographic trends, comparative advantages in exports, and an increasingly pro-business market environment.  Also … The roadmap for the European Union to change structurally is set, though it will need political will to materialize. Feature “La réforme oui, la chienlit non!” Charles De Gaulle, May 1968 “France is only herself when she leads fights that are bigger than herself.” Emmanuel Macron, August 2018 “When France sneezes the rest of Europe catches cold.” Prince Clemens von Metternich, 1848   In May 2017, the election of 39-year-old Emmanuel Macron brought an end to the seemingly unstoppable tide of populist nationalism in the developed world. As it turned out, the median voter in France was not as angry as the median voter in the U.K. and the U.S.  The reforms implemented since the French election have hardly made headlines outside of domestic media. The struggles of Italy, akin to la commedia dell’arte, and the jousting between London and Brussels, have drawn more attention. More recently, the yellow vest protests have reaffirmed the usual stereotypes about France. Behind the headlines, however, one cannot ignore the market relevance of what is happening in France. Thought to be condemned to stagnation by the rigidity of its labor market and the size of its state, the country is now looking to undo the malaise of the past two decades. The only surprise about the protests is that they did not occur sooner in Macron’s term. In this Special Report, we assess the ongoing yellow vest protests, review the reforms conducted since 2017, and give Macron favorable chances of reforming France further. We also highlight structural tailwinds that will support the French economy in the long run. Finally, we briefly go over the European Union’s roadmap for reforms. How Relevant Are The Yellow Vest Protests? Where there are reforms, there are protests. Or, as an astute client once told us: Buy when blood is in the streets. Had there been no protest against President Macron’s reforms, it would have signaled they lacked teeth. Protests were inevitable as soon as Macron set in motion his ambitious pro-growth and pro-business reform agenda. The yellow vest movement is not a coherent force led by a clear leadership. The demands of the group are many: lower taxes, better services, less of the current reforms (specifically in education), and more of other reforms. But despite this lack of clarity, the protesters have convinced most of the public that the reform agenda should pause, or at least slow down (Chart 1). Chart 1 What started on social media as a protest against the fuel tax in rural areas has evolved into a movement against President Macron. This transition occurred in part because a large segment of the population believes that Macron’s reforms have mainly benefited the wealthy. In fact, 77% of respondents in a recent poll view him as the “president of the rich.” The modification of the “wealth tax” – which mostly shifts the focus toward real estate assets instead of financial assets – was highly criticized for favoring the wealthiest households. It resonated strongly with the perception that past governments helped the wealthiest households to accumulate more wealth at the expense of the middle class. But it is not clear how intense or durable this popular sentiment will be, given that this type of inequality is not extreme in France and has not been rising (Chart 2). Chart 2What Income Inequality? What Income Inequality? What Income Inequality? Public support for the protests has hovered around 70% for several weeks since they started in November 2018, but is now coming down (Chart 3). There are now more respondents who think that the protests should stop than those who believe they should continue (Chart 4). As a sign of things to come, a demonstration against the yellow vests and in support of Macron and his government – held by the “red scarves” – managed to gather more people on the streets of Paris than the regionally based yellow vests have done in the capital city.1 Chart 3 Chart 4 Who are the yellow vests? The profile is shown in Diagram 1. They are mostly rural, mostly hold a high school degree (or less), and overwhelmingly support anti-establishment political leaders Marine Le Pen (right-wing leader of the National Rally) or Jean-Luc Mélenchon (left-wing leader of La France Insoumise). This suggests that the movement has failed to cross the ideological aisle and win converts from the center. Diagram 1The Profile Of A 'Yellow Vest' Protester France: La Marche A Suivre? France: La Marche A Suivre? How many French people are actually protesting? Although there was a slight pickup in protests at the beginning of January, nationwide numbers are not high. In fact, they are far from what they were back in November and therefore would have to get much larger for markets to become concerned anew (Chart 5). If we are to compare these protests to those in 1995 or 2010, the numbers pale in comparison (Table 1). For instance, the protest of December 1995 brought a million people onto the streets while the demonstrations against the Woerth pension reform in 2010 lasted for seven months and gathered close to nine million protesters across eight different events (Chart 6). Chart 5   Table 1In A Glorious History Of Protests, 'Yellow Vests' Are A Footnote France: La Marche A Suivre? France: La Marche A Suivre? Chart 6   Instead we would compare the yellow vest protests to the 15-month long Spanish Indignados in 2011, which gathered between six and eight million protesters overall, and the U.S. Occupy Wall Street protests that same year. The two movements were similarly disorganized and combined disparate and often contradictory demands. In both cases, the governments largely ignored the protesters. In the Spanish case, the right-of-center government of Mariano Rajoy plowed ahead with painful, pro-market reforms that have significantly improved Spain’s competitiveness. Thus the yellow vests should not have a major impact on Macron’s reform agenda. Although they have dragged his approval rating to historic lows (Chart 7), there is no constitutional procedure for the French president to lose power. The president’s mandate runs until 2022 and he has a solid 53% of the seats in the Assemblée Nationale. In other words, despite the consensus view – including among voters (Chart 8) – that he will not be able to implement the reforms he had planned, he still has the political power to push forward new initiatives. Chart 7...Although Macron Wishes He Was Sarkozy! ...Although Macron Wishes He Was Sarkozy! ...Although Macron Wishes He Was Sarkozy! Chart 8 Nevertheless, Macron will certainly have to adjust course to calm the protesters. For example, the recent increase in the minimum wage that the government announced in response to the demonstrations was not supposed to be implemented until later in the presidential term. The reforms brought forward in response to the protest are highlighted in Table 2. This should help reduce the movement’s fervor or otherwise its support. Table 2Macron’s Reforms: The Scorecard France: La Marche A Suivre? France: La Marche A Suivre? More importantly, Table 2 provides a list of the main reforms that have been implemented, proposed, or are yet to be completed since the election. The pace and breadth of these reforms come close to a revolution by the standards of the past forty years.2 What really matters is how these reforms tackle the following three key issues: the size of the state, the cost of financing such a large state, and the inflexible labor market. Macron is making progress on the latter two.  Labor reforms, effective since the beginning of 2018, simplify a complex labor code to allow for more negotiations at the company level, leaving unions outside the process. They also establish ceilings on damages awarded by labor courts, which represent a real burden on small and medium-sized French companies. The objective is to better align firm-level wage and productivity developments and encourage hiring on open-ended contracts. Education and vocational reforms aim at reducing the slack in the economy by reallocating skills. The youth unemployment rate, and the percentage of the youth population not in education, employment, or training, are both high (Chart 9). This is very relevant for the labor market given that the lack of skilled labor is the most important barrier to hiring (Chart 10), more so than regulation or employment costs. Chart 9Stagnant Youth Employment Figures... Stagnant Youth Employment Figures... Stagnant Youth Employment Figures... Chart 10...Are A Product Of Skill Deficiencies And Economic Uncertainty ...Are A Product Of Skill Deficiencies And Economic Uncertainty ...Are A Product Of Skill Deficiencies And Economic Uncertainty The administration’s weak spot is the large size of the state, which is undeniably at the root of the French malaise. At 55% of GDP, total government spending makes the French state the largest amongst developed economies (Chart 11). Although cutbacks have been announced, they have not materialized yet. These would include bringing the defense budget back to 2% of GDP, decreasing the number of deputies in the National Assembly by 30%, and cutting 120,000 jobs in the public sector. Chart 11 On the bright side, polls show that the French people understand the need to pare back the state. Indeed, 71% are in favor of the announced 100 billion euro cuts in government spending by 2022. Even Marine Le Pen campaigned on the promise of cutting the size of the public sector. Despite having a relatively good opinion of government employees, the majority of respondents approve of increasing work hours and job cuts for redundant government employees (Chart 12). Chart 12 The fundamental problem of a large public sector is that it has to be financed by taxing the private sector. This has fallen on the shoulders of businesses. However, under Macron, the corporate tax rate is set to decline progressively from 33.33% to 25% by 2022 – a cut of 8.3% in the corporate tax rate over four years (Chart 13). Chart 13Respite Coming For The Private Sector Respite Coming For The Private Sector Respite Coming For The Private Sector Bottom Line: The yellow vest protests were to be expected – they are the natural consequence of Emmanuel Macron’s push to reform the French economy and state. However, when compared to previous efforts to derail government reforms, the numbers simply do not stack up. Their disunited and broad objectives are likely to limit the effectiveness of the movement going forward. The global media’s focus on the protests ignores the structural reforms that Paris has already passed. This is a mistake as the reforms have been significant thus far, though much remains to be done. What To Expect Going Forward? Macron stands in what we call the “danger zone” of the J-Curve of structural reform (Diagram 2). Cutting the size of the state might be what he needs to get out of that zone over the course of his term. Diagram 2In The Danger Zone Of The J-Curve France: La Marche A Suivre? France: La Marche A Suivre? Unlike the last two presidents, Macron’s term has begun with a whirlwind. If he stops now, it is highly unlikely that he will recover his support levels. As such, there is no strategic reason why he would reverse course. His popularity is already in the doldrums. His only chance at another term is to plow ahead and campaign in 2022 on his accomplishments. He just needs to ensure that he will not plow into a rock. As expected, Macron has not made any mention of changing course on his most business-friendly reforms, which we see as a signal to investors that despite the recent chaos, the plan remains the same. Pension reforms, however, will likely be postponed given the ongoing protests. Macron hoped to introduce a universal, unified pension system by the middle of 2019 to replace an overly complex and fragmented system in which 42 different types of pension coexist, each one with its own calculation rules. Though protests (both yellow vest and otherwise) have been unimpressive by historical standards (Table 1), it might be too risky for the government to push the pension reform so close to these events. Bottom Line: Macron has turned France into one of the fastest-reforming countries in Europe. Do not read too much into the lows in approval rating and the protests. Macron has no choice but to own the reform agenda and try to campaign on it in 2022. France Is Not Hopelessly Condemned To Stagnation No country elicits investor doom and gloom like France. It is like the adage that Brazil has been turned on its head: France is the country of the past and always will be. However, we think that such pessimism ignores three important structural tailwinds.  Demographics From 2015 to 2050, the age distribution will remain broadly unchanged (Chart 14). The same cannot be said of Italy or Germany, where low fertility rates and ageing populations will permanently shift the demographic picture. Indeed, France has the highest fertility rate amongst advanced economies and less than 20% of the population is older than 65 (Chart 15). And France is far from relying on net migration to keep its population growing; migration represented only 27% of total population growth between 2013 and 2017, lower than in the U.S., the U.K. and Germany even if we were to exclude the migration crisis (Chart 16). Chart 14   Chart 15France Has Healthy Demographics… Positive Demographic Trends Positive Demographic Trends Chart 16 Whenever one mentions France’s positive demographics, criticism emerges that the high fertility rate is merely the result of migrants having lots of kids. This is not entirely correct. While data is scarce due to nineteenth century laws prohibiting censuses based on race or religious belief, data from neighboring European states shows that the birth rate among migrants and citizens of migrant descent essentially declines to that of the native population by the second generation, which in France remains at the replacement level.3 Solid population growth will be a boon to the French economy. A stable dependency ratio – the ratio of working-age to very old or very young people – should limit the burden on government budgets. Further, France will avoid the downward pressure on aggregate household savings associated with an ageing population, the negative implications of a smaller pool of funds available to the private sector, and the resulting inflationary pressures. We also expect the structural rise in European elderly labor force participation to finally take effect in France. The aftermath of the Great Recession and the burden of having to provide for unemployed youth should spur French retirees to work longer. At 3.1%, France is still some way behind Germany at 7% and the average of 6% for European countries (Chart 17). Chart 17Time For Pépère To Get Back To Work Time For Pépère To Get Back To Work Time For Pépère To Get Back To Work Together, these forces imply a higher long-term French potential growth. Based on demographic divergence alone, the European Commission expects French nominal GDP to overtake German nominal GDP by 2040. The French Savoir-Faire France has lost competitiveness in the global marketplace. French export performance has suffered from decades of rigidities and high unit-labor costs while some of France’s peers, such as