Diplomacy/Foreign Relations

Highlights So What? Optimism over a U.S.-China trade deal is becoming excessive. Why? Presidents Trump and Xi appear to want a deal but their late March summit is not yet finalized. Several news reports supporting the bullish consensus are overrated. The odds of a “grand compromise” that entails China implementing U.S. structural demands are 10%. The odds of trade war escalation are 30%. China’s policy stimulus is a better reason than trade talks to become more constructive on Chinese and China-sensitive risk assets. Feature The Chinese equity market is rallying enthusiastically as the annual “Two Sessions” legislative meeting convenes (Chart 1). The basis for the rally is evidence of greater policy support for the economy along with a general belief that the U.S. and China are close to concluding a trade deal, possibly at a fourth summit between President Donald Trump and Xi Jinping that may be held in late March. The NPC session will build on the optimism with Premier Li Keqiang’s promise of more “forceful” policy support and the passage of a new foreign investment law that promises fair treatment to foreign companies. Chart 1Positive Trade Signals, But Market Getting Ahead Of Itself Positive Trade Signals, But Market Getting Ahead Of Itself Positive Trade Signals, But Market Getting Ahead Of Itself Our view is that the trade signals are broadly positive – implying a 70% chance that tariffs will either remain frozen or decrease in the scenario analysis below – but that the market is getting ahead of itself both in terms of the likelihood of a “structural deal” and in terms of the positive market impact from any deal. The market impact will depend on the depth of the concessions that China offers the United States. If the concessions are significant, President Donald Trump will be able to roll back tariffs to a considerable extent – trade policy uncertainty will fall, China’s economic outlook will improve, and Trump’s reelection odds (and hence U.S. economic policy continuity) could increase marginally. If China’s concessions are slight, tariff rollbacks will be limited or non-existent and the deal will stand on shaky ground, ensuring elevated policy uncertainty in the aftermath of the agreement and raising the probability of a relapse into trade war ahead of the 2020 election. Trump may feel he has to prove his protectionist credentials anew against a trade critic in the general election. Will the outcome be positive enough to surprise Chinese and global markets that have already discounted a lot of positive news? From where we sit, this is unlikely. More likely, investors will be underwhelmed by a lack of resolution or the shallowness of a deal. The risk to this view is the aforementioned structural deal that involves substantial Chinese concessions combined with a major reduction in U.S. tariffs and sanctions. But even in this case investors will face additional trade uncertainty relating to the U.S. Section 232 investigation into auto imports, on which Trump must decide by May 18, underscoring the point that trade alone is not a firm basis for bullish investment recommendations over the course of H1 2019. The continued strength of the U.S. economy and China’s policy stimulus provide a more realistic basis for global risk assets to rally over the 6-12 month horizon. Presidential Momentum For A Trade Deal We remain pessimistic about U.S.-China relations in general and the prospects for a structural trade deal in particular. This is reflected in our subjective trade-deal probabilities, which hold that an additional extension is as likely as a final deal this month and that the risk of a relapse into trade war remains elevated at 30% (Table 1). Table 1Updated Trade War Probabilities China-U.S. Trade: A Structural Deal? China-U.S. Trade: A Structural Deal? Fundamentally, our pessimism stems from our view that the U.S. and China are locked in the early chapters of an epic struggle for supremacy in Asia Pacific that will reduce their ability to engage cooperatively (Chart 2). Chart 2China, U.S. In Geopolitical Power Struggle China, U.S. In Geopolitical Power Struggle China, U.S. In Geopolitical Power Struggle Critically, the economic impact of a trade war is not prohibitive for either country. China is not as reliant on exports as it once was. In addition, neither the U.S. nor China is too reliant on trade with the other to make a trade war unthinkable, as was the case with Canada and Mexico (Chart 3). Chart 3Economic Impact Of A Trade War Is Not Prohibitive Economic Impact Of A Trade War Is Not Prohibitive Economic Impact Of A Trade War Is Not Prohibitive China is economically vulnerable but is politically centralized, as symbolized by Xi Jinping’s aggressive purge of the Communist Party on the basis of corruption (Chart 4). The ruling party can and will accept the worst international economic outcomes since 1989-91, if it believes this is necessary for regime survival. Chart 4Regime Survival is Paramount Regime Survival is Paramount Regime Survival is Paramount Meanwhile the U.S. is economically insulated and performing relatively well (Chart 5), and is not politically divided on the question of China. A bipartisan, hawkish consensus has developed that will be discussed below. Just as we argued correctly that this trade war would occur, so too we believe it has a fair chance of reigniting. This could be due to policy miscalculation, unforeseen events, or the likelihood that Trump will face heat from the left-wing ahead of the election if he gives China as easy of a deal as he gave to Canada. Chart 5The U.S. Economy Is Strong But Softening... The U.S. Economy Is Strong But Softening... The U.S. Economy Is Strong But Softening... Nevertheless we accept that there is top-level momentum in favor of a deal for the time being, and this comes from both Presidents Trump and Xi. In China, delaying tactics are the standard way of coping with an angry Washington, as the perception in Beijing is that economic and technological advancement give it greater leverage over time. Moreover, the economy is weakening on several fronts, private sector sentiment is bearish, and the easing of fiscal and monetary policy is of unclear effectiveness (Chart 6). These are all reasons for Xi to seek at least a temporary reprieve. Chart 6...While the Chinese Economy Is Weak But Stimulating ...While the Chinese Economy Is Weak But Stimulating ...While the Chinese Economy Is Weak But Stimulating In the United States, Trump faces a difficult election campaign due to his relatively low job approval with voters (Chart 7). His polling has recently improved with the settlement of the FY2019 budget and avoidance of a second government shutdown, and this is despite his controversial decision to press forward unilaterally on southern border security. But he will be running for office late in the business cycle and is vulnerable to an equity bear market and recession. This explains why he has shown risk aversion since October on market-relevant issues ranging from NAFTA, Iran, and China. A trade deal with China offers the possibility not only of satisfying a campaign promise (renegotiating the terrible trade deals of the past) but also of a substantial boost to investor sentiment and key parts of the U.S. economy via Chinese cash. Chart 7 Thus it is reasonable to assess that Trump and Xi can satisfy their political preference for a deal in the short run. If Xi does not gratify Trump’s campaign platform as a great deal-maker, he will give impetus to Trump to form a grand protectionist coalition. Such a coalition could eventually succeed in constricting China’s technological development, as exemplified by the U.S.’s campaign against Chinese telecoms equipment maker Huawei. Fundamentally, China still depends on the West for the computer chips that are essential building blocks for its manufacturing sector (Chart 8). Chart 8 However, while this is a reason for Xi to play ball, it is far from clear that Xi will rapidly implement deep structural changes demanded by the United States. Xi has good reason to fear that Trump will continue the tech war on national security grounds despite any trade deal. Plus, either Trump or a Democratic president could take new punitive trade measures after 2020, given the underlying strategic struggle. For these reasons China is likely to slow-walk any structural concessions. We recognize that our 35% probability that trade talks will be extended cannot last forever. Assuming that Trump and Xi confirm the time and place of a fourth summit, the probability of some kind of deal will rise toward 70%. We doubt very much that Trump and Xi will attend such a summit without a high degree of confidence in the outcome, unlike the Trump-Kim summit in Hanoi, which suffered from inadequate preparation. Yet even if the probability of a deal rises to 70%, we still think there would remain a 30% chance of either an unexpected extension or a disastrous breakdown in negotiations – and we are not yet at that 70% mark. Bottom Line: Until a Trump-Xi summit is finalized in the context of continued progress in trade negotiations, we maintain our pessimistic probabilities for the trade negotiations, with a 30% chance of total collapse and a 35% chance of a further extension of talks beyond March. Remain Vigilant On The Trade Talks It is debatable whether momentum in favor of a U.S.-China trade deal has increased over the past two weeks as much as the news flow suggests. First, Trump’s extension of the tariff deadline – which he originally envisioned as a pause for a month “or less” – could just as easily lead to additional extensions rather than a quick resolution. This will be clear if a Trump-Xi summit does not materialize in late March. A logical time for the two to meet would be at the G20 summit in Osaka, Japan on June 28-29, which would prolong the trade policy uncertainty for nearly four months from today. Second, reports suggest that China, like the EU, is demanding that all Trump’s tariffs be removed as part of any trade deal. If true, this demand is more likely to result in a failure to make a deal than a total tariff rollback. The reason is that the U.S. needs to retain the ability to adjust Section 301 tariffs based on China’s actual degree of implementation of any commitments it makes to reduce forced technology transfers, economic espionage, and intellectual property theft. Several of these commitments are enshrined in the new foreign investment law that would pass through China’s legislature over the next two weeks (Table 2), but the U.S. will want to ensure that the law is actually implemented. Table 2New Foreign Investment Law Would Be A Positive For U.S.-China Negotiations China-U.S. Trade: A Structural Deal? China-U.S. Trade: A Structural Deal? If the U.S. rolls back all Section 301 tariffs it will lose a convenient legal standing from which to dial the tariffs back up if necessary. It is more likely that part or all of the 10% tariff on $200 billion worth of goods will be rolled back (our short-term trade deal scenario with 25% odds) than that the entire Section 301 tariffs will be rolled back (our best-case trade deal scenario with a 10% probability). The degree of rollback will be a critical indicator of the durability of any deal, as it will make a material difference for China’s export-manufacturing outlook (Chart 9). Thus far, China’s economy has counterintuitively benefited from the trade war due to tariff front-running. Chart 9The Degree Of Tariff Rollback Matters The Degree Of Tariff Rollback Matters The Degree Of Tariff Rollback Matters Third, the disagreements between President Trump and his hawkish lead negotiator, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, are likely overstated in their ability to increase the odds of finalizing a deal. There are two arguments for the view that Trump is losing faith in Lighthizer. The first is that he blames Lighthizer’s tough tactics for the equity market selloff. This may not be valid given that stocks continued to sell off after Trump sided with the trade doves and agreed to a trade truce with Xi Jinping. In December the S&P 500 suffered the worst monthly performance since February 2009 and the worst December performance since 1931. The second argument is more substantial and comes from Trump’s public interchange with Lighthizer over the use and value of memorandums of understanding (MOUs). The interchange was awkward and suggests that tensions exist between Trump and his top negotiator.1 However, the episode may have an important implication. Whatever the reason for the disagreement, Lighthizer gained the assent of two Chinese negotiators – Vice Premier Liu He and U.S. ambassador Cui Tiankai – in his declaration, on camera, that the term MOU would be dropped in preference for the term “trade agreement.” The result is that while the deal is still not going to be a “Free Trade Agreement” that requires legislative ratification, the language of the final document will be if anything more, not less, binding. This episode cannot possibly accelerate a final deal. It is hard to believe that Lighthizer is not secretly happy with the result of his dust-up with the president. It is well known – and frequently complained about by Lighthizer and other Trump administration officials – that China has very active diplomacy and makes many international agreements that are more nominal than real in their results. As a simple example, China typically agrees to a larger value of outbound investment than is ultimately realized (Chart 10). In fact, Lighthizer is at the forefront of the administration’s repeated and explicit aim to pin China down to better implementation and enforcement of any agreement. Indeed, in both of Lighthizer’s reports on the Section 301 investigation that motivate the tariffs, he refers to a well-known September 2015 commitment, between President Xi and former U.S. President Barack Obama, not to conduct cyber-espionage against each other’s countries. Lighthizer shares the view of the broader U.S. political establishment that China only temporarily enforced this commitment and later ramped up its hacking to steal trade secrets.2 Chart 10China Known For Overpromising China Known For Overpromising China Known For Overpromising Fourth, Trump’s failure to conclude a peace and denuclearization deal with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Hanoi, Vietnam does not increase the odds of a U.S.-China deal – it is either neutral or negative for U.S.-China talks. Whether intentional or not, the summit reminded the Chinese that Trump’s “art of the deal” requires the willingness to walk away from a bad deal. As mentioned, we view the odds of Trump walking away from a China deal at 30%. But the deeper problem is that Trump expects China’s assistance with North Korea as a condition of the trade deal. Whenever Trump thinks that China is not providing enough assistance, he threatens to walk away from talks with Kim. This occurred in May 2018 and has apparently occurred again. The failure of the summit is a failure of U.S.-China diplomacy in the sense that China could not or would not convince Kim Jong Un to offer more concrete steps toward denuclearization. This reflects negatively on the trade talks if it reflects anything at all. Bottom Line: Aside from the presidential momentum behind a trade deal, none of the recent news reports or leaks form a basis for upgrading the probability of a final agreement in late March. Will It Be A “Structural Deal”? Lighthizer is not isolated in driving a hard bargain with China: he enjoys the support of both parties in the U.S. Congress. At his recent testimony on U.S.-China trade to the House Ways and Means Committee, bipartisanship was a key theme. Democrats as well as Republicans voiced support for Lighthizer as the top negotiator due to his strict stance on China’s trade practices, while Lighthizer himself praised both Trump and Democrats such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for being skeptical about China’s trade practices as far back as 2001. The takeaway is that Trump needs deep concessions from China – what the top Democrat on the committee called “a structural deal” – in order to defend any trade deal against domestic critics and skeptical voters on the campaign trail in 2020. In other words, there is unanimity in Congress, as there was in May 2018, that Trump should not sacrifice his leverage for a deal limited to Boeings and soybeans but should instead obtain victories on core disagreements: national security, foreign exchange rates, market access, and intellectual property. The MOUs – now “agreements” – that are reportedly being drafted address these core disagreements. Therefore signs of progress in producing final drafts should be seen as evidence that the odds of a final deal are improving: Forced tech transfers: Raising equity caps for foreign investment in key sectors is a headline way to reduce the leverage that Chinese companies have used to extract technology (Table 3). There are other arbitrary licensing and permitting practices that could also be curtailed. Table 3Foreign Investment Equity Caps China-U.S. Trade: A Structural Deal? China-U.S. Trade: A Structural Deal? Intellectual property: China’s purchases of U.S. intellectual property are conspicuously small, especially when considering that China is not yet an innovation giant in terms of international IP licensing receipts relative to the amount that it pays out.3 If the U.S.’s IP trade balance with China were equivalent to its balance with South Korea, it would result in a $36.7 billion improvement in the U.S. balance (Chart 11). Chart 11 Services: China is a major growing market for U.S. service exports but Washington frequently complains about denial of market access, for instance in financial and legal services. Services exports also underscore the above point about intellectual property (Chart 12). Chart 12 Foreign exchange: The U.S. is asking China not to maintain a more market-oriented currency but rather to promote a stronger currency relative to the dollar, perhaps referring to the yuan’s undervaluation according to purchasing power parity (Chart 13). It is impossible for Trump to accept a deal that does not include some text on the currency since he has hammered the issue of Chinese currency manipulation on the campaign trail and is trying to talk down the greenback. South Korea agreed to a currency annex and Japan is likely to do the same, and that makes it even less feasible for China to get off the hook. Non-tariff barriers: The U.S. has a long roster of complaints about China’s trade practices, including subsidies to state-owned companies, dumping, and inadequate health, environmental, and labor standards. Changing these practices will raise the costs of production in China. Changes to non-tariff barriers can also increase American market access in a way that goes beyond the simultaneous demands for lower tariffs on U.S. imports (Chart 14). Chart 13China Not Off The Hook On Currency Manipulation China Not Off The Hook On Currency Manipulation China Not Off The Hook On Currency Manipulation Chart 14 If China pledges improvements on these issues then it could justify substantial tariff rollback, perhaps the entire 10% tariff on $200 billion. This scenario, the best version of our 25% trade deal scenario, would comprise a positive surprise for markets in the current environment. It still could fall short of a grand bargain justifying a total tariff rollback, unless implementation is swift and decisive, which is highly improbable. A lesser but still market-positive surprise would be an American agreement to reduce pressure on Huawei (comparable to the deal reached in May 2018 on that other besieged Chinese tech company, ZTE). Still less positive outcomes would be a partial reduction in the tariff rate or an American agreement to expand or expedite exemptions to existing tariffs. The last would indicate relatively low expectations about the depth of China’s concessions. Bottom Line: Until the actual details of any Chinese structural concessions and American tariff relief are known, the durability of any U.S.-China trade deal cannot be assessed. This warrants at best cautious optimism regarding the trade talks: the two sides are working on draft texts about the right things. Investors will not be positively surprised by an agreement that does not include structural concessions of the nature above as well as substantial American tariff rollback, which is needed to verify American confidence in China’s commitments. Investment Implications The outcomes that are currently available to investors leave substantial room for prolonged trade policy uncertainty (Chart 15). Any further extension of trade talks means that uncertainty will persist at current levels. A deal that includes limited structural concessions means that uncertainty will ease but remain elevated relative to pre-2018 levels, due to the persistent threat of Section 301 tariffs that the U.S. will wield in order to secure Chinese concessions. A failure of negotiations means a dramatic escalation in uncertainty; this is our 30% risk due to the geopolitical and technological struggle underway. We allot only a 10% chance to a grand bargain that includes deep structural reforms and full tariff rollback. Chart 15Trade Uncertainty Will Persist Trade Uncertainty Will Persist Trade Uncertainty Will Persist As a final consideration, investors should be aware that the better the U.S.-China trade deal, the higher the probability that Trump imposes tariffs on auto and auto part imports pursuant to the Section 232 investigation into the impact of these imports on national security, which concluded February 17. The Commerce Department’s recommendations are still unknown but it is not a stretch to imagine that the administration has discovered a national security threat. However, this determination alone does not require Trump to impose tariffs. If he is to impose, he has until May 18 to do so. The full value of U.S. auto and auto parts imports is larger than the value of Chinese imports that currently fall under Trump’s tariffs. It is very unlikely that the U.S. will match this size of tariffs against the EU (Chart 16). Certainly it will not do so if the U.S.-China conflict remains unresolved, since it seems a stretch to believe the equity market can sustain both trade wars at the same time. The Trump administration has already found that the China tariffs without negotiations were disruptive to the U.S. equity market and economy, and the U.S. has told the European Union and Japan that it will not impose tariffs as long as negotiations are underway. To do so would be practically to foreclose the possibility of a trade agreement prior to the 2020 election, at least in the case of the EU. Chart 16 Thus it is only after any U.S.-China deal that the risk of EU impositions rises. We take the view that Japan is likely to conclude an agreement with the Trump administration quickly, possibly even before the China deal but almost certainly shortly afterwards. Trump administration officials will also likely intervene on behalf of South Korea due to the strategic need to stay on the same page regarding North Korea, which itself led to the successful renegotiation of the two countries’ existing trade agreement last year (which included autos but did not explicitly exempt Korea from Section 232 auto tariffs). This leaves the EU, which is quarreling with the U.S. over a range of issues: trade, Iran, Russia, China, Brexit, Syria, etc. Our base case is that the U.S. will not impose sweeping Section 232 tariffs on the EU due to the negative impact this would have on the U.S. auto industry, which is rooted in the electorally critical Midwest; the aforementioned risk to the equity market and economy; and the fact that neither the U.S. public, nor Congress, nor the corporate lobby are supportive of a trade war with Europe. Tariffs would also harm the Trump administration’s broader attempt to galvanize Western countries against the strategic challenge of China, Russia, and Iran. Nevertheless, the risk of such sweeping tariffs is non-trivial because Trump does not face legal constraints in imposing them – he can act unilaterally, just as he did with the early Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum, which broadly remain in force. A negative trade shock to the EU at a time of economic weakness may not overwhelm the positive trade impact of a U.S.-China deal in the context of China’s policy stimulus, but it would take the shine off of any risk-on exuberance following a China deal. In the end, China’s risk assets are likely to continue benefiting from domestic policy stimulus plus the 70% likelihood that tariffs will not go up. BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy remains cyclically positive Chinese stocks relative to emerging market stocks over a 12-month horizon given China’s more robust stimulus measures and the above trade view. We are shifting our long China Play Index to a trade as opposed to a portfolio hedge. We are also long copper. We would anticipate that the trend for CNY-USD will be flat to up as long as negotiations proceed in a positive manner. BCA’s China Investment Strategy is tactically positive Chinese stocks relative to the global MSCI benchmark on the same basis, but is awaiting more evidence of a stabilization in the earnings outlook before recommending that investors shift to an outright overweight over the cyclical horizon. Still, our China team placed Chinese stocks on upgrade watch in their February 27 Weekly Report, signaling that the next change in recommended allocation is likely to be higher rather than lower.4   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com     Footnote 1 News reports had indicated that Lighthizer and his Chinese counterparts were negotiating six MOUs – on forced tech transfer and cyber theft, intellectual property rights, services, currency, agriculture, and non-tariff barriers to trade – in pursuit of the March 1 deadline. When asked about the time horizon of the MOUs at a public press conference with the Chinese trade delegation in the White House, President Trump said that MOUs were not the same as a “final, binding contract” that he wanted as an outcome of the talks. Lighthizer spoke up in defense of MOUs, leading the president to publicly disagree with him. Lighthizer then declared that the term “MOU” would no longer be used and instead the two sides would use the term “trade agreement.” 2 This was the same summit at which Xi Jinping declared in the Rose Garden that China had no intention to militarize the South China Sea – an even more frequently cited example of divergence between China’s official rhetoric and policy actions on matters of strategic consequence. 3 Please see Scott Kennedy, “The Fat Tech Dragon: Benchmarking China’s Innovation Drive,” CSIS, August 2017, available at www.csis.org. 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report “Dealing With A (Largely) False Narrative,” dated February 27, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights So What? Global divergence will persist beyond the near term. Why? China’s stimulus will be disappointing unless things get much worse. U.S.-China trade war will reignite and strategic tensions will continue. European risks are limited short-term, but will surge without reform. U.S. assets will outperform; oil and the yen will rise; the pound is a long-term play; EM pain will continue. Feature The year 2019 will be one of considerable geopolitical uncertainty. Three issues dominate our Outlook, with low-conviction views on all three questions: Question 1: How much will China stimulate? Question 2: Will the trade war abate? Question 3: Is Europe a Black Swan or a Red Herring? U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD The main story in 2018 was policy divergence. American policymakers ramped up stimulus – both through the profligate tax cuts and fiscal spending – at the same time that Chinese policymakers stuck to their guns on de-levering the economy. The consequence of this policy mix was that the synchronized global recovery of late 2016 and 2017 evolved into a massive outperformance by the U.S. economy (Chart 1). The Fed responded to the bullish domestic conditions with little regard for the global economy, causing the DXY to rally from a 2018 low of 88.59 in February to 97.04 today. Fiscal Conservatism Melts Away Fiscal Conservatism Melts Away Republicans Change Their Minds When In Power Republicans Change Their Minds When In Power While the policy divergence narrative appears to be macroeconomic in nature, it is purely political. There is nothing cyclical about the ‘U.S.’ economic outperformance in 2018. President Donald Trump campaigned on an economic populist agenda and then proceeded to deliver on it throughout 2017 and 2018. He faced little opposition from fiscal conservatives, mainly because fiscal conservativism melts away from the public discourse when budget deficits are low (Chart 2) and when the president is a Republican (Chart 3). Meanwhile, Chinese policymakers have decided to tolerate greater economic pain in an effort to escape the Middle Income Trap (Chart 4). They believe this trap will envelop them if they cannot grow the economy without expanding the already-massive build-up of leverage (Chart 5). 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge Debt Still Rising Debt Still Rising Geopolitics is not just about “things blowing up somewhere in the desert.” In today’s world, emblematized by paradigm shifts, politicians are more than ever in the driver’s seat. While technocrats respond to macroeconomic factors, politicians respond to political and geopolitical constraints. Few investment narratives last much longer than a year and policy divergence is coming to a close. Will the Fed pause given the turn in global growth? Will China respond with effective stimulus in 2019? If the answer to both questions is yes, global risk assets could light up in the next quarter and potentially beyond. Already EM has outperformed DM assets for a month and some canaries in the coal mine for global growth – like the performance of Swedish economic indicators – signal that the outperformance is real. Global Economic Divergence Will Continue Global Economic Divergence Will Continue 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge We are skeptical that the move is sustainable beyond a quarter or two (Chart 6). As our colleague Peter Berezin has highlighted, the market is pricing less than one hike in 2019 (Chart 7). Regardless, the impact on the U.S. dollar, remains muted, with the DXY at 97.04. This suggests that the backing off that the Fed may or may not have already done is still not enough from the perspective of weakening global growth (Chart 8). Global risk assets need more from the Fed than what the market is already pricing. And with U.S. inflationary pressures building (Chart 9), the BCA House View expects to see multiple Fed hikes in 2019, disappointing investors bullish on EM and global risk assets. Global Growth Leading Indicators Global Growth Leading Indicators Does The Fed Like It Hot? Does The Fed Like It Hot? With our Fed view set by the House View, we therefore turn to where we can add value. To this end, the most important question of 2018 largely remains the same in 2019: How much will China stimulate? Question 1: How Much Will China Stimulate In 2019? bca.gps_sr_2018_12_14_c10 bca.gps_sr_2018_12_14_c10 China is undoubtedly already stimulating, with a surge in local government bond issuance earlier this year and a bottoming in the broad money impulse (Chart 10). M2 is in positive territory. However, the effort can best be characterized as tepid, with a late-year collapse in bond issuance (Chart 11) and a still-negative total social financing (TSF) impulse (Chart 12). TSF is the broadest measure of private credit in China’s economy.   2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge China's Total Credit Is Weak China's Total Credit Is Weak We expect a surge in TSF in Q1, but this is a normal seasonal effect. A typical Q1 credit surge will not be enough to set global risk assets alight for very long, particularly if the market has already priced in as much of a “pause” from the Fed as we are going to get. Investors should specifically focus on new local government bond issuance and whether the “shadow financing” component of TSF gets a bid, since the primary reason for the weakness in TSF over the past year is the government’s crackdown on shadow lending. As Chart 13A & B shows, it was new local government bonds that led the way for stimulus efforts in 2015, followed by a surge in both bank lending and shadow lending in 2016. Don't Focus Just On TSF... Don't Focus Just On TSF... ...But Shadow Financing In Particular ...But Shadow Financing In Particular We would also expect further monetary policy easing, with extra RRR cuts or even a benchmark policy rate cut. However, monetary policy has been easy all year and yet the impact on credit growth has remained muted. This begs two important questions: Is the credit channel impaired? A slew of macroprudential reforms – which we have dubbed China’s “Preemptive Dodd-Frank” – may have impaired the flow of credit in the system. The official policy of “opening the front door, closing the back door” has seen bank loans pick up modestly but shadow lending has been curtailed (Chart 14A & B). This way of controlling the rise of leverage has its costs. For private enterprises – with poor access to the official banking sector – the shadow financial system was an important source of funding over the past several years. Opening The Front Door... Opening The Front Door... ...Closing The Back Door ...Closing The Back Door Is policy pushing on a string? An even more dire scenario would be if China’s credit channel is not technically, but rather psychologically, impaired. Multiple reasons may be to blame: a negative net return on the assets of state-owned enterprises (Chart 15); widespread trade war worries; mixed signals from policymakers; or a general lack of confidence in the political direction of the country. The rising M2/M1 ratio suggests that the overall economy’s “propensity to save” is rising (Chart 16). Old China Is A Zombie China Old China Is A Zombie China Propensity To Save Propensity To Save Why would Chinese policymakers keep their cool despite a slow pickup in credit growth? Are they not concerned about unemployment, social unrest, and instability? Of course, they are. But Chinese policymakers are not myopic. They also want to improve potential GDP over the long run. Table 1China: The Trend In Domestic Demand, And The Outlook For Trade, Is Negative 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge So far, the economy has weathered the storm relatively well. First, eight out of ten of our China Investment Strategy’s housing price indicators (Table 1) are flat-to-up – although it is true that the October deterioration in floor space started and especially floor space sold (Chart 17) is cause for concern. If and when the housing market weakens further, stimulus will be used to offset it, despite the fact that the government is attempting to prevent a sharp increase in prices at the same time. With so much of China’s middle-class savings invested in the housing market, the key pillar of socio-economic stability is therefore real estate. A Possible Clue For China Stimulusr A Possible Clue For China Stimulusr Second, credit has fueled China’s “old economy,” but policymakers want to buoy “new China” (Chart 18). This means that measures to boost consumption and the service sector economy will be emphasized in new rounds of stimulus, as has occurred thus far (tax cuts, tariff cuts, deregulation, etc). This kind of stimulus is not great news for global risk assets leveraged to “old China,” such as EM and industrial metals. Rebalancing Of The Chinese Economy Rebalancing Of The Chinese Economy Third, policymakers are not exclusively focused on day-to-day stability but are also focused on the decades-long perseverance of China’s political model. And that means moving away from leverage and credit as the sole fuel for the economy. This is not just about the Middle Income Trap, it is also about national security and ultimately sovereignty. Relying on corporate re-levering for stimulus simply doubles-down on the current economic model, which is still export-oriented given that most investment is geared toward the export sector. But this also means that China will be held hostage to foreign demand and thus geopolitical pressures, a fact that has been revealed this year through the protectionism of the White House. As such, moving away from the investment-led growth model and towards a more endogenous, consumer-led model is not just good macro policy, it makes sense geopolitically as well. Will the trade war – or the current period of trade truce – change Chinese policymakers’ decision-making? We do not see why it would. First, if the trade truce evolves into a trade deal, the expected export shock will not happen (Chart 19) and thus major stimulative measures would be less necessary. Second, if we understand correctly why policymakers have cited leverage as an “ill” in the first place, then we would assume that they would use the trade war as an excuse for the pain that they themselves have instigated. In other words, the trade war with the U.S. gives President Xi Jinping the perfect excuse for the slowdown, one that draws attention from the real culprit: domestic rebalancing. Trump's Initial Tariffs Soon To Be Felt Trump's Initial Tariffs Soon To Be Felt Bottom Line: Since mid-2018, we have been asking clients to focus on our “Stimulus Overshoot” checklist (Table 2). We give the first item – “broad money and/or total credit growth spike” – a premier spot on the list. If a surge in total credit occurs, we will know that policymakers are throwing in the towel and stimulating in a major way. It will be time to turn super-positive on global risk assets, beyond a mere tactical trade, as a cyclical view at that point. Note that if one had gone long EM in early February 2016, when January data revealed a truly epic TSF splurge, one would not have been late to the rally. Table 2Will China’s Stimulus Overshoot In 2019? 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge Our low-conviction view, at the moment, is that the increase in credit growth that we will see in Q1 will be seasonal – the usual frontloading of lending at the beginning of the year – rather than an extraordinary surge that would signal a policy change. A modest increase in credit growth will not be enough to spark a sustainable – year-long – rally in global risk assets. The Fed has already backed off as far as the market is concerned. As such, a pickup in Chinese credit could temporarily excite investors. But global stabilization may only embolden the Fed to refocus on tightening after a Q1 pause. Question 2: Will The Trade War Abate? The first question for investors when it comes to the trade war is “Why should we care?” Sure, trade policy uncertainty appears to have correlated with the underperformance of global equity indices relative to the U.S. (Chart 20). However, such market action was as much caused by our policy divergence story – being as it is deeply negative for EM assets – as by a trade war whose impact on the real economy has not yet been felt. U.S. Is 'Winning' The Trade War U.S. Is 'Winning' The Trade War Nonetheless, we do believe that getting the trade war “right” is a big call for 2019. First, while the impact of the U.S.