Germany, benefited greatly from an early implementation of labor reforms (Chart 18). While pro-growth and pro-market reforms ought to reverse some of these trends, France can still rely on a manufacturing savoir-faire that gives it a strong foothold in high value-added sectors of manufacturing, such as in transportation, defense, and aeronautics. Chart 18The Hartz Reforms Gap The Hartz Reforms Gap The Hartz Reforms Gap Table 3 lists the 10 largest export sectors as a share of total exports for France and Germany. These two economies share five similar categories of exports amongst their largest exports, representing respectively 23.8% and 24.3% of their total exports. However, France displays a substantially higher revealed comparative advantage (RCA) in its flagship sectors.4 In other words, the level of specialization of these sectors relative to the world average is higher in France than in Germany. Going forward, it is precisely this level of specialization in the high value-added sectors that will support the French manufacturing industry. Table 3France Vs. Germany: Closer Than You Think France: La Marche A Suivre? France: La Marche A Suivre? We also view the bullish trends for defense spending and arms trade, and the burgeoning EM demand for transportation goods, as important tailwinds for French manufacturing. France is the world’s fourth-largest global defense exporter and will benefit from shifting geopolitical equilibriums caused by multipolarity. France is also well positioned in the transportation sector where its exports to EM countries represent 20% of its overall transportation exports – a share that more than doubled in the past 15 years (Chart 19). While this trend is currently declining with the end of Chinese industrialization, we expect that it will resume over the next several decades as more EM and FM economies grow. Chart 19EM: A Growth Market For France EM: A Growth Market For France EM: A Growth Market For France France Is Much More Business-Friendly Than You Think A surge in the number of businesses created followed the election of the French president. Last year, more than 520,000 new businesses were created (Chart 20). Chart 20The New 'Start-Up Nation' The New "Start-Up Nation" The New "Start-Up Nation" The ease of doing business has improved on various metrics and the economy-wide regulatory and market environment should continue on this trend, as measured by the OECD product market regulation indicator (Chart 21). For instance, it takes only three and a half days to set up a business in France and no more than five steps, which is much easier than in most European countries. Chart 21 France also ranks 10th on the Global Entrepreneurship Index – a measure of the health of entrepreneurship ecosystems in 137 countries. It appears prepared for more tech start-ups as it ranks amongst the top countries on the Technological Readiness Index. Overall, France is now a much more attractive destination for investments (Chart 22). It appears that Brexit uncertainty is also driving some long-term capital investments. Between 2016 and 2017, the number of FDI projects in France jumped by 31% and Paris has become the most attractive European city for foreign direct investments (Chart 23). Chart 22 Chart 23Paris: The City Of (Love) FDI Paris: The City Of (Love) FDI Paris: The City Of (Love) FDI Cyclical View Despite the end of QE, markets do not expect the ECB to start hiking rates in the next 12 months – the expected change in ECB policy rate as discounted by the Overnight Index Swap curve is only 7 bps. This means the private sector will keep benefiting from extremely low lending rates, nearing 2%. Bank loans to the private sector will continue growing at a solid pace (Chart 24). Chart 24Banks Are Itching To Lend Banks Are Itching To Lend Banks Are Itching To Lend A lower unemployment rate and accelerating wage growth are positive for both consumer spending and residential investment. Average monthly earnings have strongly rebounded in the past five quarters (Chart 25). These two trends could put a floor under deteriorating household confidence and support consumer spending (Chart 26). Should household confidence rebound, consumers might spend more and stimulate the economy given their high savings rate. Chart 25Consumers Are Primed To Consume Consumers Are Primed To Consume Consumers Are Primed To Consume Chart 26But Protests Have Dented Confidence But Protests Have Dented Confidence But Protests Have Dented Confidence How does this dynamic translate in economic growth? Despite the setback experienced by the euro area – due to weaker external demand, or “vulnerabilities in emerging markets” to use the European Central Bank’s (ECB) own words – and the negative economic impact of the yellow vests, French real GDP grew by 1% (annualized) in the fourth quarter. The concessions made by Macron to answer the protests will bring the budget deficit close to 3.2% of GDP – from an earlier projection of 2.8%. The fiscal thrust will contribute positively to GDP growth (Chart 27), though 2020 may witness a larger fiscal drag.  Chart 27Macron Has Given Up On Austerity Macron Has Given Up On Austerity Macron Has Given Up On Austerity Bottom Line: The overall fundamentals of the economy are not as bad as the pessimists say. Cyclical and structural tailwinds will support the French economy going forward and should be reinforced by reforms. Can Europe Be Set En Marche Too? Macron’s presidency offers the European Union a window of opportunity to change structurally. He is already perceived as the “default leader” of Europe and might be the answer to the EU’s desperate need for strong leadership. What we have so far looks like a roadmap for a roadmap, but some progress could materialize this year. The European Stability Mechanism (ESM) – the European instrument for economic crisis prevention – is supposed to be granted new powers. At the Euro Summit in December, the ministers agreed on the terms of reference of the common backstop to the euro zone bank resolution fund (SRF), which would allow the ESM to lend to the SRF should a crisis or number of crises suck away all its funds. It would be ready from 2024 to come up with loans for bank resolution. While this may appear to be too late to make a difference in the next recession, we would remind clients that all dates are malleable in the European context. The possibility of the ESM playing a role in a potential sovereign debt restructuring in the future, like a sort of “European IMF,” was also discussed. However, some – including the ESM’s leadership – argue that such an expanded role will necessitate a greater injection of capital, which obviously Berlin must accept. Second, the stalled Banking Union project requires Berlin’s intimate involvement. In fact, Germany remains practically the only member state against the European Deposit Insurance Scheme (EDIS). This deposit insurance union would go a long way toward stabilizing the Euro Area amid future financial crises. However, a high-level working group should report by June 2019. As such, with Merkel sidelined and Macron taking leadership of the reform process, there could be movement on the EDIS by mid-year. Bottom Line: As Merkel exits the stage, France is likely to seize the opportunity to take the leading role from the Germans. By delivering the reforms he promised during his campaign and thus performing effectively at home, Macron hopes to obtain the legitimacy to set the EU en marche as well. Some material progress could be achieved as early as June this year. Stay tuned.   Jeremie Peloso, Research Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      According to the government, 10,500 “red scarves” marched in Paris on January 27, 2018. 2      Sans the guillotine! 3      Rojas, Bernardi, and Schmid, “First and second births among immigrants and their descendants in Switzerland,” Demographic Research 38:11 (2018), pp. 247-286, available at https://www.demographic-research.org/Volumes/Vol38/11/Ariane Pailhé, “The convergence of second-generation immigrants’ fertility patterns in France: The role of sociocultural distance between parents’ and host country,” Demographic Research 36:45 (2017), pp. 1361-1398, available at https://www.demographic-research.org/Volumes/Vol36/45/Kulu et al., “Fertility by Birth Order among the Descendants of Immigrants in Selected European Countries,” Population And Development Review 43:1 (2017), pp. 31-60, available at https://doi.org/10.1111/padr.12037  4      A country displays a revealed comparative advantage in a given product if it exports more than its “fair” share, that is, a share that is equal to the share of total world trade that the product represents.  

Highlights So What? The late-cycle rally faces non-trivial political hurdles. Why? The rally is based on a too-sanguine view of the Fed, China, and the trade war. Other issues – like Brexit and the U.S. border showdown – are also problematic. Venezuela still has the potential to push oil prices sharply upwards. Feature All is well. Global equities are on the path of recovery, as should be the case at the end of an economic cycle. The U.S. S&P 500 has gained 16% since the bottom on December 24, with healthy technicals suggesting a breakout is ahead (Chart 1). The S&P 500 may be entering one of its typical late-cycle rallies, which tend to be the second best-performing decile of a bull market (Chart 2).1 Meanwhile, emerging market equities and currencies are outperforming developed market peers (Chart 3), a reversal from 2018 Chart 1Late Cycle Rally Ahead? Late Cycle Rally Ahead? Late Cycle Rally Ahead?   Chart 2 Chart 3...As Does Current Global Outperformance ...As Does Current Global Outperformance ...As Does Current Global Outperformance Typically, global risk assets outperform American risk assets at the end of an economic cycle. While institutional investors can use these rallies to lighten the load ahead of a recession, most investors cannot afford to miss such a rally. As such, BCA (and others) are calling for investors to play what is expected to be a yearlong rally in global risk assets and the S&P 500. Our view at BCA Geopolitical Strategy is more cautious, perhaps because it is informed by a methodological bias rooted in geopolitics. We believe that the reversal in U.S. outperformance relative to global risk assets rests on three pillars: The Federal Reserve remains dovish throughout 2019; China begins a major reflationary effort;  The U.S.-China tariff truce results in a trade deal. In addition, a consensus is emerging that a “no deal” Brexit will not occur, that U.S. polarization cannot get worse, and that President Trump eschews foreign interventionism. While we hold a nuanced view on each of these assertions, the mix is far less bullish than investors may think. We see a witches’ brew of factors that is murky at best and bearish at worst. The Three Pillars Of The Bullish View Before we turn to geopolitics, let us examine the three pillars underpinning the bullish view. Our colleague Peter Berezin, BCA’s Chief Global Strategist, remains bullish on the U.S. economy and expects the Fed to resume hiking rates by mid-year.2 The Conference Board’s Leading Credit Index remains in expansionary territory (Chart 4). While business capex intention surveys have come off their highs, they still point to robust spending plans over the next few quarters (Chart 5). Chart 4Little Sign Of A Looming Credit Crunch Little Sign Of A Looming Credit Crunch Little Sign Of A Looming Credit Crunch Chart 5Capex Plans Still Solid Capex Plans Still Solid Capex Plans Still Solid It is no surprise that the BCA Fed Monitor continues to suggest that “tighter monetary policy is required” (Chart 6). This is a far cry from 2016, when our indicator was in deeply “tightening” territory and the Fed paused for 12 months. If we compare 2019 to 2016, it is difficult to see how the market expectation of 4.72 bps of rate cuts will occur over the next 12 months (Chart 7). Of the three components that make up the BCA Fed Monitor, only the financial conditions have fallen into “easing required” territory (Chart 8), and they are already shifting back to “tightening required” territory with the stock market rally underway (Chart 9). Chart 6A Hawkish Fed Is Needed A Hawkish Fed Is Needed A Hawkish Fed Is Needed Chart 7 Chart 8BCA Fed Monitor Calls For Tighter Policy BCA Fed Monitor Calls For Tighter Policy BCA Fed Monitor Calls For Tighter Policy Chart 9Financial Conditions Starting To Ease Financial Conditions Starting To Ease Financial Conditions Starting To Ease In addition, in 2016 the Fed was not contracting its balance sheet. Today it is doing so, although the pace has moderated. As such, the Fed’s rate hike pause is occurring amidst an ongoing effort to normalize monetary policy and to transfer rate risks back to the private sector. By chance, this is also occurring at a time when the Treasury Department must issue more debt to cover a larger deficit, a process that could significantly pull U.S. rates higher and, by extension, yields on assets further down the risk curve. This would be a particular problem for global risk assets given the exposure of several EM economies to dollar-denominated debt.  The bottom line for investors is that a rate hike pause is not a pause in the overall hawkish policy of the U.S. Fed, which acts as a global central bank. The fall in the amount of dollars available for the international financial system acts as a brake on growth. Over the past 10 years, each time money supply growth fell below the loan uptake of the U.S. corporate sector, BCA’s Global Industrial Activity Nowcast, BCA’s Global Leading Economic Indicator, Korean exports, and global export prices all deteriorated considerably (Chart 10). Chart 10Deteriorating Excess Liquidity Hurts Global Growth Deteriorating Excess Liquidity Hurts Global Growth Deteriorating Excess Liquidity Hurts Global Growth Our muted view on Chinese reflation is unnecessary to repeat here. There is no doubt that Chinese policymakers are stimulating the economy, but the question is whether they are willing to pull the credit lever as aggressively as they have done in the past (Chart 11).So far, all of the evidence we have reviewed point to a cautious effort to stabilize growth, not reflate the entire planetary economy as Beijing did in 2016. If our BCA House View on the Fed is correct, a tepid Chinese effort to stimulate the domestic economy will fall short of lighting the flame of a global risk rally in 2019. Chart 11Compare Any Stimulus To Previous Efforts Compare Any Stimulus To Previous Efforts Compare Any Stimulus To Previous Efforts The BCA China Play Index, which in the past has tracked EM vs. DM equity outperformance, is sending mixed signals today (Chart 12). Enthusiasm for global risk assets has not been confirmed by the most China-sensitive plays. Chart 12Mixed Signals From China-Sensitive Plays Mixed Signals From China-Sensitive Plays Mixed Signals From China-Sensitive Plays Finally, there is the trade truce that should produce a trade deal. The logic is clear: President Trump sets aside the political constraints working against a deal and focuses on ensuring that he wins 2020 by avoiding a recession. The near bear market in the S&P 500 was a game changer that focused the White House on averting any further downside to markets and the economy from the trade war. But if the current rally proves that the selloff in December was a temporary pullback, the White House may be emboldened to play hard-to-get with China. After all, the electorate is generally supportive of getting tough on China (Chart 13) and there is no demand from either Trump voters or Democrats for a quick deal. The Fed pause and lower oil prices also give Trump some space to push negotiations a bit harder. Chart 13 Already there are leaks from the negotiations that the U.S. is asking for a lot from China, which could prolong the talks. This includes genuine structural changes to the economic relationship that would address long-standing U.S. concerns of forced technology transfers, intellectual property theft, and foreign investor access to the Chinese domestic market. It also includes U.S. demands that these changes be verifiable and enforceable. China is likely to balk at some of the U.S. demands, particularly if the U.S. is indeed pushing for regular reviews of China’s progress, a condition that implicitly creates a hierarchy between the two economies and would thus represent a loss of face for Beijing.3 Table 1 presents our latest expectations of where the U.S. and China will be on March 1. We assign only 10% each to “black and white” outcomes, a “Grand Compromise” and “No deal, with major escalation.” The remaining 80% is divided between “mushy” outcomes, including a 25% probability that negotiations simply continue. Table 1Updated U.S.-China Trade War Probabilities Witches' Brew: How Geopolitical Risks May Short-Circuit The Late-Cycle Rally Witches' Brew: How Geopolitical Risks May Short-Circuit The Late-Cycle Rally How would the market react to such uncertain outcomes? We think that almost anything other than a “Grand Compromise” would be greeted with limited relief, if not outright market correction. A vaguely positive meeting between Presidents Trump and Xi, and a memorandum of understanding, would not remove long-term risks in the relationship, especially if the parallel “tech war” is not resolved. On top of the ongoing U.S.-China negotiations, there is one remaining trade issue that investors should keep in mind: auto tariffs. The Section 232 investigation into whether auto imports are a national security threat is ongoing and U.S. authorities are expected to present their conclusions on February 17. We fear that the Trump administration could still stage a surprise and impose tariffs on auto imports. This is because the just-concluded NAFTA deal likely raised the cost of vehicle production within the trade bloc, necessitating import tariffs in order for the deal to make sense from President Trump’s set of political priorities. An extended truce with China could provide the opportunity. The Trump administration may not have the stomach for a long-term trade war with Europe, but the timing of this decision could upset the market’s perception of Trump’s commitment to free trade once again. Bottom Line: The conventional narrative is that global markets are experiencing a late-cycle rally, one that is worth playing given its usual duration and amplitude. This view rests on three pillars: that the Fed has backed off from tightening, that China is stimulating in earnest, and that the trade deal will produce a definitive outcome. We fear that all three pillars are shaky. First, the Fed is not easing. Its balance sheet contraction process, which is ongoing, is a form of tightening. And the U.S. economy remains healthy. As such, the expectation of a 12-month Fed pause is overly optimistic. Second, China is stimulating, but only tepidly. Third, “black and white,” definitive outcomes are unlikely in the U.S.-China negotiations. In fact, more protectionism could be around the corner if U.S.-China tech issues continue to flare or if the U.S. announces the conclusion of its investigation into auto imports. Geopolitical Factors To Monitor Aside from shaky pillars, markets will also have to contend with several uncertain geopolitical processes this year. While we are not necessarily bearish on each one, we are concerned that the collective investment community is overly bullish. Take Brexit. We agree with the conventional view that the chances of a no-deal Brexit outcome are below 10%. Political betting markets have only priced in an actual exit on March 29, which is in ink in British legislation, at just above 30% (Chart 14). Chart 14Online Betters Expect A Brexit Delay Online Betters Expect A Brexit Delay Online Betters Expect A Brexit Delay The problem is not with the conventional view but with its timing. While Prime Minister Theresa May will ultimately be forced to extend the Article 50 deadline, it may take a lot of brinkmanship and eleventh hour negotiations to do so. Getting from here – collective bullishness – to there – an actual extension of Article 50 – may require a downturn in GBP/USD or other U.K. assets. Furthermore, several scenarios could produce a downturn in GBP/USD (Diagram 1). For example, the Labour Party remains neck-and-neck with the Tories in the polls, despite being led by the most left-leaning leader since the 1970s. Although a new election that produces a Labour government would likely reduce the odds of Brexit eventually occurring, it would raise the odds of Corbyn pursuing unorthodox economic policy while also trying to negotiate his own version of Brexit with the EU. Diagram 1Brexit: The Path To Salvation Remains Fraught With Dangers Witches' Brew: How Geopolitical Risks May Short-Circuit The Late-Cycle Rally Witches' Brew: How Geopolitical Risks May Short-Circuit The Late-Cycle Rally The point is that it is tough to recommend that investors close their eyes and buy GBP/USD, no matter how cheap the currency may look, unless one has a very long time horizon and a high threshold for pain. The second issue where we take a more nuanced position is the ongoing U.S. executive-legislative standoff over the border. The government shutdown is only on pause until February 15. The House Democrats are demanding that a solution be found by Friday, February 8 if it is to be voted on in time. Meanwhile President Trump’s popularity is in the doldrums (Chart 15). His supporters note that President Reagan was even less popular at this point in his term, but that is because unemployment hit 10.4% in January 1983 (Chart 16). The grave risk for President Trump is that he is as unpopular as Reagan, even though unemployment is at 4% and the U.S. economy is on fire. Chart 15President Trump Is Unpopular... President Trump Is Unpopular... President Trump Is Unpopular... Chart 16...And It Can't Be Blamed On Unemployment ...And It Can't Be Blamed On Unemployment ...And It Can't Be Blamed On Unemployment As such, the real risk is not another shutdown, but rather political dysfunction in Congress that imperils the legislative process. The current two-year budget deal, which raised spending levels in January 2018, is set to expire when the FY2019 ends. Democrats and Trump have to come to an agreement to avert the “stimulus cliff” expected in 2020 (Chart 17). If they cannot conclude the border issue and the FY2019 appropriations, then Trump may declare a national emergency (or act unilaterally in other ways) and spark a new conflict with the courts. He could also threaten not to raise the debt ceiling in spring or summer. This is not an atmosphere in which a FY2020 deal looks very easy. Chart 17Stimulus Cliff Ahead Stimulus Cliff Ahead Stimulus Cliff Ahead Ultimately, we expect Democrats to succumb to the pressure from their voters for more spending. But a total failure to cooperate is a risk. Furthermore, the greatest political risk in the U.S. is that the 2020 election will not be contested on the same issues as in 2016: trade and immigration. Instead, income inequality is rearing its head, as Democratic candidates jostle for attention and as they test various messages on focus groups. If income inequality catches fire as the issue of 2020, we will know it soon. And it may begin to impact the markets as Democrats begin to campaign on, for instance, reversing President Trump’s income tax cuts. While the market may ignore headline election risks for some time, we do not think that non-financial corporates can do the same. Any hint that President Trump’s pro-business policies will be reversed could send shivers down the spines of CEOs and negatively impact capex intentions, hurting the real economy well before the next election. Finally, there is the issue of foreign policy. President Trump has abandoned his maximum pressure tactic on Iran and has begun withdrawing the remaining troops in the Middle East. These trends are likely to continue in 2019 as President Trump focuses on China and lesser issues like Venezuela. There is one important area of alignment between him and the defense and intelligence community, notwithstanding recent scuffles: less focus on the Middle East means more focus on Asia and specifically China. However, President Trump is facing a dilemma. Despite an extraordinary economic performance, his popularity remains in the doldrums. When faced with similar situations in the past, presidents far more orthodox than Trump have sought relevance abroad, by means of military interventions. A convenient opportunity has presented itself in Venezuela, where a revolution against Chavismo could give the U.S. an opening to intervene. On paper, we see how such a scenario could look appealing for a quick, and relatively painless, intervention. The problem is that it could also get messy and, in the analysis of BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy, raise oil prices to nearly $100 per barrel by mid-year if a total loss of Venezuelan production ensues (Chart 18). This is a non-negligible risk. Chart 18A Venezuela Collapse Could Send Brent Crude Prices Toward $100/Bbl A Venezuela Collapse Could Send Brent Crude Prices Toward $100/Bbl A Venezuela Collapse Could Send Brent Crude Prices Toward $100/Bbl Bottom Line: Geopolitical risks still abound. We are not alarmist. However, there is little reason to believe that Brexit, U.S. polarization, U.S.-China tensions, or a potential U.S. intervention in Venezuela will end painlessly for the market. An unpopular U.S. president is seeking to remain relevant and a global populist wave is continuing to create unorthodox and anti-establishment policy prescriptions. Given that the current rally is supported by three shaky pillars, any one of these geopolitical risks could catalyze a relapse, the history of late-cycle rallies be damned.   Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Late-Cycle Blues,” dated October 29, 2018, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2      Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Patient Jay,” dated January 18, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see Reuters, “Exclusive: U.S. demands regular review of China trade reform,” dated January 18, 2019, available at reuters.com.   Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights After this week’s drama, the Brexit political process remains extremely complex, but the probability of a hard Brexit is still below 10%. No easy compromise will come through as Brexit suffers a fundamental contradiction: balancing the desire to maximize British sovereignty versus minimizing the pain of leaving the common market. While cross-party talks will prove unfruitful, an extension of the Article 50 deadline is very likely. A new referendum is the most probable solution to the current impasse, but it will likely require a new election. The pound is cheap, but volatility will stay elevated. Buying the pound versus the euro on politically induced drawdowns remains the optimal strategy to gain exposure. Long-term GBP/USD calls are also attractive. The dollar cyclical bull market is intact, but the greenback correction is likely to deepen, especially against growth-sensitive currencies, the AUD in particular. Feature Theresa May’s soft Brexit deal has suffered the largest defeat since 1924 for a bill submitted by a sitting government. The proposed EU Withdrawal Agreement was voted down by 432 members of Parliament, including a whopping 118 members of the Conservative Party. This suggests that both hard Brexit and Bremain Tories voted against May. What lies at the heart of this historic collapse? The fundamental problem is that a soft Brexit is incompatible with the principal demand of Brexit voters: Sovereignty. Any relationship entailing continued access to EU institutions and markets will require two elements that reduce sovereignty: Paying an access fee and accepting the acquis communautaire of the EU without having a say in how it is formulated.1 We do not see how this impasse will be overcome. The financial community’s preferred option – that Prime Minister May breaks ranks and appeals to the Labour Party for a super-soft “Norway Plus” option – is a fantasy. First, the Labour Party smells blood and will likely oppose any deal. Second, a Norway Plus option would entail the highest loss of sovereignty imaginable, given that the U.K. would essentially pay full EU membership fees with no ability to influence the regulatory policies that London would have to abide by. There is also a debate as to whether London would be able to constrict immigration from the EU under that option over the long term, a key demand of Brexiters.2 Members of Parliament may also be getting cold feet due to the shifting poll numbers, which have slowly but steadily increased the gap between those who think that Brexit was the right choice and those who think it was the wrong choice to just under double digits (Chart I-1). This gap reveals that the U.K. public is having second thoughts, no doubt influenced by the incoherent process itself, but also by the combination of geopolitical factors that have changed the appeal of “going it alone.” Chart I-1A Serious Case Of Bregret A Serious Case Of Bregret A Serious Case Of Bregret First, the EU is no longer mired in an epic migration crisis, as it was in the months before the referendum (Chart I-2). Second, terrorist attacks committed by home-grown Islamic State adherents have abated in continental Europe, whereas they seemed to be a monthly affair ahead of the June 2016 vote. Third, the U.K.’s main ally, the United States, which is often cited as a key post-Brexit partner, has elected a president who is unpopular in the U.K. (Chart I-3), putting the “special relationship” in doubt. Chart I-2The Refugee Crisis Is Over The Refugee Crisis Is Over The Refugee Crisis Is Over   Chart I-3 Since the fateful referendum in 2016, the world has become less stable. As such, voters in the U.K. are no doubt wondering whether leaving the EU really would entail greater sovereignty – or whether “going it alone” would mean having to take the fait accompli of large powers such as the U.S., China, and Russia – whose values they share even less than those of their fellow Europeans across the Channel. Sovereignty, in other words, does not operate under Newtonian laws, but is rather relative to one’s vantage point. In short, Brexit cannot be resolved merely with an extension of the negotiating period. Furthermore, our high-conviction view is that even if it were possible to pass the withdrawal agreement today by promising an even softer exit, the process will ultimately fail when, in two- or three-years’ time, Westminster pushes to vote on implementing such an arrangement. Investors should remember that there is another vote waiting after the transition period. In the meantime, we see the following options as a way to resolve the current impasse (Diagram I-1): Chart I- Article 50 extension: The EU is on record stating that it would agree to extend the Article 50 deadline, currently set at March 29. The EU can do so with a unanimous vote of the EU Council. If there is one thing that the Euro Area crisis has taught investors, it is that deadlines are set in policy and legislation, not in stone. London can extend Article 50 with a simple legislative act, amending the March 29 deadline set in the EU Withdrawal Act (passed in June 2018). The EU is on record stating that it would be simple to extend the current negotiating period until July, when a new European Parliament (EP) would sit in its first session. Any extension beyond July would require U.K. members of European parliament (MEPs) to sit in the legislative body, as the country would remain part of the EU. This would mean that the U.K. would have to hold EP elections. We think this is a minor technicality. But it would be highly embarrassing for PM May if she had to organize EP elections a few months from now, especially if it galvanized the Bremain movement to turn out en masse and send Europhile MEPs to Strasbourg. The bigger question is what the extra time would accomplish. Given the size of the loss for the government on its Brexit bill, we think that both Labour Party members and Bremain supporters have been emboldened and will hold out for either a new election or a new referendum, or in case of Labour Party members, both.   