-China trade war has been minimal thus far, it is only because China front-loaded its exports ahead of the expected tariffs, cut interbank rates and RRRs, accelerated local government spending, and allowed CNY/USD to depreciate by 10%. A restart of trade tensions that leads to further tariffs will make frontloading untenable over time, whereas further currency depreciation would be severely debilitating for EMs. We doubt the sustainability of the trade truce for three reasons: U.S. domestic politics: The just-concluded midterm election saw no opposition to President Trump on trade. The Democratic Party candidates campaigned against the president on a range of issues, but not on his aggressive China policy. Polling from the summer also shows that a majority of American voters consider trade with China unfair (Chart 21). In addition, President Trump will walk into the 2020 election with a wider trade deficit, due to his own stimulative economic policy (Chart 22). He will need to explain why he is “losing” on the one measure of national power that he campaigned on in 2016. Structural trade tensions: Ahead of the G20 truce, the U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer issued a hawkish report that concluded that China has not substantively changed any of the trade practices that initiated U.S. tariffs. Lighthizer has been put in charge of the current trade negotiations, which is a step-up in intensity from Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who was in charge of the failed May 2018 round. Geopolitical tensions: The G20 truce did not contain any substantive resolution to the ongoing strategic tensions between the U.S. and China, such as in the South China Sea. Beyond traditional geopolitics, tensions are increasingly involving high-tech trade and investment between the two countries and American allegations of cyber theft and spying by China. The recent arrest of Huawei’s CFO in Canada, on an American warrant, will likely deepen this high-tech conflict in the short term. 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge Trade Deficit To Rise Despite Tariffs Trade Deficit To Rise Despite Tariffs Since the G20 truce with Xi, President Trump has seen no significant pickup in approval ratings (Chart 23). Given that the median American voter has embraced protectionism – against China at least – we would not expect any. Meanwhile, U.S. equities have sold off, contrary to what President Trump, or his pro-trade advisors, likely expected in making the G20 decision to delay tariffs. Appeasing China Doesn't Pay Appeasing China Doesn't Pay At some point, President Trump will realize that he risks considerable political capital on a trade deal with China that very few voters actually want or that the U.S. intelligence and defense community supports. Democrats did not oppose his aggressive China policy in the midterm election because they know that the median voter does not want it. As such, it is guaranteed that Trump’s 2020 Democratic Party opponent will accuse him of “surrender,” or at least “weakness.” If, over the next quarter, the economic and market returns on his gambit are paltry, we would expect President Trump to end the truce. Furthermore, we believe that a substantive, and long-lasting, trade deal is unlikely given the mounting tensions between China and the U.S. These tensions are not a product of President Trump, but are rather a long-run, structural feature of the twenty-first century that we have been tracking since 2012.1 Tensions are likely to rise in parallel to the trade talks on the technology front. We expect 2019 to be the year when investors price in what we have called Bifurcated Capitalism: the segmentation of capital, labor, and trade flows into geopolitically adversarial – and yet capitalist in nature – economic blocs. Entire countries and sectors may become off-limits to Western investors and vice-versa for their Chinese counterparts. Countries will fall into either the Tencent and Huawei bloc or the Apple and Ericsson bloc. This development is different from the Cold War. Note our emphasis on capitalism in the term Bifurcated Capitalism. The Soviet Union was obviously not capitalist, and clients of BCA did not have interests in its assets in the 1970s and 1980s. Trade between Cold War economic blocs was also limited, particularly outside of commodities. The closest comparison to the world we now inhabit is that of the nineteenth century. Almost all global powers were quite capitalist at the time, but they engaged in imperialism in order to expand their economic spheres of influence and thus economies of scale. In the twenty-first century, Africa and Asia – the targets of nineteenth century imperialism – may be replaced with market share wars in novel technologies and the Internet. This will put a ceiling on how much expansion tech and telecommunication companies can expect in the competing parts of Bifurcated Capitalism. The investment consequences of this concept are still unclear. But what is clear is that American policymakers are already planning for some version of the world we are describing. The orchestrated effort by the U.S. intelligence community to encourage its geopolitical allies to ban the use of Huawei equipment in their 5G mobile networks suggests that there are limits to the current truce ever becoming a sustainable deal. So does the repeated use of economic sanctions originally designed for Iran and Russia against Chinese companies. President Trump sets short- and medium-term policies given that he is the president. However, the intelligence and defense communities have “pivoted to Asia” gradually since 2012. This shift has occurred because the U.S. increasingly sees China as a peer competitor, for the time being confined in East Asia but with intentions of projecting power globally. To what extent could President Trump produce a trade deal with Xi that also encompasses a change in the U.S. perception of China as an adversary? We assign a low probability to it. As such, President Xi has little reason to give in to U.S. pressure on trade, as he knows that the geopolitical and technology pressure will continue. In fact, President Xi may have all the reason to double-down on his transformative reforms, which would mean more pain for high-beta global plays. Bottom Line: What may have appeared as merely a trade conflict has evolved into a broad geopolitical confrontation. President Trump has little reason to conclude a deal with China by March. Domestic political pressures are not pushing in the direction of the deal, while America’s “Deep State” is eager for a confrontation with China. Furthermore, with President Trump “blinking” on Iranian sanctions, his administration has implicitly acknowledged the constraints discouraging a deeper involvement in the Middle East. This puts the geopolitical focus squarely on China. Question 3: Is Europe a Black Swan or a Red Herring? The last two years have been a dud in Europe. Since the Brexit referendum in mid-2016, European politics have not been a catalyst for global markets, save for an Italy-induced sell-off or two. This could substantively change in 2019. And, as with the first two questions, the results could be binary. On one hand, there is the positive scenario where the stalled and scaled-back reforms on the banking union and Euro Area budget get a shot in the arm in the middle of the year. On the other hand, the negative scenario would see European-wide reforms stall, leaving the continent particularly vulnerable as the next global recession inevitably nears. At the heart of the binary distribution is the broader question of whether populism in Europe is trending higher. Most commentators and our clients would say yes, especially after the protests and rioting in Paris over the course of November. But the answer is more complicated than that. While populists have found considerable success in the ballot box (Chart 24), they have not managed to turn sentiment in Europe against the currency union (Chart 25). Even in Italy, which has a populist coalition government in power, the support for currency union is at 61%, the highest since 2012. This number has apparently risen since populists took over. Anti-Establishment Parties Are Rising... Anti-Establishment Parties Are Rising... ...But Euroskepticism Is A Failed Strategy ...But Euroskepticism Is A Failed Strategy What explains this divergence? Effectively, Europe’s establishment parties are being blamed for a lot of alleged ills, liberal immigration policy first amongst them. However, European integration remains favored across the ideological spectrum. Few parties that solely focus on Euroskepticism have any chance of winning power, something that both Lega and Five Star Movement found out in Italy. Italy’s Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini confirmed his conversion away from Euroskepticism by stating that he wants to “reform the EU from the inside” and that it was time to give the “Rome-Berlin axis” another go.2 Salvini is making a bet – correct in our view – that by moderating Lega’s populism on Europe, he can capture the center ground and win the majority in the next Italian election, which could happen as soon as 2019. As such, we don’t think that the “rise of populism” in Europe is either dramatic or market-relevant. In fact, mainstream parties are quickly adopting parts of the anti-establishment agenda, particularly on immigration, in a bid to recoup lost voters. A much bigger risk for Europe than populism is stagnation on the reform front, a perpetual Eurosclerosis that leaves the bloc vulnerable in the next recession. What Europe needs is the completion of a backstop to prevent contagion. Such a backstop necessitates greatly enhancing the just-passed banking union reforms. The watered-down reforms did not include a common backstop to the EU’s single resolution fund nor a deposit union. A working group will report on both by June 2019, with a potential legislative act set for some time in 2024. What could be a sign that the EU is close to a grand package of reforms in 2019? We see three main avenues. First, a political shift in Germany. Investors almost had one, with conservative Friedrich Merz coming close to defeating Merkel’s hand-picked successor Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer (also known as AKK) for the leadership of the ruling Christian Democratic Union (CDU). Merz combined a right-leaning anti-immigrant stance with staunch pro-European integration outlook. It is unclear whether AKK will be willing to make the same type of “grand bargain” with the more conservative factions of the CDU electorate. However, AKK may not have a choice, with both Alternative for Germany (AfD) and the Green Party nibbling at the heels of the right-of-center CDU and left-of-center Social-Democratic Party (SPD) (Chart 26). The rise of the Green party is particularly extraordinary, suggesting that a larger portion of the German electorate is radically Europhile rather than Euroskeptic. AKK may have to adopt Merz’s platform and then push for EU reforms. Challengers To The Established Parties Challengers To The Established Parties Second, French President Emmanuel Macron may have to look abroad for relevance. With his reform agenda stalled and political capital drained, it would make sense for Macron to spend 2019 and beyond on European reforms. Third, a resolution of the Brexit debacle. The longer the saga with the U.K. drags on, the less focus there will be in Europe on integration of the Euro Area. If the U.K. decides to extend the current negotiating period, it may even have to hold elections for the European Parliament. As such, we are not focusing on the budget crisis in Italy – our view that Rome is “bluffing” is coming to fruition –or a potential early election in Spain. And we are definitely not focusing on the EU Parliamentary election in May. These will largely be red herrings. The real question is whether European policymakers will finally have a window of opportunity for strategic reforms. And that will require Merkel, AKK, and Macron to expend whatever little political capital they have left and invest it in restructuring European institutions. Finally, a word on Europe’s role in the global trade war. While Europe is a natural ally for the U.S. against China – given its institutional connections, existing alliance, and trade surplus with the latter and deficit with the former (Chart 27) – we believe that the odds are rising of a unilateral tariff action by the U.S. on car imports. EU Surplus With U.S. Pays For Deficit With China EU Surplus With U.S. Pays For Deficit With China This is because the just-concluded NAFTA deal likely raised the cost of vehicle production in the trade bloc, necessitating import tariffs in order for the deal to make sense from President Trump’s set of political priorities. The Trump administration may not have the stomach for a long-term trade war with Europe, but it can shake up the markets with actions in that direction. Bottom Line: In the near term, there are no existential political risks in Europe in 2019. As such, investors who are bullish on European assets should not let geopolitics stand in the way of executing on their sentiment. We remain cautious for macroeconomic reasons, namely that Europe is a high-beta DM play that needs global growth to outperform in order to catch a bid. However, 2019 is a make-or-break year on key structural reforms in Europe. Without more work on the banking union – and without greater burden sharing, broadly defined – the Euro Area will remain woefully unprepared for the next global recession. Question 4: Will Brexit Happen? Given the volume of market-relevant geopolitical issues, we have decided to pose (and attempt to answer) five additional questions for 2019. We start with Brexit. Prime Minister Theresa May has asked for a delay to the vote in the House of Commons on the Withdrawal Treaty, which she would have inevitably lost. The defeat of the subsequent leadership challenge is not confidence-inspiring as the vote was close and a third of Tory MPs voted against her. May likely has until sometime in January to pass the EU Withdrawal Agreement setting out the terms of Brexit, given that all other EU member states have to get it through their parliaments before the Brexit date on March 29. The real question is whether any deal can get through Westminster. The numbers are there for the softest of soft Brexits, the so-called Norway+ option where the U.K. effectively gets the same deal as Norway, if May convinces the Labour Party to break ranks. Such a deal would entail Common Market access, but at the cost of having to pay essentially for full EU membership with no ability to influence the regulatory policies that London would have to abide by. The alternative is to call for a new election – which may usher the even less pro-Brexit Labour Party into power – or to delay Brexit for a more substantive period of time, or simply to buckle under the pressure and call for a second referendum. We disagree that the delay signals that the “no deal Brexit,” or the “Brexit cliff,” is nigh. Such an outcome is in nobody’s interest and both May and the EU can offer delays to ensure that it does not happen. Whatever happens, one thing is clear: the median voter is turning forcefully towards Bremain (Chart 28). It will soon become untenable to delay the second referendum. And even if the House of Commons passes the softest of Soft Brexit deals, we expect that the Norway+ option will prove to be unacceptable when Westminster has to vote on it again in two or three year’s time. Bremain Surging Structurally Bremain Surging Structurally Is it time to buy the pound, particularly cable, which is cheap on a long-term basis (Chart 29)? It is a tough call. On one hand, our confidence that the U.K. ultimately has to remain in the EU is rising. However, to get there, the U.K. may need one last major dose of volatility, either in the form of a slow-burn crisis caused by Tory indecision or in the form of a far-left Labour government that tries its own hand at Brexit while pursuing a 1970s style left-wing economic agenda. Can any investor withstand this kind of volatility in the short and potentially long-ish term? Only the longest of the long-term investors can.  Start Buying The Pound Start Buying The Pound Question 5: Will Oil Prices Rally Substantively In 2019? Several risks to oil supply remain for 2019. First, there is little basis for stabilization in Venezuelan oil production, and further deterioration is likely (Chart 30). Second, sectarian tensions in Iraq remain unresolved. Third, supply risks in other geopolitical hot spots – like Nigeria and Libya – could surprise in 2019. Venezuela: On A Downward Spiral Venezuela: On A Downward Spiral The most pressing geopolitical issue, however, is a decision on the Iranian sanction waivers. President Trump induced considerable market-volatility in 2019 by signaling that he would use “maximum pressure” against Iran. As a result, the risk premium contribution to the oil price – illustrated in Chart 31 by the red bar – rose throughout 2018, only to collapse as the White House offered six-month sanction waivers. Not only did the risk premium dissipate, but Saudi Arabia then scrambled to reverse the production surge it had instituted to offset the Iran sanctions. 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge We agree with BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy that oil market fundamentals are tight and numerous supply risks loom. We also struggle to see why President Trump will seek to pick a fight with Iran in the summer of 2019. Our suspicion is that if President Trump was afraid of a gasoline-price spike right after the midterm election, why would he not “blink” at the end of the spring? Not only will the U.S. summer driving season be in full swing – a time of peak U.S. gasoline demand – but the 2020 election primaries will only be six months away. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that OPEC and Russia will do the U.S. president’s bidding by turning on the taps to offset any unforeseen supply losses in 2019. They did not do so even when President Trump asked, very nicely, ahead of the just-concluded Vienna meeting. Once Trump prioritized domestic politics over Saudi geopolitical interests – by backing away from his maximum pressure tactic against Iran – he illustrated to Riyadh that his administration is about as reliable of an ally as the Obama White House. Meanwhile, his ardent defense of Riyadh in the Khashoggi affair, at a cost of domestic political capital, means that he lost the very leverage that he could have used to pressure Saudi Arabia. We therefore remain cautiously bullish on oil prices in 2019, but with the caveat that a big-bang surge in prices due to a U.S.-Iran confrontation – our main risk for 2019 just a few months ago – is now less likely. Question 6: Will Impeachment Become A Risk In 2019? While we have no way to forecast the Mueller investigation, it is undoubtedly clear that risks are rising on the U.S. domestic front. President Trump’s popularity among GOP voters is elevated and far from levels needed to convince enough senators to remove him from power (Chart 32). However, a substantive finding by Mueller may leave the moderate Democrats in the House with no choice but to pursue impeachment. 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge This may rattle the market for both headline and fundamental reasons. The headline reasons are obvious. The fundamental reasons have to do with the looming stimulus cliff in 2020. A pitched battle between the House Democrats and the White House would make cooperation on another substantive stimulus effort less likely and thus a recession in 2020 more likely. The market may start pricing in such an outcome at some point in 2019. Furthermore, sentiment could be significantly impacted by a protracted domestic battle that impairs Trump’s domestic agenda. President Bill Clinton sought relevance abroad amidst his impeachment proceedings by initiating an air war against Yugoslavia. President Trump may do something similar. There is also an unclear relationship between domestic tensions and trade war. On one hand, President Trump may want a clear win and so hasten a deal. On the other hand, he may want to extend the trade war to encourage citizens to “rally around the flag” and show his geopolitical mettle amidst a distracting “witch hunt.” While we have faded these domestic risks in 2017 and 2018, we think that it may be difficult to do so in 2019. We stick by our view that previous impeachment bouts in the U.S. have had a temporary effect on the markets. But if market sentiment is already weakened by global growth and end of cycle concerns, a political crisis may become a bearish catalyst.  