New referendum: A new referendum would require an Article 50 extension. The rules for referendums are set out in the Political Parties, Elections, And Referendums Act of 2000. Westminster would have to pass legislation, which would then have to be considered by the Electoral Commission. The process would very likely go beyond March. The easiest path to a new referendum is through a Labour Party victory in an early election. For PM May to reverse her longstanding policy and call a new referendum, we would need another round of negotiations to fail. As such, it is difficult to see PM May concede to a second referendum, at least not until late in 2019.   A new election: Even though the January 16 vote of no confidence against the government failed, PM May could decide that she needs an early election. Why would she take this route? Because it could give her a political mandate with which to pursue renewed negotiations with the EU and her version of soft Brexit. Under the terms of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, May would need two-thirds of all MPs in the House of Commons to approve a new election. Current polls show that the election would be too close to call (Chart I-4). We think May would stand a good chance of renewing her mandate by painting Opposition Leader Jeremy Corbyn as too left-leaning and as indecisive on Brexit. Chart I-4An Election May Not Provide A Clear Answer An Election May Not Provide A Clear Answer An Election May Not Provide A Clear Answer One option not on the table is another leadership challenge to PM May. She already survived the challenge in December and is therefore safe from a new one for 12 months. These rules could of course be changed or PM May could simply resign, but we do not expect either option. Simply put, a change of leadership in the Conservative Party is unlikely as hard Brexit supporters cannot get a majority of Tory MPs to support them, while soft Brexit MPs continue to support May. Could a no-deal Brexit occur? Technically, yes. According to the EU Withdrawal Act, the U.K. will leave the EU on March 29. As such, with no further legislative acts, the U.K. could “sleepwalk” into a hard Brexit. However, we believe that the probability of this is under 10%. There is not even close to a majority in Westminster for a hard Brexit. We estimate that, at most, only 10% of 650 MPs in the House of Commons favor a hard Brexit. As such, the government would certainly win a large majority for a piece of legislation that extends the deadline. And, according to the European Court of Justice ruling in December, London could stop the Article 50 process unilaterally, without EU approval. If the probability of hard Brexit is below 10%, isn’t the pound a screaming buy at this point? After all, if the probability of a major dislocation in the economic relationship between the U.K. and the continent is so low, it also means the probability that the Bank of England maintains as easy a monetary policy as its current one is minimal. Our low-conviction answer to this question is yes, the pound is indeed attractive. The reason why buying the pound is a low-conviction view is that one of the three alternative scenarios listed above could have mixed implications for the British economy as well as U.K. assets and the pound: A new election that produces a Labour government. Corbyn’s legislative agenda is the most left-leaning that Europe has seen since François Mitterrand. He is also on record stating that he would pursue his own negotiations with Brussels. Corbyn’s government would therefore prolong the uncertainty of Brexit while enacting an ambitious left-wing agenda. Ultimately, he may reverse both of these positions: succumbing to pressure to call a new referendum while moderating his economic policy. However, as was the case with Mitterrand in the early 1980s, it would require a deep market riot to force him to do so, which means that closing one’s eyes and buying the pound at these levels is not for risk-averse investors. Bottom Line: The political battle for Brexit is far from over. The risk of a hard Brexit has receded considerably to a less than 10% probability, but volatility will continue due to the inherent conflict between the desire to maximize British sovereignty and the objective to minimize economic pain. While cross-party talks are unlikely to yield any decisive changes, an extension of the Article 50 deadline is likely. A new referendum is the most probable end game of this saga, but it will probably require a new election. While the pound is an attractive long-term play, GBP pairs will continue to suffer from politically induced volatility. Investment Implications In September, we argued that the geopolitical risk premium in the GBP was too low in the face of the uncertainty ahead. Moreover, we recognized that the pound was cheap on many long-term metrics, limiting its downside potential. As a result, instead of shorting GBP outright, we recommended investors buy GBP-volatility, a view that panned out well for us. We closed this recommendation in mid-November, when Cabinet Ministers McVey, Raab, and Vara resigned from the government. Since that time, GBP volatility has receded as investors have increasingly agreed with our assessment that the probability of a hard Brexit is very low. However, the political reality in London continues to suggest that the GBP will trade in a volatile fashion, even if its long-term attractiveness remains alive. Hence, we continue to recommend investors use dips in the GBP to slowly begin moving capital into sterling. Practically, we have expressed this view by selling EUR/GBP. EUR/GBP trades toward the top end of its historical distribution (Chart I-5) and is likely to sell off violently on any whiff that a resolution of any kind is coming. Furthermore, since British interest rates are higher than in the euro area, investors are paid to wait while shorting this cross. Chart I-5EUR/GBP Is A Coiled Spring EUR/GBP Is A Coiled Spring EUR/GBP Is A Coiled Spring The pound is particularly cheap against the U.S. dollar (Chart I-6). As a result, buying GBP/USD offers the most attractive long-term potential. However, the intermediate-term hurdles for this position are greater than those present in selling EUR/GBP. First, long cable offers a negative carry of 1.89%, thus buying GBP/USD means that investors are paying to take on a lot of volatility. Second, our negative intermediate-term outlook for the global economy implies a strong dollar over the coming six to nine months, creating risks for GBP/USD holders while helping the profile of selling EUR/GBP (Chart I-7). Finally, since Brexit risks are weighing on the euro as well as the pound, if a hard Brexit were indeed to materialize, GBP would suffer much deeper losses against the dollar than against the euro. Chart I-6Lot Of Value In Cable Lot Of Value In Cable Lot Of Value In Cable   Chart I-7Our Strong Dollar Theme Favors Shorting EUR/GBP To Play Rebounds In Sterling Our Strong Dollar Theme Favors Shorting EUR/GBP To Play Rebounds In Sterling Our Strong Dollar Theme Favors Shorting EUR/GBP To Play Rebounds In Sterling This inherent conflict in GBP/USD between potentially large long-term gains but heightened short-term risk suggests that the best way to play cable is to buy long-term call options on this pair. As Chart I-8 shows, the implied volatility on 2-year GBP/USD options is elevated, but has been much higher in the past. Additionally, the implied volatility on these long-term options is abnormally low relative to that offered by 3-month options (Chart I-8, bottom panel), suggesting they are comparatively cheap. Thus, since the long-term outlook for cable is much more attractive than the short-term one, favoring long-term options as a vehicle to gain exposure to GBP/USD makes sense. It is a risky bet only deserving of a small portfolio allocation. Chart I-8Long-Term Call Options On Cable Are Attractive Long-Term Call Options On Cable Are Attractive Long-Term Call Options On Cable Are Attractive Bottom Line: Only investors with either long-term horizons or a deep capacity to handle volatility should begin garnering some exposure to the pound. Selling EUR/GBP when the pound weakens in response to political shocks remains the best vehicle to do so. While buying cable offers more attractive long-term potential returns than selling EUR/GBP, it is a riskier bet over a six- to nine-month horizon. Nonetheless, investors wanting to get some pound exposure via buying GBP/USD should allocate funds to 2-year GBP/USD call options. Short-Term Risks For The Greenback As we argued last week, continued downside in global growth as well as U.S. interest rate markets having already priced in a year-long pause by the Fed together point to continued upside for the dollar. However, we also highlighted that the dollar currently possesses significant tactical downside, especially against commodity currencies. Five reasons underpin our cautious tactically view: First, the dollar is currently over-owned. Both net speculative positions in the dollar and sentiment toward the DXY are near bullish extremes (Chart I-9). The dollar is a momentum currency, hence the progressive deterioration in our favored momentum signal for the greenback – the crossover of the one-month and six-month moving averages – suggests that the dollar could soon experience a momentum-induced liquidation. Chart I-9If Our Dollar Momentum Signal Turns Negative, There Is No Shortage Of USD Sellers If Our Dollar Momentum Signal Turns Negative, There Is No Shortage Of USD Sellers If Our Dollar Momentum Signal Turns Negative, There Is No Shortage Of USD Sellers Second, the most recent BAML Investor survey not only showed that investors are more pessimistic on global growth than at any point in the past decade, but also that a trade war was highest on the list of concerns. Today, the probability of a truce in Sino-U.S. trade relations is growing. A declining trade-war risk should temporarily support assets levered to global growth and hurt the defensive U.S. dollar. Moreover, a consequence of the warm-up between Beijing and Washington has been a weakening USD/CNY. Historically, a strengthening RMB is associated with rebounding commodity currencies (Chart I-10). Chart I-10A Strong CNY Points To Stronger Commodity Currencies A Strong CNY Points To Stronger Commodity Currencies A Strong CNY Points To Stronger Commodity Currencies Third, global growth could also temporarily positively surprise beaten-down expectations. Today, the highly mean-reverting Citi Economic Surprise Index is very stretched to the downside, suggesting scope for a reversal (Chart I-11). With Chinese fiscal stimulus building up, and the recent pick-up in the six-month Chinese credit impulse, a temporary bout of positive economic surprises is a growing risk for dollar bulls. Chart I-11There Is Scope For Economic Surprises To Rebound There Is Scope For Economic Surprises To Rebound There Is Scope For Economic Surprises To Rebound Fourth, our China Investment Strategy service’s Market-Based China Growth Indicator has rebounded (Chart I-12). This further reinforces the risk that global growth could positively surprise abysmal expectations. Chart I-12Markets Signalling A Pause In The Economic Slowdown Markets Signalling A Pause In The Economic Slowdown Markets Signalling A Pause In The Economic Slowdown Fifth, gold prices have rebounded significantly, implying an improvement in the global liquidity backdrop (Chart I-13). Since tightening global liquidity was a contributor to the deterioration in non-U.S. growth, rebounding gold prices also confirm that the slowdown in international economic activity may take a breather. Chart I-13Gold As A Liquidity Gauge Gold As A Liquidity Gauge Gold As A Liquidity Gauge Altogether, these five factors suggest that the corrective episode in the countercyclical dollar may deepen. Because Chinese reflation and a truce in Sino-U.S. tensions lie at the crux of the potential for positive economic surprises, the growth-sensitive currencies like the AUD, the CAD and EM currencies should outperform, especially vis-à-vis the yen. In this environment, Scandinavian currencies should also rise versus the euro. EUR/CHF is set to benefit from this backdrop. For the time being, we continue to view any weakness in the dollar as a correction, not the end of the bull market. Ultimately, the respite in the Chinese economy is likely to prove transitory. The six-month credit impulse is improving, but the 12-month credit impulse is not, even when fiscal stimulus is taken into account (Chart I-14). Since the noise-to-signal ratio is much greater in the six-month impulse than in the 12-month one, we believe that only once the longer-term credit impulse rebounds will Chinese economic activity form a durable bottom. Moreover, Chinese exports are beginning to suffer from a payback period after having been artificially supported by front-running ahead of the trade sanctions. As things stand today, the recent weakness in Chinese export growth looks set to worsen (Chart I-15). This will cause yet another shock to Chinese growth, one likely to percolate to domestic demand. Once it does, global industrial activity should soften again, creating a strong support for the dollar. Chart I-14China's 12-Month Credit Impulse Doesn't Point To An Imminent Economic Turnaround... China's 12-Month Credit Impulse Doesn't Point To An Imminent Economic Turnaround... China's 12-Month Credit Impulse Doesn't Point To An Imminent Economic Turnaround... Chart I-15 ...And Exports Are Set To Become A Significant Drag ...And Exports Are Set To Become A Significant Drag ...And Exports Are Set To Become A Significant Drag Bottom Line: Cyclically, fundamentals remain supportive for the greenback. However, the tactical picture shows that the dollar should correct further, especially against growth-sensitive currencies like the AUD, which could rally to 0.75. This view is because the dollar’s momentum is deteriorating sharply, the yuan is rising on the back of a growing likelihood of a trade truce, global economic surprises have room to brighten, China is implementing some reflationary efforts, and global liquidity is improving at the margin.   Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com   Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The acquis communautaire refers to the collection of accumulated legislation, legal acts, and judicial decisions that constitute the body of the EU law. 2 Proponents of the Norway Plus option point out that Article 112(1) of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement allows for restriction of movement of people within the area. However, these restrictions are intended to be used in times of “serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties.” It certainly appears to be an option for London to restrict EU migration, but it is not clear whether Europe would agree for this to be a permanent solution. Liechtenstein has been using Article 112 to impose quantitative limitations on immigration for decades, but that is because its tiny geographical area is recognized as a “specific situation” that justifies such restrictions.

Highlights So What? Our “Black Swan” risks for the year reveal several potential wars. Why? While we think it is premature to expect armed conflict over Taiwan, an outbreak of serious tensions is possible. Russia and Ukraine may have a shared incentive to go renew hostilities this year. Saudi Arabia has received a “blank cheque” from Donald Trump, so it may continue to be provocative. Everyone has forgotten about the Balkans … but tensions are building. A “Lame Duck” Trump could stage a military intervention in Venezuela. Feature Over the past three years, we have compiled a list of five geopolitical “Black Swans.” These are low-probability events whose market impact would be significant enough to matter for global investors. Unlike the great Byron Wien’s list of “Ten Surprises for 2018,” we do not assign these events a “better than 50% likelihood of happening.”1 Instead, we believe that the market is seriously underpricing these risks by assigning them only single-digit probabilities when the reality is closer to 10%-15%, a level at which a risk premium ought to be assigned. Furthermore, some of our events below are obscure enough that it is unclear how exactly to price them. But before we get to our list of the five things that keep us up at night,2 a quick note on the question for financial markets in 2019: Will the economic policy divergence between the U.S. and China continue? At the moment, momentum is building behind the narrative that both the U.S. and China have decided to reflate. In anticipation of this narrative switch, we closed our long DM / short EM equity trade on December 3, 2018 for a 15.70% return (originally opened on March 6, 2018). How sustainable is the EM outperformance relative to DM? Will the rest of the world “catch up” to U.S. growth momentum, thus hurting the U.S. dollar in the process? The global central bank – the Fed – is already expected to “back off,” even though members of the FOMC have simply pointed out that they remain data-dependent. Granting our BCA House View that the U.S. economy remains in decent health, U.S. economic data will continue to come in strong through the course of the year. This means that there is scope for a hawkish Fed surprise for the markets, given that the interest rate market already has dovish expectations, anticipating 4.33 basis points and 16.74 basis points of cuts over the next 12 and 24 months respectively (Chart 1). Chart 1 Meanwhile, the global demand engine – China – may disappoint in its reflationary efforts. We refer to China as the “global demand engine” because the combined imports and capex of China and other emerging markets dwarf that of the U.S. and EU (Chart 2 and Chart 3).3 Chinese imports alone make up $1.6 trillion, constituting 23% of the $7 trillion total of EM imports and about half of EM investment expenditures. Given that large swaths of EM are high-beta to the Chinese economy, the EM-plus-China slice of the global demand pie is leveraged to Beijing’s reflationary policies. Chart 2EM/China Imports Are Much Larger Than U.S.'s And EU's Combined EM/China Imports Are Much Larger Than U.S.'s And EU's Combined EM/China Imports Are Much Larger Than U.S.'s And EU's Combined Chart 3EM/China Capex Is As Large As U.S.'s And EU's Combined EM/China Capex Is As Large As U.S.'s And EU's Combined EM/China Capex Is As Large As U.S.'s And EU's Combined Chinese policymakers have gestured toward greater support for the economy. The communiqué published following the Central Economic Work Conference (CEWC) in December called for a broad stabilization of aggregate demand as a focus of macro policy over the course of 2019. The language was still not very expansionary, but Beijing has launched stimulus despite relatively muted communiqués in the past. The massive stimulus of early 2016, for instance, followed a mixed CEWC communiqué in December 2015. So everything depends on the forthcoming data. Broad money and credit growth improved marginally in December, while the State Council announced that local government bond issuance could begin at the start of the year rather than waiting until spring. Meanwhile, a coordinated announcement by the People’s Bank of China, the Ministry of Finance, and the National Development and Reform Commission declares that a larger tax cut is forthcoming – that is, in addition to the roughly 1% of GDP household tax cuts that went into effect starting late last year. Monetary policy remains very lax with liquidity injections and additional RRR cuts. Before investors become overly bullish, however, we would note that Chinese policymakers are focusing their reflationary efforts on fiscal spending and supply-side reforms like tax cuts. The problem with the latter is that household tax cuts will not add much to global demand, given that consumer goods make up just 15% of China’s imports (Table 1). The vast majority of Chinese imports stem from the country’s capital spending. Table 1China’s Consumer-Oriented Stimulus Will Boost Different Imports Than Past Stimulus Five Black Swans In 2019 Five Black Swans In 2019 Fiscal spending, meanwhile, is as large as the overall credit origination in the Chinese economy (Chart 4). But without a revival in credit growth, more spending will mainly serve to stabilize the economy, not light it on fire. It is likely that part of the fiscal pump-priming will be greater issuance of local government bonds. However, even the recently announced 1.39 trillion RMB quota for new bonds this year is not impressive. And even a 2 trillion RMB increase would only be equivalent to a single month of large credit expansion (Chart 5). Chart 4China: Credit Origination Is As Large As Government Spending China: Credit Origination Is As Large As Government Spending China: Credit Origination Is As Large As Government Spending   Chart 5 As such, tactically nimble investors could profit from a reflationary narrative that sees both the global central bank – the Fed – and the global fiscal engine – China – turning more dovish and supportive of growth. However, we agree with BCA’s Emerging Markets Chief Strategist Arthur Budaghyan, who is on record saying that “Going Tactically Long EM Is Akin To Collecting Pennies In Front Of A Steamroller.” The bottom line for investors is that 2019 is the first year in a decade where the collective intention of policymakers – across the world – is to prepare for the next recession, rather than to prevent a deflationary relapse. This cognitive shift may be slight, but it is important. The Fed and Beijing are engaged in a macroeconomic game of chicken. Each camp is trying to avoid having to over-reflate at the end of the cycle. For the Fed, the goal is to have room to cut rates sufficiently when the recession finally hits. For China, the goal is to ensure that its leverage does not get out of hand. Into this uncertain macroeconomic context we now insert the five Black Swans for 2019. To qualify for our list, the events must be: Unlikely: There must be less than a 20% probability that the event will occur in the next 12 months; Out of sight: The scenario we present should not be receiving media coverage, at least not as a serious market risk; Geopolitical: We must be able to identify the risk scenario through the lens of BCA’s geopolitical methodology. Genuinely unpredictable events – such as meteor strikes, pandemics, crippling cyber-attacks, solar flares, alien invasions, and failures in the computer program running the simulation that we call the universe – do not make the cut. Black Swan 1: China Goes To War With Taiwan One could argue that a military conflict between China and Taiwan in 2019 should not technically qualify for our list, as there has been chatter in the media about such an outcome. Indeed, our recent travels across Asia revealed that clients are taking a much greater interest in our longstanding view – since January 2016 – that Taiwan is the premier geopolitical Black Swan. We established this view well before President Trump won the election and received a congratulatory call from Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen, breaking diplomatic practice since 1979. Now, at the beginning of 2019, the exchange of barbs between the Chinese and Taiwanese presidents has raised tensions anew (Chart 6).4 Chart 6Taiwanese Geopolitical Risk Likely To Rise From Here Taiwanese Geopolitical Risk Likely To Rise From Here Taiwanese Geopolitical Risk Likely To Rise From Here Nonetheless, Taiwan makes the cut here because we doubt that most of our global clients take the issue seriously. Furthermore, we are concerned that – with fair odds of a U.S.-China trade truce lasting through 2019 – cross-strait tensions could fall out of sight. The basis of our view is that there is a unique confluence of political developments in Beijing, Washington, and Taipei that is conducive toward a diplomatic or military incident that could escalate tensions: Taiwan’s pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), in addition to taking the presidency in 2016, won control of the legislature for the first time ever (Chart 7). This means that domestic political constraints on President Tsai Ing-wen’s administration are lower than usual. Tsai has angered Beijing by seeking stronger relations with the U.S. and refusing to endorse the 1992 Consensus, which holds that there is only “One China” albeit two interpretations. China’s General Secretary Xi Jinping has removed term limits and placed greater emphasis on the reunification of Taiwan. Xi has consolidated power domestically and has pursued a more aggressive foreign policy throughout his term, including in the South China Sea, where greater naval control would enable China to threaten Taiwan’s supply security. Xi’s blueprint for his “New Era” includes the reunification of China, and some have argued that there is a fixed timetable for reunification with Taiwan by 2050 or even 2035.5 Some recent military drills can be seen as warnings to Taiwan. U.S. President Trump called the One China Policy into question at the outset of his term in office (only later reaffirming it), and has presided over an increase in U.S. strategic pressure against China, such as the trade war and freedom of navigation operations, including in the Taiwan Strait. Trump’s National Security Adviser John Bolton and Assistant Defense Secretary Randall Schriver are seen as Taiwan hawks, while the just-concluded Republican Congress passed the Taiwan Travel Act and the Asia Reassurance Initiative Act (ARIA), which imply an upgrade to the U.S. commitment to Taiwan’s democracy and security.6 Chart 7 These three factors suggest that, cyclically, there is larger room than usual for incidents to occur that initiate a vicious cycle of tensions. The odds of a full-fledged war are still very low – the U.S. has reaffirmed the One China Policy in its recent negotiations with Beijing, which seem to be progressing, while China has not changed its official position on Taiwan. Beijing’s reunification timetable still has a comfortable 30 years to go. The Chinese economy has not collapsed, so there is no immediate need for Beijing to dive headlong into a nationalist foreign policy adventure that could bring on World War III. However, the odds of diplomatic incidents, or military saber rattling, that then trigger a dangerous escalation and a multi-month period of extremely elevated tensions are much higher than the market recognizes. This is because the U.S. and China may still see strategic tensions flare even if they make progress on a trade deal, while a failure on the trade front could spark a spillover into strategic areas. Any cross-strait incident would be relevant to global investors – and not just Taiwanese assets, which would suffer the brunt of economic sanctions – because the slightest increase in the odds of a full-scale war would be extremely negative for global risk appetite. Over the next 12 months, we would mostly expect Beijing to eschew high-profile provocations. The reason is that President Tsai is unpopular and the recent local elections in Taiwan saw her DPP lose seats to the more China-friendly Kuomintang (Chart 8). An aggressive posture could revive the DPP ahead of the January 2020 presidential election, the opposite of what Beijing wants.7 Chart 8 On the other hand, Beijing could decide to ignore the 1996 precedent and choose outright military intimidation. Or it could attempt to meddle in Taiwan’s domestic politics, as it has been accused of doing in the recent local elections.8 Meanwhile, the U.S. and Taiwan are the more likely instigators of an incident over these 12 months, knowingly or not. Washington and Taipei have a window of opportunity to achieve a few concrete objectives while Presidents Tsai and Trump are still in office – which cannot be guaranteed after 2020. A similar window of opportunity caused a market-relevant spike in China-South Korea tensions back in 2015-17, when the United States, seeing that the right-wing Park Geun-hye administration was falling out of power, attempted to rush through the deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile system in South Korea. As a result, China imposed economic sanctions on its neighbor (Chart 9). Chart 9China Hits South Korea Over THAAD China Hits South Korea Over THAAD China Hits South Korea Over THAAD Something similar could transpire over the next year if the U.S. sends a high-level official – say, Bolton, or Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, or even Vice President Mike Pence – to hold talks in Taiwan. Or if the U.S. stages a major show of force in the Taiwan Strait, as it threatened in October, or U.S. naval vessels call on Taiwanese ports. The U.S. could also announce bigger or better arms packages (Chart 10), such as submarine systems, which have been cleared by the Department of State. Given the elevated U.S.