Question 7: What About Japan? Japan faces higher policy uncertainty in 2019, after a period of calm following the 2015-16 global turmoil. We expect to see “peak Shinzo Abe” – in the sense that after this year, his political capital will be spent and all that will remain will be for him to preside over the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. The primary challenge for Abe is getting his proposed constitutional revisions passed despite economic headwinds. Assuming he goes forward, he must get a two-thirds vote in both houses of parliament plus a majority vote in a popular referendum. The referendum is unscheduled but could coincide with the July upper house elections. This will be a knife’s edge vote according to polling. If he holds the referendum and it passes, he will have achieved the historic goal of making Japan a more “normal” country, i.e. capable of revising its own constitution and maintaining armed forces. He will never outdo this. If he fails, he will become a lame duck – if he does not retire immediately like David Cameron or Matteo Renzi. And if he delays the revisions, he could miss his window of opportunity.   This uncertain domestic political context will combine with China/EM and trade issues that entail significant risks for Japan and upward pressure on the yen. Hence government policy will resume its decidedly reflationary tilt in 2019. It makes little sense for Abe, looking to his legacy, to abandon his constitutional dream while agreeing to raise the consumption tax from 8% to 10% as expected in October. We would take the opposite side of the bet: he is more likely to delay the tax hike than he is to abandon constitutional revision. If Abe becomes a lame duck, whether through a failed referendum, a disappointing election, or a consumption tax hike amid a slowdown, it is important for investors to remember that “Abenomics” will smell just as sweet by any other name. Japan experienced a paradigm shift after a series of “earthquakes” from 2008-12. No leader is likely to raise taxes or cut spending aggressively, and monetary policy will remain ultra-easy for quite some time. The global backdrop is negative for Japan but its policy framework will act as a salve. Question 8: Are There Any Winners In EM? We think that EM and global risk assets could have a window of outperformance in early 2019. However, given the persistence of the policy divergence narrative, it will be difficult to see EM substantively outperforming DM over the course of 2019. Mexico Over Brazil That said, we do like a few EM plays in 2019. In particular, we believe that investors are overly bullish on Brazil and overly bearish on Mexico. In both countries, we think that voters turned to anti-establishment candidates due to concerns over violence and corruption. However, Brazilian President-elect Jair Bolsonaro has a high hurdle to clear. He must convince a traditionally fractured Congress to pass a complex and painful pension reform. In other words, Bolsonaro must show that he can do something in order to justify a rally that has already happened in Brazilian assets. In Mexico, on the other hand, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) remains constrained by the constitution (which he will be unable to change), the National Supreme Court of Justice, and political convention that Mexico is right-of-center on economic policy (an outwardly left-wing president has not won an election since 1924). In other words, AMLO has to show that he can get out of his constraints in order to justify a selloff that has already happened. To be clear, we are not saying that AMLO is a positive, in the absolute, for Mexico. The decision to scrap the Mexico City airport plans, to sideline the finance ministry from key economic decisions, and to threaten a return to an old-school PRI-era statism is deeply concerning. At the same time, we are not of the view that Bolsonaro is, in the absolute, a negative for Brazil. Rather, we are pointing out that the relative investor sentiment is overly bullish Bolsonaro versus AMLO. Especially given that both presidents remain constrained by domestic political intricacies and largely campaigned on the same set of issues that have little to do with their perceived economic preferences. They also face respective median voters that are diametrically opposed to their economic agendas – Bolsonaro, we think, is facing a left-leaning median voter, whereas the Mexican median voter is center-right. The macroeconomic perspective also supports our relative call. If our view on China and the Fed is correct, high-beta plays like Brazil will suffer, while an economy that is tied-to-the-hip of the U.S., like Mexico, ought to outperform EM peers. Mexico Finally Has Some Positive Carry Mexico Finally Has Some Positive Carry As such, we are putting a long MXN/BRL trade on, to capture this sentiment gap between the two EM markets. Investors will be receiving positive carry on Mexico relative to Brazil for the first time in a long time (Chart 33). The relative change in the current account balance also favors Mexico (Chart 34). Finally, the technicals of the trade look good as well (Chart 35). Mexico Looks Good On Current Account Mexico Looks Good On Current Account Technicals Look Good Too Technicals Look Good Too South Korea Over Taiwan  Diplomacy remains on track on the Korean peninsula, despite U.S.-China tensions in other areas. Ultimately China believes that peace on the peninsula will remove the raison d’être of American troops stationed there. Moreover, Beijing has witnessed the U.S.’s resolve in deterring North Korean nuclear and missile tests and belligerent rhetoric. It will want to trade North Korean cooperation for a trade truce. By contrast, if Trump’s signature foreign policy effort fails, he may well lash out. We view deeply discounted South Korean equities as a long-term buy relative to other EMs. Taiwan, by contrast, is a similar EM economy but faces even greater short-term risks than South Korea. In the next 13-month period, the Tsai Ing-wen administration, along with the Trump administration, could try to seize a rare chance to upgrade diplomatic and military relations. This could heighten cross-strait tensions and lead to a geopolitical incident or crisis. More broadly, U.S.-China trade and tech tensions create a negative investment outlook for Taiwan. Thailand Over India Five state elections this fall have turned out very badly for Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his National Democratic Alliance (NDA). These local elections have a negative impact, albeit a limited one, on Modi’s and the NDA’s reelection chances in the federal election due in April (or May). Nevertheless, it is entirely possible to lose Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan while still winning a majority in the Lok Sabha – this is what happened to the Indian National Congress in 2004 and 2009. So far federal election opinion polling suggests anything from a hung parliament to a smaller, but still substantial, BJP majority. Modi was never likely to maintain control of 20 out of 29 states for very long, nor to repeat his party’s sweeping 2014 victory. He was also never likely to continue his reform push uninhibited in the lead up to the general election. Nevertheless, the resignation of Reserve Bank of India Governor Urjit Patel on December 10 is a very worrisome sign. Given that Indian stocks are richly valued, and that we expect oil prices to drift upwards, we remain negative on India until the opportunity emerges to upgrade in accordance with our long-term bullish outlook. By contrast, we see the return to civilian rule in Thailand as a market-positive event in the context of favorable macro fundamentals. Thai elections always favor the rural populist “red” movement of the Shinawatra family, but presumably the military junta would not hold elections if it thought it had not sufficiently adjusted the electoral system in favor of itself and its political proxies. Either way, the cycle of polarization and social unrest will only reemerge gradually, so next year Thailand will largely maintain policy continuity and its risk assets will hold up better than most other EMs.   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      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?” dated September 25, 2012, Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “Searing Sun: Japan-China Conflict Heating Up,” dated January 25, 2013, “Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II,” dated November 6, 2015, and “The South China Sea: Smooth Sailing?” dated March 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2      Yes. He literally said that.   Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights So What? Global divergence will persist beyond the near term. Why? China’s stimulus will be disappointing unless things get much worse. U.S.-China trade war will reignite and strategic tensions will continue. European risks are limited short-term, but will surge without reform. U.S. assets will outperform; oil and the yen will rise; the pound is a long-term play; EM pain will continue. Feature The year 2019 will be one of considerable geopolitical uncertainty. Three issues dominate our Outlook, with low-conviction views on all three questions: Question 1: How much will China stimulate? Question 2: Will the trade war abate? Question 3: Is Europe a Black Swan or a Red Herring? Chart 1U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD The main story in 2018 was policy divergence. American policymakers ramped up stimulus – both through the profligate tax cuts and fiscal spending – at the same time that Chinese policymakers stuck to their guns on de-levering the economy. The consequence of this policy mix was that the synchronized global recovery of late 2016 and 2017 evolved into a massive outperformance by the U.S. economy (Chart 1). The Fed responded to the bullish domestic conditions with little regard for the global economy, causing the DXY to rally from a 2018 low of 88.59 in February to 97.04 today. Chart 2Fiscal Conservatism Melts Away Fiscal Conservatism Melts Away Fiscal Conservatism Melts Away Chart 3Republicans Change Their Minds When In Power Republicans Change Their Minds When In Power Republicans Change Their Minds When In Power While the policy divergence narrative appears to be macroeconomic in nature, it is purely political. There is nothing cyclical about the ‘U.S.’ economic outperformance in 2018. President Donald Trump campaigned on an economic populist agenda and then proceeded to deliver on it throughout 2017 and 2018. He faced little opposition from fiscal conservatives, mainly because fiscal conservativism melts away from the public discourse when budget deficits are low (Chart 2) and when the president is a Republican (Chart 3). Meanwhile, Chinese policymakers have decided to tolerate greater economic pain in an effort to escape the Middle Income Trap (Chart 4). They believe this trap will envelop them if they cannot grow the economy without expanding the already-massive build-up of leverage (Chart 5). Chart 4Policymakers Fear The Middle Income Trap 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge Chart 5Debt Still Rising Debt Still Rising Debt Still Rising Geopolitics is not just about “things blowing up somewhere in the desert.” In today’s world, emblematized by paradigm shifts, politicians are more than ever in the driver’s seat. While technocrats respond to macroeconomic factors, politicians respond to political and geopolitical constraints. Few investment narratives last much longer than a year and policy divergence is coming to a close. Will the Fed pause given the turn in global growth? Will China respond with effective stimulus in 2019? If the answer to both questions is yes, global risk assets could light up in the next quarter and potentially beyond. Already EM has outperformed DM assets for a month and some canaries in the coal mine for global growth – like the performance of Swedish economic indicators – signal that the outperformance is real. Chart 6Global Economic Divergence Will Continue Global Economic Divergence Will Continue Global Economic Divergence Will Continue Chart 7The Market Has Already Priced-In A Fed Pause 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge We are skeptical that the move is sustainable beyond a quarter or two (Chart 6). As our colleague Peter Berezin has highlighted, the market is pricing less than one hike in 2019 (Chart 7). Regardless, the impact on the U.S. dollar, remains muted, with the DXY at 97.04. This suggests that the backing off that the Fed may or may not have already done is still not enough from the perspective of weakening global growth (Chart 8). Global risk assets need more from the Fed than what the market is already pricing. And with U.S. inflationary pressures building (Chart 9), the BCA House View expects to see multiple Fed hikes in 2019, disappointing investors bullish on EM and global risk assets. Chart 8Global Growth Leading Indicators Global Growth Leading Indicators Global Growth Leading Indicators Chart 9Does The Fed Like It Hot? Does The Fed Like It Hot? Does The Fed Like It Hot? With our Fed view set by the House View, we therefore turn to where we can add value. To this end, the most important question of 2018 largely remains the same in 2019: How much will China stimulate? Question 1: How Much Will China Stimulate In 2019? Chart 10A Ray Of Hope From Broad Money bca.gps_sr_2018_12_14_c10 bca.gps_sr_2018_12_14_c10 China is undoubtedly already stimulating, with a surge in local government bond issuance earlier this year and a bottoming in the broad money impulse (Chart 10). M2 is in positive territory. However, the effort can best be characterized as tepid, with a late-year collapse in bond issuance (Chart 11) and a still-negative total social financing (TSF) impulse (Chart 12). TSF is the broadest measure of private credit in China’s economy.   Chart 11Fiscal Policy Becomes More Proactive? 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge Chart 12China's Total Credit Is Weak China's Total Credit Is Weak China's Total Credit Is Weak We expect a surge in TSF in Q1, but this is a normal seasonal effect. A typical Q1 credit surge will not be enough to set global risk assets alight for very long, particularly if the market has already priced in as much of a “pause” from the Fed as we are going to get. Investors should specifically focus on new local government bond issuance and whether the “shadow financing” component of TSF gets a bid, since the primary reason for the weakness in TSF over the past year is the government’s crackdown on shadow lending. As Chart 13A & B shows, it was new local government bonds that led the way for stimulus efforts in 2015, followed by a surge in both bank lending and shadow lending in 2016. Chart 13ADon't Focus Just On TSF... Don't Focus Just On TSF... Don't Focus Just On TSF... Chart 13B...But Shadow Financing In Particular ...But Shadow Financing In Particular ...But Shadow Financing In Particular We would also expect further monetary policy easing, with extra RRR cuts or even a benchmark policy rate cut. However, monetary policy has been easy all year and yet the impact on credit growth has remained muted. This begs two important questions: Is the credit channel impaired? A slew of macroprudential reforms – which we have dubbed China’s “Preemptive Dodd-Frank” – may have impaired the flow of credit in the system. The official policy of “opening the front door, closing the back door” has seen bank loans pick up modestly but shadow lending has been curtailed (Chart 14A & B). This way of controlling the rise of leverage has its costs. For private enterprises – with poor access to the official banking sector – the shadow financial system was an important source of funding over the past several years. Chart 14AOpening The Front Door... Opening The Front Door... Opening The Front Door... Chart 14B...Closing The Back Door ...Closing The Back Door ...Closing The Back Door Is policy pushing on a string? An even more dire scenario would be if China’s credit channel is not technically, but rather psychologically, impaired. Multiple reasons may be to blame: a negative net return on the assets of state-owned enterprises (Chart 15); widespread trade war worries; mixed signals from policymakers; or a general lack of confidence in the political direction of the country. The rising M2/M1 ratio suggests that the overall economy’s “propensity to save” is rising (Chart 16). Chart 15Old China Is A Zombie China Old China Is A Zombie China Old China Is A Zombie China Chart 16Propensity To Save Propensity To Save Propensity To Save Why would Chinese policymakers keep their cool despite a slow pickup in credit growth? Are they not concerned about unemployment, social unrest, and instability? Of course, they are. But Chinese policymakers are not myopic. They also want to improve potential GDP over the long run. Table 1China: The Trend In Domestic Demand, And The Outlook For Trade, Is Negative 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge So far, the economy has weathered the storm relatively well. First, eight out of ten of our China Investment Strategy’s housing price indicators (Table 1) are flat-to-up – although it is true that the October deterioration in floor space started and especially floor space sold (Chart 17) is cause for concern. If and when the housing market weakens further, stimulus will be used to offset it, despite the fact that the government is attempting to prevent a sharp increase in prices at the same time. With so much of China’s middle-class savings invested in the housing market, the key pillar of socio-economic stability is therefore real estate. Chart 17A Possible Clue For China Stimulusr A Possible Clue For China Stimulusr A Possible Clue For China Stimulusr Second, credit has fueled China’s “old economy,” but policymakers want to buoy “new China” (Chart 18). This means that measures to boost consumption and the service sector economy will be emphasized in new rounds of stimulus, as has occurred thus far (tax cuts, tariff cuts, deregulation, etc). This kind of stimulus is not great news for global risk assets leveraged to “old China,” such as EM and industrial metals. Chart 18Rebalancing Of The Chinese Economy Rebalancing Of The Chinese Economy Rebalancing Of The Chinese Economy Third, policymakers are not exclusively focused on day-to-day stability but are also focused on the decades-long perseverance of China’s political model. And that means moving away from leverage and credit as the sole fuel for the economy. This is not just about the Middle Income Trap, it is also about national security and ultimately sovereignty. Relying on corporate re-levering for stimulus simply doubles-down on the current economic model, which is still export-oriented given that most investment is geared toward the export sector. But this also means that China will be held hostage to foreign demand and thus geopolitical pressures, a fact that has been revealed this year through the protectionism of the White House. As such, moving away from the investment-led growth model and towards a more endogenous, consumer-led model is not just good macro policy, it makes sense geopolitically as well. Will the trade war – or the current period of trade truce – change Chinese policymakers’ decision-making? We do not see why it would. First, if the trade truce evolves into a trade deal, the expected export shock will not happen (Chart 19) and thus major stimulative measures would be less necessary. Second, if we understand correctly why policymakers have cited leverage as an “ill” in the first place, then we would assume that they would use the trade war as an excuse for the pain that they themselves have instigated. In other words, the trade war with the U.S. gives President Xi Jinping the perfect excuse for the slowdown, one that draws attention from the real culprit: domestic rebalancing. Chart 19Trump's Initial Tariffs Soon To Be Felt Trump's Initial Tariffs Soon To Be Felt Trump's Initial Tariffs Soon To Be Felt Bottom Line: Since mid-2018, we have been asking clients to focus on our “Stimulus Overshoot” checklist (Table 2). We give the first item – “broad money and/or total credit growth spike” – a premier spot on the list. If a surge in total credit occurs, we will know that policymakers are throwing in the towel and stimulating in a major way. It will be time to turn super-positive on global risk assets, beyond a mere tactical trade, as a cyclical view at that point. Note that if one had gone long EM in early February 2016, when January data revealed a truly epic TSF splurge, one would not have been late to the rally. Table 2Will China’s Stimulus Overshoot In 2019? 