-China and China-Taiwan tensions overall, such an incident could cause a bigger escalation than the different participants expect – and even more so than the market currently expects. Chart 10U.S. Arms Sales To Taiwan Could Provoke Beijing U.S. Arms Sales To Taiwan Could Provoke Beijing U.S. Arms Sales To Taiwan Could Provoke Beijing Bottom Line: Cyclically, the period between now and the inauguration of the next Taiwanese president in May 2020 brings heightened risk of a geopolitical incident. Depending on what happens in 2020, tensions could rise or fall for a time. Yet structurally, as Sino-American strategic distrust continues to build, Taiwan will continually find itself at the center of the storm. Black Swan 2: Russia And Ukraine Agree To Go To War Tensions are mounting between Russia and Ukraine in the run-up to the March 31 Ukrainian presidential election. Incumbent President, Petro Poroshenko, has been trailing in the polls for a year. His rival is the populist Yulia Tymoshenko, who has been leading both first-round and second-round polling. Both Poroshenko and Tymoshenko have, at various points in their careers, been accused of being pro-Russian. Poroshenko’s business interests, as with most successful Ukrainian businesspeople, include considerable holdings in Russia. Tymoshenko, on the other hand, was imprisoned from 2011 to 2014 for negotiating a gas imports contract with Russia that allegedly hurt Ukrainian interests. With the most pro-Russian parts of Ukraine either cleaved off (Crimea) or in a state of lawlessness (Donetsk and Luhansk), the median voter in the country has become considerably more nationalist and anti-Russian. It therefore serves no purpose for any politician to campaign on a platform of normalizing relations with Moscow. In this context, the decision by the Patriarchate of Constantinople – the first-among-equals of the Christian Orthodox churches – to grant autocephaly (sovereignty) to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine in January is part of the ongoing evolution of Ukraine into an independent entity from Russia. This process could create tensions, particularly as parts of the country continue to be engaged in military conflict (Map 1). From Moscow’s perspective, the autocephaly grants Ukraine religious – and therefore some semblance of cultural – independence from Russia. This solidifies the loss of a 43-million person crown jewel from the Russian sphere of influence. Chart Moscow is also not averse to stoking tensions. Although President Putin’s mandate will last until 2024, his popularity is nearly at the lowest level this decade. Orthodox monetary and fiscal policy, along with pension reforms, have sapped his political capital at home. In 2014, tensions over Ukraine spurred nationalist sentiment in Russia, rapidly increased popular support for both Putin and his government (Chart 11). Putin may calculate that another such recapitalization may be needed. Chart 11Non-Negligible Risk Of Russian Aggression Non-Negligible Risk Of Russian Aggression Non-Negligible Risk Of Russian Aggression The danger is therefore that domestic politics in both Ukraine and Russia may create a window of opportunity for a skirmish this quarter. Perhaps something akin to the naval tensions around the Kerch Strait that ultimately cost President Putin a summit with President Trump at the G20 meeting in December. While these incidents may benefit both sides domestically, and may even appear carefully orchestrated, they could also get out of hand in unpredictable ways. Bottom Line: While both Kiev and Russia may see a short-termed conflict as domestically beneficial, such an outcome could have unforeseen consequences. At the very least, it could sap already poor business confidence in neighboring Europe, as it did in 2014-2015. Black Swan 3: Saudi Arabia With A Blank Cheque One of the greatest geopolitical blunders of the twentieth century was Berlin’s decision to give its ally Austro-Hungary a “blank cheque.” Austro-Hungary was an anachronism at the turn of the century – a multiethnic empire held together by allegiance to a royal family. As such, the ideology of nationalism represented an existential threat, particularly given that 60% of the empire’s population was neither Austrian nor Hungarian. Following the assassination of its crown prince Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a pan-Slavist terrorist in Sarajevo, Vienna decided that a total destruction of Serbia was necessary for geopolitical and domestic political reasons. Today, Saudi Arabia is in many ways an anachronism itself. It is the world’s last feudal monarchy. Its leaders understand the risks and have begun an ambitious and multifaceted reform effort. Unlike Austro-Hungary, Saudi Arabia has learned to embrace nationalism. Riyadh is using the war in Yemen, as well as targeted actions against its own royal family and the religious establishment, to build a modern nation-state. The problem is that, much as nationalism was an ideological kryptonite for Vienna, democratic Islamism is an existential problem for Riyadh and its peers among the Gulf monarchies. Neighboring Qatar, a tiny peninsular kingdom enjoying an oversized geopolitical influence due to its natural gas wealth, has supported various groups across the Middle East that believe that democracy and conservative Islam are compatible. Turkey and Qatar have often cooperated in this effort, as the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) of Turkey has served as a model for many such Islamist parties in the region. Why Qatar hitched its geopolitical wagon to democratic Islamism is not clear. Perhaps its leaders felt that it was the only option unclaimed by an energy-rich sponsor. Regardless, Qatar’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood and other such groups has clearly irked Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies, enough for them to kick Qatar out of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). In 2017, with the pro-Saudi Trump administration ascendant in the White House, Riyadh felt emboldened enough to break off all diplomatic relations with Qatar and impose an economic blockade. Since 2014, another dynamic has emerged in the region that raises further concerns: a scramble for material resources brought on by the end of +$100 per barrel oil prices. Saudi public expenditures have been steadily rising since 2008, both due to population growth, social welfare spending in the wake of Arab Spring rebellions, and astronomical defense spending to counter the rising influence of Iran. And yet, 2014 saw oil prices plunge to decade lows in a matter of months. Saudi Arabia’s fiscal breakeven oil price has doubled, in a decade, from under $40 per barrel to $83 per barrel in 2018 (Chart 12). Meanwhile, Qatar’s GDP is a quarter of that of Saudi Arabia, even though its population is less than 2% of Saudi Arabia’s. Chart 12Saudi Arabia Has A Fiscal Problem Saudi Arabia Has A Fiscal Problem Saudi Arabia Has A Fiscal Problem Rumors that the U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis prevented a Saudi invasion of Qatar in 2018 have largely been dismissed by the mainstream media. But should they be? If allegedly “rogue elements” of the Saudi intelligence establishment can dismember a journalist in a consulate, why couldn’t “rogue elements” of its military stage a coup – or an outright invasion – in neighboring Qatar? Such an outcome would truly be extraordinary, but so was the annexation of Crimea in 2014. Meanwhile, President Trump offered an extraordinary level of support for Riyadh by issuing what we can only refer to as a “blank cheque” following Khashoggi’s murder. In the November 20 statement, President Trump essentially created a new policy doctrine of standing with Saudi Arabia “no matter what.”9 Two weeks later, Riyadh “thanked” the U.S. President by slashing the OPEC oil output by 1.2 million barrels per day. From this dynamic, it appears that Washington has made a similar strategic blunder in 2018 that Berlin did in 1914. A weakened, stressed, and threatened ally has been given a “blank cheque” by its stronger ally. Such a sweeping offer of support may lead to unintended consequences as the weaker ally feels that its material and geopolitical constraints can be overcome. In Saudi Arabia’s case, that could mean a more aggressive policy towards Qatar, or perhaps Iran. Particularly now that the White House has seen several realist members of the Trump cabinet – such as Mattis and former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson – replaced by Iran hawks and Trump loyalists. Bottom Line: A combination of less independent-minded cabinet members in the White House and a clear “blank cheque” from President Trump to Saudi Arabia could cause geopolitical risk to re-emerge in the Middle East. In the near term, this could increase the geopolitical risk premium on oil prices – as measured by the residual in Chart 13. Chart 13 Black Swan 4: The Balkans Become A Powder Keg … Again Bismarck famously said in 1888 – 26 years before the outbreak of the Great War, that “one day the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans.” The Balkans are far less geopolitically relevant today than in the early twentieth century. They are also exhausted following a decade-long Yugoslav rigor mortis in the 1990s which yielded at least three regional wars and now six (or seven, depending who is counting) independent states. The problem is that tensions have not disappeared. Two frozen conflicts remain. First, Bosnia and Herzegovina is a sovereign country made up of two political entities, with the Serb-dominated Republika Srpska agitating for independence and aligning with Russia. Second, tensions between Serbia and Kosovo took a turn for the worse late last year as Kosovo imposed an economic embargo on trade with Serbia and called for the creation of a military. Has anything really changed over the course of the decade? We think there are three causes for alarm: Tensions between Russia and the West have become serious, with both camps looking to score tactical and strategic wins across the globe. With the Syrian Civil War all but over, a new battleground may emerge. While Republika Srpska is essentially an outright ally of Russia, Serbia continues to try to straddle the fine line between an EU enlargement candidate and geopolitical neutrality. However, this high-wire act is becoming untenable as… Enlargement fatigue sets in the EU. There is no doubt that the EU enlargement process froze Balkan conflicts. Countries like Serbia and Kosovo have an incentive to be on their best behavior so long as the prospect of eventual EU membership remains. But in the current environment of introspection, the EU may not have enough of a coherent geopolitical vision to deal with the Balkans without a crisis. The global economic cycle may be ending, leading to a global recession in the next 12-to-24 months. While our BCA House View remains that the next recession will be a mild one in the U.S., we think that EM and, by extension, frontier markets could be the eye of the storm in the next downturn. As investors abandon their “search for yield” in riskier geographies, they could exacerbate poor governance, political tensions, and geopolitical cleavages that have been frozen in place by the last economic cycle. Finally, U.S. policy towards the Balkans is unclear. In the past, the U.S. asked all countries in the region to accept the status quo and prepare for EU integration. But with the U.S. now adopting an antagonistic view towards the EU bloc, it is unclear what Washington’s message to the Balkans will be. After all, Trump has personally encouraged all other world leaders to don their own version of the “America First” slogan. The only problem in a place like the Balkans is that “Serbia first” – or Croatia and Kosovo first – is unlikely to go down smoothly in the neighborhood, given the last twenty – or even hundred – years. Bottom Line: The powder keg that is the Balkans has not been dried for decades. However, several tailwinds of stability are gone, replaced with macro headwinds. A renewed conflict on Europe’s doorstep could be the next great geopolitical crisis. If this were to occur, we would bank on greater European integration, especially in terms of military and foreign policy. However, it could also mark the first break in U.S.-EU foreign policy if the two decide to pick opposing sides in the region. Black Swan 5: Lame Duck Trump For our final Black Swan, we are sticking with one of our 2018 choices: a “Lame duck” presidency. “Lame duck” presidents – leaders whose popularity late in their terms have sunk so low that they can no longer affect policy – are said to be particularly adventurous in the foreign arena. While this adage has a spotty empirical record, there are several notable examples in recent memory.10 American presidents have few constitutional constraints when it comes to foreign policy. Therefore, when domestic constraints rise, U.S. presidents can seek relevance abroad. President Trump may become the earliest, and lamest, lame duck president in recent U.S. history. While his Republican support remains strong (Chart 14), his overall popularity is well below the average presidential approval rating at this point in the political cycle (Chart 15). Now there is also a Democrat-led House of Representatives to stymie his domestic policy and launch independent investigations into both his administration’s conduct and his personal finances and dealings. Chart 14 Chart 15 We would also add the Senate to the list of problems for President Trump. The electoral math was friendly towards the Republicans in 2018, with Democrats defending 10 Senate seats in states that President Trump won in 2016. In 2020, however, two-thirds of the races will be for Republican-held seats. As such, many Republican senators may begin campaigning early by moving away from President Trump. What kind of adventures would we expect to see President Trump embark on in 2019? Last year, we identified “China-U.S. trade war,” “Iran jingoism,” and “North Korea” as potentials. In many ways, 2018 was the year when all three mattered. Going forward, however, we think that trade war and the Middle East might take a backseat. First, the bear market in equities has raised the odds of a recession. As such, the potential cost of pursuing the trade war further has been increased. So has an aggressive policy towards Iran that dramatically boosts oil prices. Furthermore, President Trump has signaled that he is willing to withdraw from the Middle East, calling for a full withdrawal from Syria and telegraphing one from Afghanistan. Instead, we see President Trump potentially following in the footsteps of previous U.S. administrations and finding relevance in Latin America. A military intervention in Venezuela, to ostensibly support a coup against the current regime, would find little opposition domestically. First, there is no doubt that Venezuela has become a genuine humanitarian disaster. Second, its oil output is on a downward spiral already, with only 1 million b/d of production at risk due to a potential military conflict (Chart 16). Third, the new Bolsonaro administration in Brazil may even support an intervention, as well as neighboring Colombia. This is a change from the last twenty years, in which Latin American countries largely stuck together, despite ideological differences, in opposition to U.S. interference in the continent’s domestic affairs. Chart 16On A Downward Spiral On A Downward Spiral On A Downward Spiral Finally, even the anti-Trump U.S. foreign policy establishment may support an intervention. Not only is there the issue of human suffering, but Russia and China have used Venezuela as an anchor to build out influence in America’s sphere of influence. Furthermore, the potential promise of Venezuela’s eventual energy production is another reason to consider an American intervention (Chart 17). Chart 17 Bottom Line: American presidents rarely decide to go softly into that good night. It is very difficult to see President Trump become irrelevant. With tensions with China carrying a high economic cost and military interventions in the Middle East remaining politically toxic in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan wars, perhaps President Trump will decide to go “retro,” in the sense of a throwback Latin America intervention.   Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see, Blackstone, “Byron Wien Announces Ten Surprises For 2018,” dated January 2, 2018, available at blackstone.com. 2 A shoutout to another doyen of the financial industry, Alastair Newton! 3 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, “Deciphering Global Trade Linkages,” dated September 27, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see “Highlights of Xi’s speech at Taiwan message anniversary event,” China Daily, January 2, 2019, available at www.chinadaily.com.cn; and “President Tsai Issues Statement On China’s President Xi’s ‘Message To Compatriots In Taiwan,’” Office of the President, Republic of China (Taiwan), January 2, 2019, available at english.president.gov.tw. 5 Please see Xi Jinping, “Secure a Decisive Victory in Building a Moderately Prosperous Society in All Respects and Strive for the Great Success of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era,” section 3.12, October 18, 2017, available at www.xinhuanet.com; and Deng Yuwen, “Is China Planning To Take Taiwan By Force In 2020?” South China Morning Post, July 20, 2018, available at beta.scmp.com. 6 Please see United States, H.R. 535, Taiwan Travel Act, 115th Congress (2017-18), available at www.congress.gov and S. 2736, Asia Reassurance Initiative Act of 2018, 115th Congress (2017-18), available at www.congress.gov. 7 This is precisely what occurred when China chose missile tests in 1995-96 and drove voters toward the very candidate, Lee Teng-hui, that Beijing least desired. The popular Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je may run for president in 2020, and Beijing may see him as preferable to President Tsai. He has spoken of China and Taiwan as being part of the same family and he has held city-to-city talks between Shanghai and Taipei despite the shutdown in direct talks between Beijing and Taipei. 8 Please see Andrew Sharp, “Beijing likely meddled in Taiwan elections, US cybersecurity firm says,” Nikkei Asian Review, November 28, 2018, available at asia.nikkei.com. 9 Please see “Statement from President Donald J. Trump on Standing with Saudi Arabia,” The White House, dated November 20, 2018, available at whitehouse.org. 10 President Clinton launched the largest NATO military operation against Yugoslavia amidst impeachment proceedings against him, while President George H. W. Bush ordered U.S. troops to Somalia a month after losing the 1992 election. Ironically, President George H. W. Bush intervened in Somalia in order to lock in the supposedly isolationist Bill Clinton, who had defeated him three weeks earlier, into an internationalist foreign policy. President George W. Bush ordered the “surge” of troops into Iraq in 2007 after losing both houses of Congress in 2006; President Obama arranged the Iranian nuclear deal after losing the Senate (and hence Congress) to the Republicans in 2014.   Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights So What? Our best and worst calls of 2018 cast light on our methodology and 2019 forecasts. Why? Our clients took us to task for violating our own methodology on the Iranian oil sanctions. Sticking to our guns would have paid off with long Russian equities versus EM. We correctly called China’s domestic policy, the U.S.-China trade war, Europe, the U.S. midterms, and relative winners in emerging markets. Feature It has been a tradition for BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy, since our launch in 2012, to highlight our best and worst forecasts of the year.1 This will also be the final publication of the year, provided that there is no global conflagration worthy of a missive between now and January 9, when we return to our regular publication schedule. We wish all of our clients a great Holiday Season. And especially all the very best in 2019: lots of happiness, health, and hefty returns. Good luck and good hunting. The Worst Calls Of 2018 A forecasting mistake is wasted if one learns nothing from the error. This is why we take our mistakes seriously and why we always begin the report card with our zingers. Our overall performance in 2018 was … one of our best. The successes below will testify to this. However, we made three notable errors. A Schizophrenic Russia View Our worst call of the year was to panic and close our long Russian equities relative to emerging markets trade in the face of headline geopolitical risks. In early March, we posited that Russia was a “buy” relative to the broad EM equity index due to a combination of cheap valuations, strong macro fundamentals, orthodox policy, and an end to large-scale geopolitical adventurism. This call ultimately proved to be correct (Chart 1). Chart 1Russian Stocks Outperformed In The End Russian Stocks Outperformed In The End Russian Stocks Outperformed In The End What went wrong? The main risk to our view, that the U.S. Congress would pursue an anti-Russia agenda regardless of any Russian sympathies in the Trump White House, materialized in the wake of the poisoning of former Russian military intelligence officer Sergei Skripal with a Novichok nerve agent in the United Kingdom. As fate would have it, the incident occurred just before our bullish report went to clients! The ensuing international uproar and sanctions caused a selloff. Our bullish thesis did not rest exclusively on geopolitics, but a thaw in West-Russia relations did form the main pillar of the view. Our Russia Geopolitical Risk Index, which had served us well in the past, was pricing as low of a level of geopolitical risk as one could hope for in the post-Crimea environment (Chart 2). Naturally the measure jumped into action following the Skripal incident. Chart 2Geopolitical Risk Was Low Prior To Skripal Geopolitical Risk Was Low Prior To Skripal Geopolitical Risk Was Low Prior To Skripal The timing of our call was therefore off, but we should have stuck with the overall view. The U.S. imposed preliminary sanctions that lacked teeth. While Washington accepted the U.K.’s assessment that Moscow was behind the poisoning, the weakness of the sanctions also signaled that the U.S. did not consider the incident worthy of a tougher position. There are now two parallel sanction processes under way. The first round of sanctions announced in August gave Russia 90 days to comply and adopt “remedial measures” regarding the use of chemical and biological weapons. On November 9, the U.S. State Department noted that Russia had not complied with the deadline. The U.S. is now expected to impose a second round of sanctions that will include at least three of six punitive actions: Opposition to development aid and assistance by international financial institutions (think the IMF and the World Bank); Downgrading diplomatic relations; Additional restrictions on exports to Russia (high-tech exports have already been barred by the first round of sanctions); Restrictions on imports from Russia; A ban on landing rights in the U.S. for Russian state-owned airlines; Prohibiting U.S. banks from purchasing Russian government debt. While the White House was expected to have such sanctions ready to go on the November 9 deadline, it has dragged its feet for almost two months now. This suggests that President Trump continues to hold out for improved relations with President Putin. A visit by President Putin to Washington remains possible in Q1 2019. As such, we would expect the White House to adopt some mix of the first five items on the above list, hardly a crushing response from Moscow’s perspective. The U.S. Congress, however, has a parallel process in the form of the Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act of 2018 (DASKAA). Introduced in August by Senator Lindsey Graham, a Russia hawk, the legislation would put restrictions on Americans buying Russian sovereign debt and curb investments in Russian energy projects. The bill also includes secondary sanctions on investing in the Russian oil sector, which would potentially ensnare European energy companies collaborating with Russia in the energy sector. There was some expectation that Congress would take up the bill ahead of the midterm election, but nothing came of it. Even with the latest incident – the seizing of two Ukrainian naval vessels in the Kerch Strait – we have yet to see action. While we expect the U.S. to do something eventually, the White House approach is likely to be tepid while the congressional approach may be too draconian to pass into law. And with Democrats about to take over the House, and likely demand even tougher sanctions against Russia, the ultimate legislation may be too bold for President Trump to sign into legislation. The point is that Russia has acted antagonistically towards the West in 2018, but in small enough increments that the response has been tepid. Given the paucity of Russian financial and trade links with the U.S., Washington’s sanctions would only bite if they included the dreaded “secondary sanction” implications for third party sovereigns and firms – particularly European, which do have a lot of business in Russia. This is highly unlikely without major Russian aggression. We cannot completely ignore the potential for such aggression in 2019, especially with President Putin’s popularity in the doldrums (Chart 3) and a contentious Ukrainian election due for March 31. However, we outlined the constraints against Russia in 2014, amidst the Ukrainian crisis, and we do not think that these constraints have been reduced (they may have only grown since then). Chart 3Non-Negligible Risk Of Russian Aggression Non-Negligible Risk Of Russian Aggression Non-Negligible Risk Of Russian Aggression Regardless of the big picture for 2019, we could have faded the risks in 2018 and stuck to the fundamentals. Russia is up 17.2% against EM year-to-date. The lesson here, therefore, is to find re-entry points into a well-founded view despite market volatility. Chart 1 shows that Russian equities climbed the proverbial “wall of worry” relative to EM in 2018. Doubting Jair Bolsonaro Our list of mistakes keeps us in the EM universe where we underestimated Jair Bolsonaro’s chances of winning the presidency in Brazil. The answer to the question we posed in the title of our September report – “Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything?” – was a definitive “yes.” Since the publication of that report, BRL/USD is up 2.9% and Brazilian equities are up 18.5% relative to EM (Chart 4). Chart 4Bolsonaro Rally Losing Its Luster Already Bolsonaro Rally Losing Its Luster Already Bolsonaro Rally Losing Its Luster Already To our credit, the question of Bolsonaro’s electoral chances elicited passionate and pointed internal debate. But our clients did not see the internal struggle, just the incorrect external output! A bad call is a bad call, no matter how it is assembled on the intellectual assembly line. That said, we still think that our report is valuable. It sets out the constraints facing Bolsonaro in 2019. He has to convince the left-leaning median voter that meaningful pension reform is needed; bully a fractured Congress into painful structural reforms; and overcome an unforgiving macro context of tepid Chinese stimulus and a strong USD. If the Bolsonaro administration wastes the good will of the investment community over the next six months, we expect the market’s punishment to be swift and painful. In fact, Chart 4 notes that the initial Bolsonaro rally has already lost most of its shine. Brazilian assets are still up since the election, but the gentle slope could become a steep fall if Bolsonaro stumbles. The market is priced for political perfection. To be clear, we are not bearish on Bolsonaro. We believe that, relative to EM, he will be a positive for Brazil. However, the market is currently betting that he will win by two touchdowns, whereas we think he will squeak by with a last-second field goal. The difference between the two forecasts is compelling and we have expressed it by being long MXN/BRL.2 Not Sticking To Our Method In The Case Of Iran Throughout late-2017 and 2018 we pointed out that President Trump’s successful application of “maximum pressure” against North Korea could become a market-relevant risk if he were emboldened to try the same strategy against Iran. For much of the year, this view was prescient. As investors realized the seriousness of President Trump’s strategy, a geopolitical risk premium began to seep into oil prices, as illustrated in Chart 5 by the red bar. Chart 5 Every time we spoke to clients or published reports on this topic, we highlighted just how dangerous a “maximum pressure” strategy would be in the case of Iran. We stressed that Iran could wreak havoc across Iraq and other parts of the Middle East and even drive up oil prices to the point of causing a “geopolitical recession in 2019.” In other words, we stressed the extraordinary constraints that President Trump would face. To their credit many of our clients called us out on the inconsistency: our market call was über bullish oil prices, while our methodology emphasized constraints over preferences. We were constantly fielding questions such as: Why would President Trump face down such overwhelming constraints? We did not have a very good answer to this question other than that he was ideologically committed to overturning the Iranian nuclear deal. In essence, we doubted President Trump’s own ideological flexibility and realism. That was a mistake and we tip our hat to the White House for recognizing the complex constraints arrayed against it. President Trump realized by October how dangerous those constraints were and began floating the idea of sanction waivers, causing the geopolitical risk premium to drain from the market (Chart 6). To our credit, we highlighted sanction waivers as a key risk to our view and thus took profit on our bullish energy call early. Chart 6Sanction Waivers Caused A Collapse In Oil Prices Sanction Waivers Caused A Collapse In Oil Prices Sanction Waivers Caused A Collapse In Oil Prices That said, our clients have taken the argument further, pointing out that if we were wrong on Trump’s ideological flexibility with Iran, we may be making the same mistake when it comes to China. However, there is a critical difference. Americans are more concerned about conflict with North