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge Our low-conviction view, at the moment, is that the increase in credit growth that we will see in Q1 will be seasonal – the usual frontloading of lending at the beginning of the year – rather than an extraordinary surge that would signal a policy change. A modest increase in credit growth will not be enough to spark a sustainable – year-long – rally in global risk assets. The Fed has already backed off as far as the market is concerned. As such, a pickup in Chinese credit could temporarily excite investors. But global stabilization may only embolden the Fed to refocus on tightening after a Q1 pause. Question 2: Will The Trade War Abate? The first question for investors when it comes to the trade war is “Why should we care?” Sure, trade policy uncertainty appears to have correlated with the underperformance of global equity indices relative to the U.S. (Chart 20). However, such market action was as much caused by our policy divergence story – being as it is deeply negative for EM assets – as by a trade war whose impact on the real economy has not yet been felt. Chart 20U.S. Is 'Winning' The Trade War U.S. Is 'Winning' The Trade War U.S. Is 'Winning' The Trade War Nonetheless, we do believe that getting the trade war “right” is a big call for 2019. First, while the impact of the U.S.-China trade war has been minimal thus far, it is only because China front-loaded its exports ahead of the expected tariffs, cut interbank rates and RRRs, accelerated local government spending, and allowed CNY/USD to depreciate by 10%. A restart of trade tensions that leads to further tariffs will make frontloading untenable over time, whereas further currency depreciation would be severely debilitating for EMs. We doubt the sustainability of the trade truce for three reasons: U.S. domestic politics: The just-concluded midterm election saw no opposition to President Trump on trade. The Democratic Party candidates campaigned against the president on a range of issues, but not on his aggressive China policy. Polling from the summer also shows that a majority of American voters consider trade with China unfair (Chart 21). In addition, President Trump will walk into the 2020 election with a wider trade deficit, due to his own stimulative economic policy (Chart 22). He will need to explain why he is “losing” on the one measure of national power that he campaigned on in 2016. Structural trade tensions: Ahead of the G20 truce, the U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer issued a hawkish report that concluded that China has not substantively changed any of the trade practices that initiated U.S. tariffs. Lighthizer has been put in charge of the current trade negotiations, which is a step-up in intensity from Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who was in charge of the failed May 2018 round. Geopolitical tensions: The G20 truce did not contain any substantive resolution to the ongoing strategic tensions between the U.S. and China, such as in the South China Sea. Beyond traditional geopolitics, tensions are increasingly involving high-tech trade and investment between the two countries and American allegations of cyber theft and spying by China. The recent arrest of Huawei’s CFO in Canada, on an American warrant, will likely deepen this high-tech conflict in the short term. Chart 21Americans Are Focused On China As Unfair 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge Chart 22Trade Deficit To Rise Despite Tariffs Trade Deficit To Rise Despite Tariffs Trade Deficit To Rise Despite Tariffs Since the G20 truce with Xi, President Trump has seen no significant pickup in approval ratings (Chart 23). Given that the median American voter has embraced protectionism – against China at least – we would not expect any. Meanwhile, U.S. equities have sold off, contrary to what President Trump, or his pro-trade advisors, likely expected in making the G20 decision to delay tariffs. Chart 23Appeasing China Doesn't Pay Appeasing China Doesn't Pay Appeasing China Doesn't Pay At some point, President Trump will realize that he risks considerable political capital on a trade deal with China that very few voters actually want or that the U.S. intelligence and defense community supports. Democrats did not oppose his aggressive China policy in the midterm election because they know that the median voter does not want it. As such, it is guaranteed that Trump’s 2020 Democratic Party opponent will accuse him of “surrender,” or at least “weakness.” If, over the next quarter, the economic and market returns on his gambit are paltry, we would expect President Trump to end the truce. Furthermore, we believe that a substantive, and long-lasting, trade deal is unlikely given the mounting tensions between China and the U.S. These tensions are not a product of President Trump, but are rather a long-run, structural feature of the twenty-first century that we have been tracking since 2012.1 Tensions are likely to rise in parallel to the trade talks on the technology front. We expect 2019 to be the year when investors price in what we have called Bifurcated Capitalism: the segmentation of capital, labor, and trade flows into geopolitically adversarial – and yet capitalist in nature – economic blocs. Entire countries and sectors may become off-limits to Western investors and vice-versa for their Chinese counterparts. Countries will fall into either the Tencent and Huawei bloc or the Apple and Ericsson bloc. This development is different from the Cold War. Note our emphasis on capitalism in the term Bifurcated Capitalism. The Soviet Union was obviously not capitalist, and clients of BCA did not have interests in its assets in the 1970s and 1980s. Trade between Cold War economic blocs was also limited, particularly outside of commodities. The closest comparison to the world we now inhabit is that of the nineteenth century. Almost all global powers were quite capitalist at the time, but they engaged in imperialism in order to expand their economic spheres of influence and thus economies of scale. In the twenty-first century, Africa and Asia – the targets of nineteenth century imperialism – may be replaced with market share wars in novel technologies and the Internet. This will put a ceiling on how much expansion tech and telecommunication companies can expect in the competing parts of Bifurcated Capitalism. The investment consequences of this concept are still unclear. But what is clear is that American policymakers are already planning for some version of the world we are describing. The orchestrated effort by the U.S. intelligence community to encourage its geopolitical allies to ban the use of Huawei equipment in their 5G mobile networks suggests that there are limits to the current truce ever becoming a sustainable deal. So does the repeated use of economic sanctions originally designed for Iran and Russia against Chinese companies. President Trump sets short- and medium-term policies given that he is the president. However, the intelligence and defense communities have “pivoted to Asia” gradually since 2012. This shift has occurred because the U.S. increasingly sees China as a peer competitor, for the time being confined in East Asia but with intentions of projecting power globally. To what extent could President Trump produce a trade deal with Xi that also encompasses a change in the U.S. perception of China as an adversary? We assign a low probability to it. As such, President Xi has little reason to give in to U.S. pressure on trade, as he knows that the geopolitical and technology pressure will continue. In fact, President Xi may have all the reason to double-down on his transformative reforms, which would mean more pain for high-beta global plays. Bottom Line: What may have appeared as merely a trade conflict has evolved into a broad geopolitical confrontation. President Trump has little reason to conclude a deal with China by March. Domestic political pressures are not pushing in the direction of the deal, while America’s “Deep State” is eager for a confrontation with China. Furthermore, with President Trump “blinking” on Iranian sanctions, his administration has implicitly acknowledged the constraints discouraging a deeper involvement in the Middle East. This puts the geopolitical focus squarely on China. Question 3: Is Europe a Black Swan or a Red Herring? The last two years have been a dud in Europe. Since the Brexit referendum in mid-2016, European politics have not been a catalyst for global markets, save for an Italy-induced sell-off or two. This could substantively change in 2019. And, as with the first two questions, the results could be binary. On one hand, there is the positive scenario where the stalled and scaled-back reforms on the banking union and Euro Area budget get a shot in the arm in the middle of the year. On the other hand, the negative scenario would see European-wide reforms stall, leaving the continent particularly vulnerable as the next global recession inevitably nears. At the heart of the binary distribution is the broader question of whether populism in Europe is trending higher. Most commentators and our clients would say yes, especially after the protests and rioting in Paris over the course of November. But the answer is more complicated than that. While populists have found considerable success in the ballot box (Chart 24), they have not managed to turn sentiment in Europe against the currency union (Chart 25). Even in Italy, which has a populist coalition government in power, the support for currency union is at 61%, the highest since 2012. This number has apparently risen since populists took over. Chart 24Anti-Establishment Parties Are Rising... Anti-Establishment Parties Are Rising... Anti-Establishment Parties Are Rising... Chart 25...But Euroskepticism Is A Failed Strategy ...But Euroskepticism Is A Failed Strategy ...But Euroskepticism Is A Failed Strategy What explains this divergence? Effectively, Europe’s establishment parties are being blamed for a lot of alleged ills, liberal immigration policy first amongst them. However, European integration remains favored across the ideological spectrum. Few parties that solely focus on Euroskepticism have any chance of winning power, something that both Lega and Five Star Movement found out in Italy. Italy’s Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini confirmed his conversion away from Euroskepticism by stating that he wants to “reform the EU from the inside” and that it was time to give the “Rome-Berlin axis” another go.2 Salvini is making a bet – correct in our view – that by moderating Lega’s populism on Europe, he can capture the center ground and win the majority in the next Italian election, which could happen as soon as 2019. As such, we don’t think that the “rise of populism” in Europe is either dramatic or market-relevant. In fact, mainstream parties are quickly adopting parts of the anti-establishment agenda, particularly on immigration, in a bid to recoup lost voters. A much bigger risk for Europe than populism is stagnation on the reform front, a perpetual Eurosclerosis that leaves the bloc vulnerable in the next recession. What Europe needs is the completion of a backstop to prevent contagion. Such a backstop necessitates greatly enhancing the just-passed banking union reforms. The watered-down reforms did not include a common backstop to the EU’s single resolution fund nor a deposit union. A working group will report on both by June 2019, with a potential legislative act set for some time in 2024. What could be a sign that the EU is close to a grand package of reforms in 2019? We see three main avenues. First, a political shift in Germany. Investors almost had one, with conservative Friedrich Merz coming close to defeating Merkel’s hand-picked successor Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer (also known as AKK) for the leadership of the ruling Christian Democratic Union (CDU). Merz combined a right-leaning anti-immigrant stance with staunch pro-European integration outlook. It is unclear whether AKK will be willing to make the same type of “grand bargain” with the more conservative factions of the CDU electorate. However, AKK may not have a choice, with both Alternative for Germany (AfD) and the Green Party nibbling at the heels of the right-of-center CDU and left-of-center Social-Democratic Party (SPD) (Chart 26). The rise of the Green party is particularly extraordinary, suggesting that a larger portion of the German electorate is radically Europhile rather than Euroskeptic. AKK may have to adopt Merz’s platform and then push for EU reforms. Chart 26Challengers To The Established Parties Challengers To The Established Parties Challengers To The Established Parties Second, French President Emmanuel Macron may have to look abroad for relevance. With his reform agenda stalled and political capital drained, it would make sense for Macron to spend 2019 and beyond on European reforms. Third, a resolution of the Brexit debacle. The longer the saga with the U.K. drags on, the less focus there will be in Europe on integration of the Euro Area. If the U.K. decides to extend the current negotiating period, it may even have to hold elections for the European Parliament. As such, we are not focusing on the budget crisis in Italy – our view that Rome is “bluffing” is coming to fruition –or a potential early election in Spain. And we are definitely not focusing on the EU Parliamentary election in May. These will largely be red herrings. The real question is whether European policymakers will finally have a window of opportunity for strategic reforms. And that will require Merkel, AKK, and Macron to expend whatever little political capital they have left and invest it in restructuring European institutions. Finally, a word on Europe’s role in the global trade war. While Europe is a natural ally for the U.S. against China – given its institutional connections, existing alliance, and trade surplus with the latter and deficit with the former (Chart 27) – we believe that the odds are rising of a unilateral tariff action by the U.S. on car imports. Chart 27EU Surplus With U.S. Pays For Deficit With China EU Surplus With U.S. Pays For Deficit With China EU Surplus With U.S. Pays For Deficit With China This is because the just-concluded NAFTA deal likely raised the cost of vehicle production in the trade bloc, necessitating import tariffs in order for the deal to make sense from President Trump’s set of political priorities. The Trump administration may not have the stomach for a long-term trade war with Europe, but it can shake up the markets with actions in that direction. Bottom Line: In the near term, there are no existential political risks in Europe in 2019. As such, investors who are bullish on European assets should not let geopolitics stand in the way of executing on their sentiment. We remain cautious for macroeconomic reasons, namely that Europe is a high-beta DM play that needs global growth to outperform in order to catch a bid. However, 2019 is a make-or-break year on key structural reforms in Europe. Without more work on the banking union – and without greater burden sharing, broadly defined – the Euro Area will remain woefully unprepared for the next global recession. Question 4: Will Brexit Happen? Given the volume of market-relevant geopolitical issues, we have decided to pose (and attempt to answer) five additional questions for 2019. We start with Brexit. Prime Minister Theresa May has asked for a delay to the vote in the House of Commons on the Withdrawal Treaty, which she would have inevitably lost. The defeat of the subsequent leadership challenge is not confidence-inspiring as the vote was close and a third of Tory MPs voted against her. May likely has until sometime in January to pass the EU Withdrawal Agreement setting out the terms of Brexit, given that all other EU member states have to get it through their parliaments before the Brexit date on March 29. The real question is whether any deal can get through Westminster. The numbers are there for the softest of soft Brexits, the so-called Norway+ option where the U.K. effectively gets the same deal as Norway, if May convinces the Labour Party to break ranks. Such a deal would entail Common Market access, but at the cost of having to pay essentially for full EU membership with no ability to influence the regulatory policies that London would have to abide by. The alternative is to call for a new election – which may usher the even less pro-Brexit Labour Party into power – or to delay Brexit for a more substantive period of time, or simply to buckle under the pressure and call for a second referendum. We disagree that the delay signals that the “no deal Brexit,” or the “Brexit cliff,” is nigh. Such an outcome is in nobody’s interest and both May and the EU can offer delays to ensure that it does not happen. Whatever happens, one thing is clear: the median voter is turning forcefully towards Bremain (Chart 28). It will soon become untenable to delay the second referendum. And even if the House of Commons passes the softest of Soft Brexit deals, we expect that the Norway+ option will prove to be unacceptable when Westminster has to vote on it again in two or three year’s time. Chart 28Bremain Surging Structurally Bremain Surging Structurally Bremain Surging Structurally Is it time to buy the pound, particularly cable, which is cheap on a long-term basis (Chart 29)? It is a tough call. On one hand, our confidence that the U.K. ultimately has to remain in the EU is rising. However, to get there, the U.K. may need one last major dose of volatility, either in the form of a slow-burn crisis caused by Tory indecision or in the form of a far-left Labour government that tries its own hand at Brexit while pursuing a 1970s style left-wing economic agenda. Can any investor withstand this kind of volatility in the short and potentially long-ish term? Only the longest of the long-term investors can.  Chart 29Start Buying The Pound Start Buying The Pound Start Buying The Pound Question 5: Will Oil Prices Rally Substantively In 2019? Several risks to oil supply remain for 2019. First, there is little basis for stabilization in Venezuelan oil production, and further deterioration is likely (Chart 30). Second, sectarian tensions in Iraq remain unresolved. Third, supply risks in other geopolitical hot spots – like Nigeria and Libya – could surprise in 2019. Chart 30Venezuela: On A Downward Spiral Venezuela: On A Downward Spiral Venezuela: On A Downward Spiral The most pressing geopolitical issue, however, is a decision on the Iranian sanction waivers. President Trump induced considerable market-volatility in 2019 by signaling that he would use “maximum pressure” against Iran. As a result, the risk premium contribution to the oil price – illustrated in Chart 31 by the red bar – rose throughout 2018, only to collapse as the White House offered six-month sanction waivers. Not only did the risk premium dissipate, but Saudi Arabia then scrambled to reverse the production surge it had instituted to offset the Iran sanctions. Chart 31Trump Sanctions Boosted Risk Premium 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge We agree with BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy that oil market fundamentals are tight and numerous supply risks loom. We also struggle to see why President Trump will seek to pick a fight with Iran in the summer of 2019. Our suspicion is that if President Trump was afraid of a gasoline-price spike right after the midterm election, why would he not “blink” at the end of the spring? Not only will the U.S. summer driving season be in full swing – a time of peak U.S. gasoline demand – but the 2020 election primaries will only be six months away. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that OPEC and Russia will do the U.S. president’s bidding by turning on the taps to offset any unforeseen supply losses in 2019. They did not do so even when President Trump asked, very nicely, ahead of the just-concluded Vienna meeting. Once Trump prioritized domestic politics over Saudi geopolitical interests – by backing away from his maximum pressure tactic against Iran – he illustrated to Riyadh that his administration is about as reliable of an ally as the Obama White House. Meanwhile, his ardent defense of Riyadh in the Khashoggi affair, at a cost of domestic political capital, means that he lost the very leverage that he could have used to pressure Saudi Arabia. We therefore remain cautiously bullish on oil prices in 2019, but with the caveat that a big-bang surge in prices due to a U.S.-Iran confrontation – our main risk for 2019 just a few months ago – is now less likely. Question 6: Will Impeachment Become A Risk In 2019? While we have no way to forecast the Mueller investigation, it is undoubtedly clear that risks are rising on the U.S. domestic front. President Trump’s popularity among GOP voters is elevated and far from levels needed to convince enough senators to remove him from power (Chart 32). However, a substantive finding by Mueller may leave the moderate Democrats in the House with no choice but to pursue impeachment. Chart 32Barometer Of Trump’s Survival 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge 2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge This may rattle the market for both headline and fundamental reasons. The headline reasons are obvious. The fundamental reasons have to do with the looming stimulus cliff in 2020. A pitched battle between the House Democrats and the White House would make cooperation on another substantive stimulus effort less likely and thus a recession in 2020 more likely. The market may start pricing in such an outcome at some point in 2019. Furthermore, sentiment could be significantly impacted by a protracted domestic battle that impairs Trump’s domestic agenda. President Bill Clinton sought relevance abroad amidst his impeachment proceedings by initiating an air war against Yugoslavia. President Trump may do something similar. There is also an unclear relationship between domestic tensions and trade war. On one hand, President Trump may want a clear win and so hasten a deal. On the other hand, he may want to extend the trade war to encourage citizens to “rally around the flag” and show his geopolitical mettle amidst a distracting “witch hunt.” While we have faded these domestic risks in 2017 and 2018, we think that it may be difficult to do so in 2019. We stick by our view that previous impeachment bouts in the U.S. have had a temporary effect on the markets. But if market sentiment is already weakened by global growth and end of cycle concerns, a political crisis may become a bearish catalyst.  Question 7: What About Japan? Japan faces higher policy uncertainty in 2019, after a period of calm following the 2015-16 global turmoil. We expect to see “peak Shinzo Abe” – in the sense that after this year, his political capital will be spent and all that will remain will be for him to preside over the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. The primary challenge for Abe is getting his proposed constitutional revisions passed despite economic headwinds. Assuming he goes forward, he must get a two-thirds vote in both houses of parliament plus a majority vote in a popular referendum. The referendum is unscheduled but could coincide with the July upper house elections. This will be a knife’s edge vote according to polling. If he holds the referendum and it passes, he will have achieved the historic goal of making Japan a more “normal” country, i.e. capable of revising its own constitution and maintaining armed forces. He will never outdo this. If he fails, he will become a lame duck – if he does not retire immediately like David Cameron or Matteo Renzi. And if he delays the revisions, he could miss his window of opportunity.   This uncertain domestic political context will combine with China/EM and trade issues that entail significant risks for Japan and upward pressure on the yen. Hence government policy will resume its decidedly reflationary tilt in 2019. It makes little sense for Abe, looking to his legacy, to abandon his constitutional dream while agreeing to raise the consumption tax from 8% to 10% as expected in October. We would take the opposite side of the bet: he is more likely to delay the tax hike than he is to abandon constitutional revision. If Abe becomes a lame duck, whether through a failed referendum, a disappointing election, or a consumption tax hike amid a slowdown, it is important for investors to remember that “Abenomics” will smell just as sweet by any other name. Japan experienced a paradigm shift after a series of “earthquakes” from 2008-12. No leader is likely to raise taxes or cut spending aggressively, and monetary policy will remain ultra-easy for quite some time. The global backdrop is negative for Japan but its policy framework will act as a salve. Question 8: Are There Any Winners In EM? We think that EM and global risk assets could have a window of outperformance in early 2019. However, given the persistence of the policy divergence narrative, it will be difficult to see EM substantively outperforming DM over the course of 2019. Mexico Over Brazil That said, we do like a few EM plays in 2019. In particular, we believe that investors are overly bullish on Brazil and overly bearish on Mexico. In both countries, we think that voters turned to anti-establishment candidates due to concerns over violence and corruption. However, Brazilian President-elect Jair Bolsonaro has a high hurdle to clear. He must convince a traditionally fractured Congress to pass a complex and painful pension reform. In other words, Bolsonaro must show that he can do something in order to justify a rally that has already happened in Brazilian assets. In Mexico, on the other hand, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) remains constrained by the constitution (which he will be unable to change), the National Supreme Court of Justice, and political convention that Mexico is right-of-center on economic policy (an outwardly left-wing president has not won an election since 1924). In other words, AMLO has to show that he can get out of his constraints in order to justify a selloff that has already happened. To be clear, we are not saying that AMLO is a positive, in the absolute, for Mexico. The decision to scrap the Mexico City airport plans, to sideline the finance ministry from key economic decisions, and to threaten a return to an old-school PRI-era statism is deeply concerning. At the same time, we are not of the view that Bolsonaro is, in the absolute, a negative for Brazil. Rather, we are pointing out that the relative investor sentiment is overly bullish Bolsonaro versus AMLO. Especially given that both presidents remain constrained by domestic political intricacies and largely campaigned on the same set of issues that have little to do with their perceived economic preferences. They also face respective median voters that are diametrically opposed to their economic agendas – Bolsonaro, we think, is facing a left-leaning median voter, whereas the Mexican median voter is center-right. The macroeconomic perspective also supports our relative call. If our view on China and the Fed is correct, high-beta plays like Brazil will suffer, while an economy that is tied-to-the-hip of the U.S., like Mexico, ought to outperform EM peers. Chart 33Mexico Finally Has Some Positive Carry Mexico Finally Has Some Positive Carry Mexico Finally Has Some Positive Carry As such, we are putting a long MXN/BRL trade on, to capture this sentiment gap between the two EM markets. Investors will be receiving positive carry on Mexico relative to Brazil for the first time in a long time (Chart 33). The relative change in the current account balance also favors Mexico (Chart 34). Finally, the technicals of the trade look good as well (Chart 35). Chart 34Mexico Looks Good On Current Account Mexico Looks Good On Current Account Mexico Looks Good On Current Account Chart 35Technicals Look Good Too Technicals Look Good Too Technicals Look Good Too South Korea Over Taiwan  Diplomacy remains on track on the Korean peninsula, despite U.S.-China tensions in other areas. Ultimately China believes that peace on the peninsula will remove the raison d’être of American troops stationed there. Moreover, Beijing has witnessed the U.S.’s resolve in deterring North Korean nuclear and missile tests and belligerent rhetoric. It will want to trade North Korean cooperation for a trade truce. By contrast, if Trump’s signature foreign policy effort fails, he may well lash out. We view deeply discounted South Korean equities as a long-term buy relative to other EMs. Taiwan, by contrast, is a similar EM economy but faces even greater short-term risks than South Korea. In the next 13-month period, the Tsai Ing-wen administration, along with the Trump administration, could try to seize a rare chance to upgrade diplomatic and military relations. This could heighten cross-strait tensions and lead to a geopolitical incident or crisis. More broadly, U.S.-China trade and tech tensions create a negative investment outlook for Taiwan. Thailand Over India Five state elections this fall have turned out very badly for Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his National Democratic Alliance (NDA). These local elections have a negative impact, albeit a limited one, on Modi’s and the NDA’s reelection chances in the federal election due in April (or May). Nevertheless, it is entirely possible to lose Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan while still winning a majority in the Lok Sabha – this is what happened to the Indian National Congress in 2004 and 2009. So far federal election opinion polling suggests anything from a hung parliament to a smaller, but still substantial, BJP majority. Modi was never likely to maintain control of 20 out of 29 states for very long, nor to repeat his party’s sweeping 2014 victory. He was also never likely to continue his reform push uninhibited in the lead up to the general election. Nevertheless, the resignation of Reserve Bank of India Governor Urjit Patel on December 10 is a very worrisome sign. Given that Indian stocks are richly valued, and that we expect oil prices to drift upwards, we remain negative on India until the opportunity emerges to upgrade in accordance with our long-term bullish outlook. By contrast, we see the return to civilian rule in Thailand as a market-positive event in the context of favorable macro fundamentals. Thai elections always favor the rural populist “red” movement of the Shinawatra family, but presumably the military junta would not hold elections if it thought it had not sufficiently adjusted the electoral system in favor of itself and its political proxies. Either way, the cycle of polarization and social unrest will only reemerge gradually, so next year Thailand will largely maintain policy continuity and its risk assets will hold up better than most other EMs.   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      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?” dated September 25, 2012, Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “Searing Sun: Japan-China Conflict Heating Up,” dated January 25, 2013, “Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II,” dated November 6, 2015, and “The South China Sea: Smooth Sailing?” dated March 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2      Yes. He literally said that.   Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights So What? The tech war will continue to disrupt the trade truce. Why? The U.S. and China have legitimate national security concerns about each other’s tech policies. The 90-day trade talks cannot succeed without some compromises on tech issues. Chinese structural reforms could also reduce U.S. concerns over tech transfer. Feature The fanfare over President Donald Trump’s tariff ceasefire, agreed at the G20 summit on December 1, has already proved short-lived. We know now that on the same day President Trump sat down with Chinese President Xi Jinping to negotiate the truce, Canadian authorities arrested Meng Wanzhou, the chief financial officer of Huawei, under a U.S. warrant. Huawei is the world’s biggest telecoms equipment maker, second-biggest smartphone maker, and one of China’s high-tech champions. So far the controversial arrest – which prompted Beijing to make representations to the U.S. ambassador – has not derailed the trade truce. China’s Commerce Ministry has announced that tariffs will be eased and imports of American goods will increase. The CNY-USD has climbed upwards despite a rocky global backdrop in financial markets (Chart 1). Chart 1Currency Part Of The Trade Truce? Currency Part Of The Trade Truce? Currency Part Of The Trade Truce? Nevertheless, Meng’s arrest calls attention to our chief reason for skepticism about the ability of the U.S. and China to conclude a substantive trade deal. In essence, “trade war” is a misnomer for a broader strategic conflict that is centered on the military-industrial balance rather than the trade balance. Trade War? Tech War! The historian Paul Kennedy, in his bestselling The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, argued that the history of competition between nations is determined by economic and technologically advanced industrial production.1 Eighteenth-century Britain defeated France; Ulysses S. Grant defeated Robert E. Lee; and the U.S., the allies, and Russia defeated Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. This thesis helps to explain why China’s recent technological acceleration has provoked a more aggressive reaction from the U.S. than its general economic rise over the past four decades. For example, while China is rapidly catching up to the U.S. in research and development spending, it is only spending about half as much as the U.S. relative to its overall economy (Chart 2). If it comes to match the U.S.’s ratio then it will overwhelm it in real R&D investment, at least in dollar value. And R&D is just one of many factors showing that China is eroding the U.S.’s global dominance. Chart 2The U.S. Has Some Competition The U.S. Has Some Competition The U.S. Has Some Competition In September, an inter-agency U.S. government task force initiated by President Trump’s Executive Order 13806 sought to assess the strength of the U.S. defense industrial base and resilience of its supply chains.2 The conclusion was that the U.S.’s military-industrial base is suffering from a series of macro headwinds that need to be addressed urgently. The report cited key domestic issues, such as the erosion of the U.S. manufacturing sector (Chart 3). It argued that the country is rapidly losing the ability to source its defense needs from home, develop human capital for future needs, and surge capabilities in a national emergency. Chart 3Decline Of The U.S. Manufacturing Base Decline Of The U.S. Manufacturing Base Decline Of The U.S. Manufacturing Base However, foreign competition, specifically “Chinese economic aggression,” also holds a central place in the report. The obvious risk is U.S. overreliance on singular Chinese sources for critical inputs, as highlighted during the 2010 rare earth embargo, when Beijing halted exports of these metals to Japan during a flare-up of their maritime-territorial dispute in the East China Sea (Chart 4). Chart 4China’s Rare Earth Supply Chain Leverage U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda The authors’ point is not simply that China’s near-monopoly of rare earths remains a threat to the U.S. supply chain, but that Beijing’s willingness to leverage its advantageous position in the supply chain to coerce its neighbors could be used in other areas. After all, Washington’s reliance on China is rapidly extending to industrial goods that are critical for U.S. defense supply chains, such as munitions for missiles. But Washington’s greatest fear is China’s move into higher-end manufacturing and information technology – and hence the flare-up in tensions over ZTE and Huawei this year. Bottom Line: Technological sophistication and economic output determine which nations rise and which fall over the course of history. While the U.S. can accept China’s eventually surpassing it in economic output, it cannot accept China’s technological superiority. This would translate into military and strategic supremacy over time. Semiconductors: The Next Battlefront While the U.S. lacks a national industrial policy, Beijing has made a concerted effort to promote indigenous production and innovation. The obvious example is Beijing’s state-backed ascent to the top of the global solar panel market. More broadly, China’s export growth has been fastest in the categories of goods where the U.S. has the greatest competitive advantage (Chart 5). Again, the U.S. concern is not market share in itself, but China’s ability to compete as an economically advanced “great power.” Chart 5China’s Comparative Advantage Threatens U.S. Global Market Share U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda Semiconductors are rapidly becoming the next major battleground, as China is trying to build its domestic industry and the U.S. is considering a new slate of export controls that could constrict the flow of computer chips to China.3 Semiconductors are critical as the building blocks of the next generation of technologies. The semiconductor content of the world’s electronic systems is ever rising. Breakthroughs such as artificial intelligence and the Internet of Things (IoT) promise to create a huge boost in demand for chips in the coming decades. China’s predicament is that the U.S. and its allies control 95% of the global semiconductor market (Chart 6), and yet China is the world’s largest importer, making up about a third of all imports, and its largest consumer (Chart 7). This is a dangerous vulnerability that China has been working to mitigate. Back in 2014 Beijing launched a $100-$150 billion semiconductor development program and has more or less stuck with it. The Made in China 2025 program projects that China will produce 70% of its demand for integrated circuits by 2030 (Chart 8). Chart 6China’s Chip Makers Are Still Small Fry U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda Chart 7China Accounts For 60% Of Global Semiconductor Demand U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda While China-domiciled chip companies have a long way to go, they are rising rapidly, and China has already become a big player in global semiconductor equipment manufacturing (18% market share to the U.S.’s 11%). Chart 8Made In China 2025 Targets U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda The problem for the U.S. is that semiconductors are one area where China runs a large trade deficit. Indeed, the U.S.’s share of China’s market is somewhat larger than the U.S. share of the global market, suggesting that the U.S. has not yet gotten shut out of the market (Chart 9). Chart 9U.S. Chips Still Have An Edge In China U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda Moreover, 60% of U.S. semi imports from China and 70% of exports are with “related parties,” i.e. U.S. corporate subsidiaries operating in China. The U.S.’s highly competitive semiconductor industry is the most exposed to the imposition of tariffs (Chart 10). This may explain why so many exemptions were granted to the U.S. Trade Representative’s third tariff schedule: out of $37 billion in semi-related Chinese imports to face tariffs, $22.9 billion were given waivers.4 Chart 10Tariffs Are Harmful To U.S. Chip Makers