Korea than with Iran (Chart 7), while China is the major concern about trade (Chart 8). Chart 7 Chart 8 Second, railing against the Iran deal did not get President Trump elected, whereas his protectionist rhetoric – specifically regarding China – did (Chart 9). Getting anything less than the mother-of-all-deals with Beijing will draw down Trump’s political capital ahead of 2020 and open him to accusations of being “weak” and “surrendering to China.” These are accusations that the country’s other set of protectionists – the Democrats – will wantonly employ against him in the next general election. Chart 9Protectionism, Not Iran, Helped Trump Get Elected Protectionism, Not Iran, Helped Trump Get Elected Protectionism, Not Iran, Helped Trump Get Elected Ultimately, if we have to be wrong, we are at least satisfied that our method stood firm in the face of our own fallibility. We are doubly glad to see our clients using our own method against our views. This is precisely what we wanted to accomplish when we began BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy in March 2012: to revolutionize finance by raising the sophistication with which it approaches geopolitics. That was a lofty goal, but we do not pretend to hold the monopoly on our constraint-based methodology. In the end, our market calls did not suffer due to our error. We closed our long EM energy-producer equities / EM equities for a gain of 4.67% and our long Brent / short S&P 500 for a gain of 6.01%. However, our latter call, shorting the S&P 500 in September, was based on several reasons, including concerns regarding FAANG stocks, overstretched valuations, and an escalation of the trade war. Had we paired our S&P 500 short with a better long, we would have added far more value to our clients. It is that lost opportunity that has kept us up at night throughout this quarter. We essentially timed the S&P 500 correction, but paired it with a wayward long. The Best Calls Of 2018 BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy had a strong year. We are not going to list all of our calls here, but only those most relevant to our clients. Our best 2018 forecast originally appeared in 2017, when in April of that year we predicted that “Political Risks Are Understated In 2018.” Our reasoning was bang on: U.S. fiscal policy would turn strongly stimulative (the tax cuts would pass and Trump would be a big spender) and thus cause the Fed to turn hawkish and the USD to rally, tightening global monetary policy; Trump’s trade war would re-emerge in 2018; China would reboot its structural reform efforts by focusing on containing leverage, thus tightening global “fiscal” policy. In the same report we also predicted that Italian elections in 2018 would reignite Euro Area breakup risks, but that Italian policymakers would ultimately be found to be bluffing, as has been our long-running assertion. Throughout 2018, our team largely maintained and curated the forecasts expressed in that early 2017 report. We start the list of the best calls with the one call that was by far the most important for global assets in 2018: economic policy in China. The Chinese Would Over-Tighten, Then Under-Stimulate Getting Chinese policy right required us, first, to predict that policy would bring negative economic surprises this year, and second, once policy began to ease, to convince clients and colleagues that “this time would be different” and the stimulus would not be very stimulating. In other words, this time, China would not panic and reach for the credit lever of the post-2008 years (Chart 10), but would maintain its relatively tight economic, financial, environmental, and macro-prudential oversight, while easing only on the margin. Chart 10No Massive Credit Stimulus In 2018 No Massive Credit Stimulus In 2018 No Massive Credit Stimulus In 2018 This is precisely what occurred. BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy’s “China Play Index,” which is designed to capture any reflation out of Beijing, collapsed in 2018 and has hardly ticked up since the policy easing announced in July (Chart 11). Chart 11Weak Reflation Signal From China Weak Reflation Signal From China Weak Reflation Signal From China Our view was based on an understanding of Chinese politics that we can confidently say has been unique: From March 2017, we highlighted the importance of the 2017 October Party Congress, arguing that President Xi Jinping would consolidate his power and redouble his attempts to “reform” the economy by reining in dangerous imbalances. We explicitly characterized the containment of leverage as the most market-relevant reform to focus on. We stringently ignored the ideological debate about the nature of reform in China, focusing instead on the major policy changes afoot. We identified very early on how the rising odds of a U.S.-China conflict would embolden Chinese leadership to double-down on painful structural reforms. Will China maintain this disciplined approach in 2019? That is yet to be seen. But we are arming ourselves and clients with critical ways to identify when and whether Beijing’s policy easing transforms into a full-blown “stimulus overshoot”: First, we need to see a clear upturn in shadow financing to believe that the Xi administration has given up on preventing excess debt. Assuming that such a shift occurs, and that overall credit improves, it will enable us to turn bullish on global growth and global risk assets on a cyclical, i.e., not merely tactical, horizon (Chart 12). Chart 12A Shadow Lending Surge Would Mean A Big Policy Shift A Shadow Lending Surge Would Mean A Big Policy Shift A Shadow Lending Surge Would Mean A Big Policy Shift Second, our qualitative checklist will need to see a lot more “checks” in order to change our mind. Short of an extraordinary surge in bank and shadow bank credit, there needs to be a splurge in central and especially local government spending (Table 1). The mid-year spike in local governments’ new bond issuance in 2018 was fleeting and fell far short of the surge that initiated the large-scale stimulus of 2015. Frontloading these bonds in 2019 will depend on timing and magnitude. Table 1A Credit Splurge, Or Government Spending Splurge, Is Necessary For Stimulus To Overshoot BCA Geopolitical Strategy 2018 Report Card BCA Geopolitical Strategy 2018 Report Card Third, we would need to see President Xi Jinping make a shift in rhetoric away from the “Three Battles” of financial risk, pollution, and poverty. Having identified systemic financial risk as the first of the three ills, Xi needs to make a dramatic reversal of this three-year action plan if he is to clear the way for another credit blowout. Trade War Would Reignite In 2018 It paid off to stick with our trade war alarmism in 2018. We correctly forecast that the U.S. and China would collide over trade and that their initial trade agreement – on May 20 – was insubstantial and would not last. In the event it lasted three days. Our one setback on the trade front was to doubt the two sides would agree to a trade truce at the G20. However, by assigning a subjective 40% probability, we correctly noted the fair odds of a truce. We also insisted that any truce would be temporary, which ended up being the case. We may yet be vindicated if the March 1 deadline produces no sustainable deal, as we forecast in last week’s Strategic Outlook. That said, correct geopolitical calls do not butter our bread at BCA. Rather, we are paid to make market calls. To that end, we would point out that we correctly assessed the market-relevance of the trade conflict, fading S&P 500 risks and focusing on the effect on global risk assets. Will this continue into 2019? We think so. We do not see trade conflict as the originator of ongoing market turbulence (Chart 13) and would expect the U.S. to outperform global equities again over the course of 2019 (Chart 14). This view may appear wrong in Q1, as the market digests the Fed backing off from hawkish rhetoric, the ongoing trade negotiations, and the likely seasonal uptick in Chinese credit data in the beginning of the calendar year. Chart 13Yields, Not Trade War, Drove Stocks Yields, Not Trade War, Drove Stocks Yields, Not Trade War, Drove Stocks Chart 14U.S. Stocks Will Resume Outperformance U.S. Stocks Will Resume Outperformance U.S. Stocks Will Resume Outperformance However, any stabilization in equity markets would likely serve to ease financial conditions in the U.S., where economic and inflation conditions remain firmly in tightening territory (Chart 15). As such, the Fed pause is likely to last no more than a quarter, maybe two at best, leading to renewed carnage in global risk assets if our view on Chinese policy stimulus – tepid – remains valid through the course of 2019. Chart 15If Financial Conditions Ease, Tightening Will Be Back On If Financial Conditions Ease, Tightening Will Be Back On If Financial Conditions Ease, Tightening Will Be Back On Europe (All Of It… Again) In 2017, our forecasting track record for Europe was stellar. This continued in 2018, with no major setbacks: Populism in Italy: Our long-held view has been that Europe’s chief remaining risks lay in Italian populists coming to power. We predicted in 2016 that this would eventually happen and that they would then be proven to be bluffing. This is essentially what happened in 2018. Matteo Salvini’s Lega is surging in the polls because its leader has realized that a combination of hard anti-immigrant policy and the softest-of-soft Euroskepticism is a winning combination. We believe that investors can live with this combination. Our only major fault in forecasting European politics and assets this year was to close our bearish Italy call too early: we booked our long Spanish / short Italian 10-year government bond trade for a small loss in August, before the spread between the two Mediterranean countries blew out to record levels. That missed opportunity could have also made it on our “worst calls” list as well. Chart 16 Pluralism in Europe: To get the call on Italy right, we had to dabble in some theoretical work. In a somewhat academic report, we showed that political concentration was on the decline in the developed world (Chart 16), but especially in Europe (Chart 17). Put simply, lower political concentration suggests that a duopoly between the traditional center-left and center-right parties is breaking down. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, we argued that Europe’s parliamentary systems would enable centrist parties to adopt elements of the populist agenda, particularly on immigration, without compromising the overall stability of European institutions. As such, political pluralism, or low political concentration, is positive for markets. Chart 17 Immigration crisis is over: For centrist parties to be able to successfully adopt populist immigration policy, they needed a pause in the immigration crisis. This was empirically verifiable in 2018 (Chart 18). Chart 18European Migration Crisis Is Over European Migration Crisis Is Over European Migration Crisis Is Over Merkel’s time has run out: Since early 2017, we had cautioned clients that Angela Merkel’s demise was afoot, but that it would be an opportunity, rather than a risk, when it came. It finally happened in 2018 and it was not a market moving event. The main question for 2019 is whether German policymakers, and Europe as a whole, will use the infusion of fresh blood in Berlin to reaccelerate crucial reforms ahead of the next global recession. Brexit: Since early 2016, we have been right on Brexit. More specifically, we were corrent in cautioning investors that, were Brexit to occur, “the biggest loser would be the Conservative Party, not the EU.” As with the previous two Conservative Party prime ministers, it appears that the question of the U.K.’s relationship with the EU has completely drained any political capital out of Prime Minister Theresa May’s reign. We suspect that the only factor propping up the Tories in the polls is that Jeremy Corbyn is the leader of Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition. We have also argued that soft Brexit would ultimately prove to be “illogical” and that “Bregret” would begin to seep in, as it now most clearly has. We parlayed these rising geopolitical risks and uncertainties by shorting cable in the first half of the year for a 6.21% gain. Malaysia Over Turkey And India Over Brazil Not all was lost for our EM calls this year. We played Malaysia against Turkey in the currency markets for a 17.44% gain, largely thanks to massively divergent governance and structural reform trajectories after Malaysia’s opposition won power for the first time in the country’s history. Second, we initiated a long Indian / short Brazilian equity view in March that returned 27.54% by August. This was a similar play on divergent structural reforms, but it was also a way to hedge our alarmist view on trade. Given India’s isolation from global trade and insular financial markets, we identified India as one of the EM markets that would remain aloof of protectionist risks. We could have closed the trade earlier for greater gain, but did not time the exit properly. Midterm Election: A Major Democratic Victory Our midterm election forecast was correct: Democrats won a substantial victory. Even our initial call on the Senate, that Democrats had a surprisingly large probability of picking up seats, proved to be correct, with Republicans eking out just two gains in a year when Democrats were defending 10 seats in states that Trump carried in 2016. What about our all-important call that the election would have no impact on the markets? That is more difficult to assess, given that the S&P 500 has in fact collapsed in the lead-up to and aftermath of the election. However, we see little connection between the election outcome and the stock market’s performance. Neither do our colleagues or clients, who have largely stopped asking about the Democrats’ policy designs. In 2019, domestic politics may play a role in the markets. Impeachment risk is low, but, if it rears its head, it could prompt President Trump to seek relevance abroad, as his predecessors have done when they lost control of domestic policy. In addition, the Democratic Party’s sweeping House victory may suggest a political pendulum swing to the left in the 2020 presidential election. We will discuss both risks as part of our annual Five Black Swans report in early 2019. U.S. domestic politics was a collection of Red Herrings during much of President Obama’s presidency, and has produced strong tailwinds under President Trump (tax cuts in particular). This may change in 2019, with considerable risk to investors, and asset prices, ahead.     Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist roukayai@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      For our 2019 Outlook, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, “2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge,” dated December 14, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. For our past Strategic Outlooks, please visit gps.bcaresearch.com. 2      In part we like this cross because we also think that Mexico’s newly elected president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, is priced to lose by two touchdowns, whereas he may merely lose by a last-second field goal.