U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda The Barack Obama administration, initially faced with China’s disruptive entrance into this sector, determined that the U.S.’s best response would be to “win the race by running faster.” A council on science and technology warned that the U.S. would have to make extensive investments in STEM education, job retraining, manufacturing upgrades, research and development, international collaboration, and export promotion in order to stay ahead.5 However, these initiatives proved to be either too rhetorical (due to policy priorities and gridlock in Washington) or too slow-in-coming to make a difference in light of China’s rapid state-directed investments under the Xi Jinping administration. The Trump administration has obviously taken a more punitive approach. Trump originally focused on China’s alleged currency manipulation and criticized its large trade surpluses with the United States, but his focus has evolved since taking office. Under the influence of U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer – who is now heading up the 90-day talks – Trump’s complaints have given way to a Section 301 investigation into forced technology transfers, intellectual property theft, and indigenous innovation. This investigation eventually provided the justification for imposing tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese imports. Over this time period, it has become clear that there is considerable consensus across the U.S. government, on both sides of the aisle, to take a more aggressive approach with China that includes tariffs, sanctions, foreign investment reviews, and potentially new export controls. Significantly, the high-tech conflict has escalated separately from the trade war: it operates on a different timeline and according to a different set of interests. For example: The ZTE affair: The Commerce Department’s denial order against telecoms equipment maker ZTE came on April 15, even as the U.S. and China were trying (ultimately failing) to negotiate a trade deal to head off the Section 301 tariffs. CFIUS reforms: The U.S. Congress proceeded throughout the summer on its efforts to modernize the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, culminating in the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA). The Treasury Department released its implementing rules for the law in October, which will take effect even as trade negotiations get underway. The secretive body’s major actions have always been to block deals with China or related to China (Table 1). Table 1U.S. Foreign Investment Reviews Usually Hit China U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda Chipmaker sanctions: The U.S. Department of Justice indicted Chinese chipmaker Fujian Jinhua Integrated Circuit despite the November diplomatic “thaw” between the two countries in preparation for the G20 summit.6 This action occurred even as top American and Chinese diplomats and generals engaged in talks intended to simmer down strategic tensions in the South China Sea and elsewhere. New export controls: Despite the 90-day trade talks scheduled through March 1, the U.S. government is currently holding public hearings on whether to expand U.S. export controls to cover a range of emerging technologies. These hearings, to conclude on December 19, are being held pursuant to the Export Control Reform Act signed into law in August along with the CFIUS reform. Most recently, the arrest of Meng Wanzhou, the CFO of Huawei, falls into this trend – casting doubt on the viability of the tariff ceasefire and forthcoming trade talks. The incident highlights how the pace, scale, and momentum of the tech conflict are substantial and will be difficult to reverse. Furthermore, the U.S. is building alliances with like-minded Western countries in order to encourage a unified embargo of Huawei, ZTE, and potentially other Chinese tech companies. In particular the U.S. and its allies are trying to block Chinese companies out of their upcoming 5G networks. The U.S. banned Huawei back in 2012, but it fears that allied countries – particularly those that host U.S. military bases – will have their commercial networks compromised by Huawei.7 5G will enable superfast connections that form the basis of the Internet of Things. If Huawei is embedded in 5G networks, it could theoretically gain unprecedented penetration into Western society and industry. Since China’s Communist Party has prioritized the “fusion” of civilian capabilities with military,8 and since the country’s security forces and cyber regulators are authorized to have access to Chinese companies’ critical infrastructures and data at will, American government departments have been soliciting allied embassies not to adopt Huawei as a supplier despite its competitive pricing and customizability. Australia, New Zealand, and Japan have effectively banned Huawei from 5G for their own reasons; the U.K. and others are considering doing the same. The expansion of this coalition creates a difficult backdrop for negotiating a final trade deal by March 1. And yet the G20 ceasefire clearly improved the odds of such a deal. So what will break first, the tech war or the trade ceasefire? Bottom Line: The tech war is intensifying even as the trade war takes a pause. The large-scale U.S. mobilization of a coalition of states opposed to China’s growing presence is a bad sign for the 90-day talks, though so far they are intact. What A Deal Might Look Like To get a sense of whether the tech war will upend the trade talks, or vice versa, we need to consider what a final trade deal that includes the U.S.’s technological demands would look like. It is significant that on November 20, the eve of the G20 summit, U.S. Trade Representative Lighthizer released a report updating the findings of his Section 301 investigation.9 Lighthizer’s position matters because he is leading the 90-day talks and a critical swing player within the administration.3 Lighthizer’s report is essentially the guideline for the U.S. position in the 90-day talks. It makes the following key claims: China has not altered its abusive and discriminatory trade practices since the Section 301 investigation was concluded. These practices include grave accusations of cyber-theft and industrial espionage. The report also argues that China’s state-driven campaign to acquire tech through mergers and acquisitions is ongoing, despite the drop in Chinese mergers and acquisitions in the United States over 2017-18 (Chart 11). The reason, the USTR alleges, is that China tightened controls on investment in real estate and other non-strategic sectors (essentially capital flight from China), whereas Chinese investment to acquire sensitive technology in Silicon Valley is still intense and is being carried out increasingly through venture capital deals (Chart 12). Chart 11M&A No Longer China’s Best Way To Get Tech... U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda Chart 12...Now Venture Capital Deals Offer A Better Way U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda China’s concessions so far are “incremental” and in some cases deceptive. For instance, China’s propaganda outlets have de-emphasized the “Made in China 2025” program even though the government is continuing apace with this program, as well as other state-subsidized industrial programs that utilize stolen tech, such as the “Strategic Emerging Industries” (SEI) policy. Not only has China maintained certain targets for domestic market share in key technologies, but modifications to the program have in some cases increased these targets, such as in the production of “new energy vehicles” (Chart 13). Other concessions, such as on foreign investment equity caps, are similarly unsatisfactory thus far, according to the USTR. For instance, China’s pledge gradually to allow foreigners to operate wholly owned foreign ventures in the auto sector is said to arrive too late to benefit foreign car manufacturers, who have already spent decades building relationships under required joint ventures. Chart 13The Opposite Of U.S.-China Compromise U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda Trade partners share the U.S.’s concerns and are taking actions to address the same problems. In addition to the aforementioned actions on the 5G, the EU is developing foreign investment review procedures for the first time. Foreign industry groups share the U.S. business lobby’s fear of China’s forced tech transfers. Ultimately, Lighthizer’s report shows both that a trade deal is possible and that it will be extremely difficult to achieve: Possible, because while the report touches on deep structural factors underlying China’s practices, it emphasizes technical issues. Since these issues can often be adjusted by degree, there is ostensibly room to bargain. Difficult, because the main takeaway of the report is that the U.S. is giving China an ultimatum to stop cyber theft and industrial espionage. At minimum, the U.S. will demand assurances that China’s military, intelligence, and cyber agencies will rein in their hacking, spying, and tech acquisition campaigns. Other disputes are more susceptible to tradeoffs, but it will be hard for the U.S. to compromise on a list of grievances that so plainly enumerates national security violations. Can China really compromise on aspects of its Made in China 2025 industrial plan? Possibly. What China cannot compromise on is technological advancement in general, since its future economic sustainability and prosperity depend on it. So China may not accept getting shut out of investment opportunities in Silicon Valley. But if the 2025 plan provokes foreign sanctions, then it interferes with China’s technological advance, and hence can be compromised in order to achieve China’s true end. It makes sense for China and the U.S. to focus on the above tech issues – that is, for the “structural” part of the trade talks – as opposed to any macroeconomic structural demands that are more difficult to pull off at a time when China’s credit cycle is exceedingly weak and the economy is slowing. For instance, on China’s currency, while the U.S. will have to have some kind of agreement, and China has already shown it will allow some appreciation to appease the U.S., China is highly unlikely to agree to a dramatic, Plaza Accord-style currency appreciation. Therefore the negotiators will have to accept a nominal agreement on currency practices, perhaps as an addendum as was done with the U.S.-Korea trade renegotiation. As for other strategic tensions, China is continuing to support the Trump administration’s diplomatic efforts with North Korea. Therefore the U.S. is unlikely to get much traction on its demand that China remove missiles from the South China Sea. But unlike cyber theft and corporate hacking, the South China Sea could conceivably be set aside for the purposes of a short-term trade deal and left for later rounds of negotiations, much as Trump’s border wall with Mexico was set aside during the NAFTA renegotiation. Bottom Line: The U.S. is demanding that China (1) rein in its hacking and spying (2) shift its direct investment to less tech-sensitive sectors (3) adjust its Made in China targets to allow for more foreign competition (4) lower foreign investment equity restrictions. Our sense, from looking at these demands, is that a trade deal is possible. But given the underlying strategic rivalry, and the intensity of the tech conflict, we think it is more likely that the tech war will ultimately derail the trade talks than vice versa. China’s Reform And Opening Up Turns 40 Finally, a word about China’s reforms, which are no longer discussed much by investors, given that many of the ambitious pro-market reforms outlined at the 2013 Third Plenum flopped. This month marks the 40th anniversary of China’s “Reform and Opening Up” policies under Deng Xiaoping. The original Third Plenum, the third meeting of the 11th Central Committee at which Deng launched his sweeping policy changes, occurred on December 18-22, 1978. In the coming days, General Secretary Xi Jinping will commemorate the anniversary with a speech. Various party media outlets have been celebrating reform and opening up over the past few months. We have no interest in adding to the hype. But we do wish to highlight the interesting overlap in the deadline for the trade talks, March 1, with the annual meeting of China’s legislature, when new policy initiatives are rolled out. To conclude a substantive trade deal, China needs to make at least a few structural concessions. And to satisfy the Trump administration, these concessions will have to be implemented, not merely promised, since the administration has argued consistently that past dialogues have gone on forever without tangible results. The surest way to achieve such a compromise would be to strike a trade deal and then begin implementation at the appropriate time in China’s own political calendar, which would be the March NPC session – right after the 90-day negotiation period ends. What kind of structural changes might China make? Of the four points outlined above, the one that is likely to get the most traction is lifting foreign venture equity caps (Table 2). This would be substantive because it would remove an outstanding structural barrier to foreign market access – China’s prohibitive FDI environment – while depriving China of a means of pressuring firms into conducting technology transfers. It would also have the added benefit of attracting investment that could push up the renminbi. Table 2China’s Foreign Investment Equity Caps U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda In this context, we will watch very carefully both for progress in the 90-day talks and for any new and concrete proposals within President Xi’s upcoming economic statements. This includes the annual Central Economic Work Conference as well as the 40th anniversary of the historic Third Plenum. Bottom Line: The basis for a substantial U.S.-China trade deal would be Chinese structural changes to grant the U.S. (and others) greater market access for investment and a safer operating environment for foreign intellectual property. While we remain pessimistic, the reform agenda is important to watch. Investment Conclusions We continue to believe that a final trade deal between the U.S. and China is not likely forthcoming – at least not in the 90-day timeframe. The difficulty of working out a deal with the tech issues above should support this baseline view. Nevertheless, given that there is a possible path forward, and given that Chinese tech stocks are heavily oversold, is now a good time for investors to buy? Our view is no, on a cyclical 6-12 month horizon. Relative to the MSCI China investable index, tech stocks are not so badly beaten down as they first appear (Chart 14). The incredible earnings performance of this sector over the past five years has rolled over lately, as reflected in trailing earnings-per-share. This is true relative to U.S. tech stocks and the global equity market as well (Chart 15). Chart 14China's Tech Selloff In Line With Market China's Tech Selloff In Line With Market China's Tech Selloff In Line With Market Chart 15Tech Earnings Rolled Over Pre-Tariffs Tech Earnings Rolled Over Pre-Tariffs Tech Earnings Rolled Over Pre-Tariffs Since this is a decline in trailing earnings, it does not stem from the trade war, but rather from internal factors like consumer sentiment and retail sales (given the large weights of consumer-related firms like Alibaba and Tencent in this sector). Relative to global tech stocks, Chinese tech has definitely become less expensive after the recent selloff. But they are still not cheap (Chart 16). Given the headwinds outlined above – the fact that the tech war is more likely to derail the trade talks than the trade talks are likely to resolve the tech war – we think it is too early to bottom-feed. Chart 16Tech Stocks Not All That Cheap Tech Stocks Not All That Cheap Tech Stocks Not All That Cheap In short, U.S.-China tensions are rising when looked at from the perspective of, first, China’s aggressive state-backed industrial programs and technological acquisition and, second, the U.S.’s emerging technological protectionism and alliance formation. Two long-term implications can be drawn: First, many of the United States’ complaints stem not only from China taking advantage of its economic openness, but also from the U.S.’s low-regulation environment and opposition to state-driven industrial policy. The U.S. will not have much luck demanding that China stop pouring billions of dollars of government funds into its nascent industries; it will deprive its own emerging sectors of funds if it prevents Chinese investment into Silicon Valley. In other words, the U.S. will have to become less open and more heavily regulated. The CFIUS reforms and the proposed export controls highlight this trend. In addition, any escalation of tensions will likely result in Chinese reprisals against U.S. companies. The U.S. tech sector is the marginal loser (Table 3). Table 3S&P Tech Companies With Large China Exposure U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda U.S.-China: The Tech War And Reform Agenda Second, while it is often believed that China is playing “the long game,” the government’s technological acquisition policies suggest a very short-term modus operandi. The allegations of widespread and flagrant use of tech company employees by intelligence agencies, and gross cyber intrusions, if true, imply that China is making a mad dash for technology even at the risk of alienating its trading partners and driving them into a coalition against it. Since no government can overlook the national security implications of such practices, China will continue to suffer from foreign sanctions and embargoes, until it convinces foreign competitors it has changed its ways. As a result, China’s tech and industrial sectors are the marginal losers. The big picture is that the U.S. is setting up a “firewall” of rules and regulations to protect its knowledge and innovation, and China is frantically “downloading” as much data as possible before the firewall is fully operational. This dynamic will be difficult to reverse given that the overall context is one of rising suspicion and strategic distrust.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500-2000 (Random House, 1988). 2      Please see “Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of the United States,” Interagency Task Force in Fulfillment of Executive Order 13806, September 2018, available at media.defense.gov. 3      Please see U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security, “Review of Controls for Certain Emerging Technologies,” Department of Commerce, November 19, 2018, available at www.federalregister.gov. 4      Please see Dan Kim, "Semiconductor Supply Chains and International Trade,” SEMI ITPC, November 5, 2018. 5      Please see President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, “Ensuring Long-Term U.S. Leadership In Semiconductors,” Report to the President, January 2017, available at obamawhitehouse.archives.gov. 6      Please see Department of Justice, “PRC State-Owned Company, Taiwan Company, and Three Individuals Charged With Economic Espionage,” Office of Public Affairs, November 1, 2018, available at www.justice.gov. 7      Please see Stu Woo and Kate O’Keeffe, “Washington Asks Allies To Drop Huawei,” Wall Street Journal, November 22, 2018, available at www.wsj.com. 8      Please see Lorand Laskai, “Civil-Military Fusion and the PLA’s Pursuit of Dominance in Emerging Technologies,” China Brief 18:6, April 9, 2018, available at Jamestown.org. 9      Please see Office of the United States Trade Representative, “Update Concerning China’s Acts, Policies, And Practices Related To Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, And Innovation,” dated November 20, 2018, available at ustr.gov.

Highlights So What? The U.S.-China tariff ceasefire is a net positive, but a final deal is by no means assured. Why? In the near term there may be a play on global risk assets, but beyond that we remain cautious. Global divergence remains the key theme, and China now has less reason to stimulate. What to watch for a final deal: Trump’s approval rating, China’s structural concessions, and geopolitical tensions. We recommend booking gains on our long DM / short EM trades. Go long EM oil producers on OPEC 2.0 cuts. Feature U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping have agreed to a trade truce at the G20 summit in Buenos Aires. The deal includes: Tariff Ceasefire: A 90-day ceasefire – until March 1 – on hiking the second-round tariffs from 10% to 25% on $200bn of Chinese imports. Substantive Talks: The talks will center on structural changes to the Chinese economy, including forced tech transfer, IP theft, hacking, and non-tariff barriers. Vice-Premier Liu He, Xi Jinping’s key economics and trade advisor, may visit Washington in mid-December. Imports: China has agreed to import more goods to lower the U.S. trade deficit, including agricultural and capital goods. This harkens back to the failed May 20 “beef and Boeings” deal. As with the previous deal, there are no deadlines or quantities promised. Not included in the two-and-a-half-hour dinner between Trump and Xi was a substantive discussion on geopolitical tensions. While Chinese statements following the summit did reaffirm Chinese commitment to the U.S.-North Korean diplomacy, there was no broader agreement on tensions, particularly in the South China Sea. The U.S. has recently demanded that China demilitarize the area. Should investors “play” the summit? Tactically, there is an opportunity to play global risk assets in the near term. Cyclically and structurally, however, both economic fundamentals and the underlying trajectory of U.S.-China relations call for caution over the course of 2019. Will The Truce Hold? There are five reasons to doubt the sustainability of the truce: Trade imbalance: It is highly unlikely that the trade imbalance between China and the U.S. can be substantively altered over the course of 90 days. The U.S. economy is in “rude health,” the USD is strong, unemployment is low and pushing up wages, and the output gap is closed. These are the macroeconomic conditions normally associated with an elevated trade imbalance (Chart 1). Chart 1Trade Deficit To Rise Despite Tariffs Trade Deficit To Rise Despite Tariffs Trade Deficit To Rise Despite Tariffs Domestic politics: The just-concluded midterm election saw no opposition to President Trump on trade. The Democratic Party candidates campaigned against the president on a range of issues throughout the election season, but not on the issue of his aggressive China policy. Polling from the summer also shows that a majority of American voters consider trade with China unfair, unlike trade with other countries (Chart 2). As such, President Trump will have to produce a convincing deal in order to ensure that his base, and many Democrats, support the deal. Chart 2Americans Are Focused On China As Unfair Trade Truce: Narrative Vs. Structural Shift? Trade Truce: Narrative Vs. Structural Shift? Structural tensions: U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer issued a hawkish report ahead of the G20 summit concluding that China has not substantively changed any of the trade practices that initiated U.S. tariffs.1 The report was an update to the original investigation that launched the Section 301 tariffs against China. Lighthizer’s report therefore provides a road-map for what the U.S. will want to see over the course of 90 days. High-tech transfers: The Department of Commerce announced on November 19 a “Review of Controls for Certain Emerging Technologies.” This review will conclude on December 19 when the public comment period ends. In the report, the federal government lists biotech, AI, genetic computation, microprocessors, data analytics, quantum computing, logistics, 3D printing, robotics, hypersonic propulsion, advanced materials, and advanced surveillance as technologies with potential “dual-use” that may be critical to U.S. national security and thus might merit consideration for export control.2 As such, the U.S. may decide to impose export controls on technologies that China deems critical to accomplishing its “Made in China 2025” goals within the period of the 90 day talks. If those export controls were to include critical items – such as semiconductors, which are critical to China’s export-oriented manufacturing (Chart 3) – negotiations may become more complicated. Geopolitics: The trade truce did not contain any substantive resolution to ongoing strategic tensions between the U.S. and China. These tensions precede President Trump: we have detailed them in these pages since 2012.3 As such, the U.S. defense and intelligence community will have to be on board with any trade deal and that may suggest that Beijing will be asked to make geopolitical concessions over the course of the next 90 days. Chart 3China Accounts For 60% Of Global Semiconductor Demand Trade Truce: Narrative Vs. Structural Shift? Trade Truce: Narrative Vs. Structural Shift? Despite the above, the trade truce is a meaningful and substantive move away from an open trade war. Yes, the U.S. will retain tariffs on $250bn Chinese imports, with China maintaining tariffs on $66bn of U.S. imports (Chart 4). No, the U.S. did not rule out a third round of tariffs covering the remaining $267 billion of Chinese imports, if things go awry. Nevertheless, the 90-day truce implies that the U.S. will not ratchet up the tensions for now. Chart 4U.S.-China Trade Hit By Tariffs Trade Truce: Narrative Vs. Structural Shift? Trade Truce: Narrative Vs. Structural Shift? The truce also allows China to make substantive changes to its domestic economic policies that may satisfy some of the structural concerns cited in the above U.S. Trade Representative report. The soundest basis for a durable deal lies in China recommitting to structural reforms: this would both be positive for China’s productivity and would assuage some of Washington’s underlying anxieties about China’s state-backed industrial policies. Significantly, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs now says that it will “gradually resolve the legitimate concerns of the U.S. in the process of advancing a new round of reform and opening up in China.” When would this new round of reform occur? The upcoming Central Economic Work Conference, and the 40th anniversary of Deng Xiaoping’s reforms, should be watched closely for new initiatives. Also, the new March 1 tariff deadline lines up with the calendar for China’s National People’s Congress (NPC). The NPC meets every year and is the occasion when any major new domestic reforms would need to be laid out. Thus, any Chinese compromises on structural issues could be rolled out as part of a more general reform agenda in March. This is important because the U.S. administration is determined to focus on implementation and not to let China delay resolution of differences through endless rounds of dialogue. As such, investors should watch the following issues over the course of the next three months in order to gauge the likelihood of a substantive deal that not only rules out new tariffs but also rolls back the existing ones: Polls: President Trump is focused on his 2020 reelection. As such, he will want to see political gains from the easing of pressure on China, both in the general populace and amongst his GOP base (Chart 5). A slump in the polls, or a threatening turn in the Mueller investigation, may justify a shift in the narrative come March-April and thus end the truce. Chart 5Trump’s Approval Will Affect Trade Talks Trade Truce: Narrative Vs. Structural Shift? Trade Truce: Narrative Vs. Structural Shift? Big ticket announcements: China is going to have to make big-ticket item purchases. A huge order of Boeing airplanes, a massive ramp-up in the purchase of agricultural products, a raft of direct investments in manufacturing in the heartland … these are the type of announcements that President Trump could use to sell a substantive deal to his base. Structural changes to the Chinese economy: China will have to prove that it is addressing the concerns outlined in the U.S. Trade Representative report. We suspect that Lighthizer issued the report ahead of the G20 summit so as to set the benchmark for what the U.S. wants to see from Beijing. It is a high benchmark as it includes: An end to cyber theft, hacking, and corporate espionage; Substantive, rather than merely “incremental,” improvements to U.S. market access, including increased ownership of ventures; Serious changes to state-subsidized industrial programs that utilize stolen technology, particularly the so-called “Strategic Emerging Industries” program and “Made in China 2025”; An end to China’s state-backed investment campaign in Silicon Valley. No new U.S. embargoes: The public comment period for the newly proposed U.S. export controls ends on December 19. That suggests that high-tech restrictions could emerge over the course of the first quarter of 2019. These could exacerbate tensions. No new geopolitical tensions: Geopolitical tensions, such as over human rights in Xinjiang or the militarization of the South China Sea, would obviously make a deal less likely.  Bottom Line: The trade truce could lead to a substantive trade deal between China and the U.S. However, many impediments remain. Investors have to answer three key questions: is the deal politically useful for President Trump ahead of the 2020 election? Does the deal resolve the concerns laid out in the U.S. Trade Representative’s Section 301 report? And will geopolitical and national security tensions ease? Since 2012, we have had a structurally bearish view of the Sino-American relationship. This view is based on long-term structural factors that we do not think can be resolved over the course of 90 days. That said, every structural view can have cyclical deviations. The question we now turn to is how to play such a cyclical deviation in terms of the markets. What Does The Truce Mean For The Markets? In our view, the trade war has been of secondary importance to global markets. Far more relevant to the BCA House View that DM assets will outperform EM has been our conclusion that U.S. and Chinese economies would experience policy divergence. The U.S. economy has been buoyed by pro-cyclical stimulus, whereas Chinese policymakers have created a macro-prudential framework that has impaired the country’s credit channel. This divergence has led to the outperformance of the U.S. economy over the rest of the world, leading to a substantive USD rally (Chart 6). Chart 6U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD While this view has worked out well in 2018, it appears to be fraying as the year comes to the end: Chart 7U.S. Growth Weakening? U.S. Growth Weakening? U.S. Growth Weakening? Fed dovishness: Our recent travels to Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and the Midwest have revealed unease among investors regarding the health of the U.S. economy. Some recent data, such as the woeful core durable goods orders (Chart 7) and weak housing, have prompted calls for a more dovish Fed. On cue, Fed Chair Jay Powell delivered what was perceived as a dovish speech. BCA’s Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, makes a strong case for why investors should fade the enthusiasm.4 Specifically, Peter thinks that investors are focusing too much on the unknown – the neutral rate – and not enough on the known – the budding inflationary pressures (Chart 8). Nonetheless, in the near-term, the narrative of a “Fed pause” may overwhelm the data. Chart 8Does The Fed Like It Hot? Does The Fed Like It Hot? Does The Fed Like It Hot? Chart 9Fiscal Policy Becomes More Proactive Trade Truce: Narrative Vs. Structural Shift? Trade Truce: Narrative Vs. Structural Shift? Chinese stimulus: Evidence of a broad-based, irrigation-style, credit stimulus is scant in China’s data. Nonetheless, many investors we have met on the road are latching on to higher local government bond issuance (Chart 9) and a positive M2 credit impulse (Chart 10). Moreover, Q1 almost always brings a boost in new lending in China. Our colleague Dhaval Joshi, BCA’s Chief European Strategist, has recently pointed out that the global credit impulse has hooked up, suggesting that EM underperformance is over (Chart 11).5 We do not think that China can turn the corner on a slumping economy without a substantive increase in its total social financing, which remains subdued both in growth terms and as a second derivative (Chart 12). However, we concede that the narrative may have shifted sufficiently in the near term to warrant some tactical caution on our cyclical House View. ​​​​​​​Chart 10China's M2 Turned Positive China's M2 Turned Positive China's M2 Turned Positive Chart 11An Up-Oscillation In Global Credit Growth Technically Favours EM An Up-Oscillation In Global Credit Growth Technically Favours EM An Up-Oscillation In Global Credit Growth Technically Favours EM Trade truce: Trade concerns have had a clear impact on the outperformance of U.S. equities relative to the rest of the world (Chart 13). As such, a trade truce may alter the narrative sufficiently in the near term to change the direction. In this report, we cite why we are cautious regarding the truce leading to a substantive deal. However, we are biased by our structural perspective that Sino-American tensions are unavoidable. The vast majority of our clients and global investors does not share this view. In fact, the trade war has caught the investment community by surprise. As such, we would argue that investors are biased towards a “win-win” scenario. Therefore, investors may not be cautious, but may in fact project a much higher probability of a final deal into their market decisions. Chart 12China's Total Credit Is Weak China's Total Credit Is Weak China's Total Credit Is Weak Chart 13U.S. Is Winning The Trade War U.S. Is Winning The Trade War U.S. Is Winning The Trade War Over the course of 2019, we do not think the global risk asset bullishness is sustainable. In fact, a reprieve rally now is going to make global growth resynchronization less likely and continued policy divergence more likely. Why? First, Chinese policymakers will have less of a reason to deploy an irrigation-style credit stimulus if fears of an accelerated trade war abate. Second, the Fed will have less of a reason to back off from its hiking trajectory if both the DXY rally and equity market volatility ease. That said, we are going to close our long DM / short EM trades for the time being. This includes: Our long DM equities / short EM equities, for a gain of 15.70%; Our long U.S. Dollar (DXY) index for a gain of 0.56%; Our long USD / Short EM currency basket for a loss of 0.76%; Our long JPY/GBP call, for a gain of 0.32%. Our hedge of being long China play index ought to outperform on a tactical horizon, so we are leaving it open despite its paltry return so far of 0.32%. Also, we are keeping our long Chinese equities ex. Tech / short EM equities trade, as Chinese assets should rally on the back of the truce. Note that, as outlined above, China’s tech sector is not out of the woods yet. Our decision to close these recommendations is to preserve profits, not change our investment stance. On a cyclical horizon, we remain skeptical that global risk assets will outperform DM, and U.S. assets in particular, over the course of 2019. In the end, we do not believe that a mere narrative shift will be sustainable, especially given the robustness of the U.S. labor market (Chart 14) and the tepidness of Chinese stimulus (Chart 15). Chart 14A Tight Labor Market A Tight Labor Market A Tight Labor Market Chart 15Compare Any Stimulus To Previous Efforts Compare Any Stimulus To Previous Efforts Compare Any Stimulus To Previous Efforts Finally, a word on oil prices. The G20 was crucial for the oil call, as well as the trade war, given that Saudi Arabia and Russia suggested that their OPEC 2.0 union would produce supply cuts at the upcoming Vienna meeting on December 6. This proves that fundamentals were more important than the narrative that Saudi leadership “owed” a favor to President Trump. In particular, the Saudis have fiscal constraints given their budget breakeven oil price is around $80-$85 per barrel. As such, we are reinitiating our long EM energy producers (ex-Russia) / short broad EM (ex-China) equity call. We are excluding Russia from the “long” due to lingering geopolitical concerns – sanctions and Ukraine – and China from the “short,” as we are now tactically bullish on China.   Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see Office of the United States Trade Representative, “Update Concerning China’s Acts, Policies, And Practices Related To Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, And Innovation,” dated November 20, 2018, available at www.ustr.gov. 2      Please see The Federal Register, “Review of Controls for Certain Emerging Technologies,” dated November 19, 2018, available at www.federalregister.gov. 3      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?,” dated September 25, 2012, Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “Searing Sun: Japan-China Conflict Heating Up,” dated January 25, 2013, “Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II,” dated November 6, 2015, and “The South China Sea: Smooth Sailing?,” dated March 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Shades Of 2015,” dated November 30, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5      Please see European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “DM Versus EM, And Two European Psychodramas,” dated November 22, 2018, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 

Highlights So What? A trade deal is unlikely at the G20. Stay short CNY/USD. Why? The odds of a U.S.-China tariff ceasefire are around 30%-40%. Investors should see any ceasefire as a temporary reprieve. Stay neutral on Chinese equities. Expect a weaker CNY/USD. Fade any rally in U.S. China-exposed equities. In Taiwan, local elections do not herald a decline in geopolitical risk, which is elevated. Feature The scheduled meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Buenos Aires on December 1 has generated a fair amount of speculation that the trade war will be resolved or at least put on pause. A major de-escalation would bring some consolation to global equity markets that have fallen by 11% since their peak in late January, 2018, especially to Chinese and Asian cyclicals, which have fallen by 27% and 21% respectively over the same time period (Chart 1). Chart 1Desperate For Good News Desperate For Good News Desperate For Good News We are doubtful that the summit will cause a major positive catalyst for markets. Yes, it is tempting to think that President Trump could wrap up the whole trade war promptly, just as he wrapped up negotiations with Mexico and Canada in October. If President Xi could add a few sweeteners to concessions he has already made, then Trump could proclaim a “historic new deal” and roll back the tariffs. Equity markets would celebrate. The past year would seem like a bad dream. But this is all fantasy. U.S.-China relations have gotten worse every year since 2008 for a host of economic, political, military, and strategic reasons. Is the current stock market selloff really enough to force Trump into a major capitulation, given that trade tensions were not the primary cause either of the October correction or of the earlier pullback in February? And is Xi really going to make significant concessions with Trump holding bigger threats over his head? We admit that some kind of improvement is plausible – say, a tariff ceasefire and an agreement to launch a new round of talks. We attach a 30%-40% subjective probability to such a scenario. But our base case – which is driven as always by structural factors – is that the summit will turn out to be a flop and the trade war will escalate in 2019. How Likely Is A Tariff Ceasefire? Presidential summits can have major consequences, but context is everything. Trump’s impending meeting with President Xi will be the third since he took office. The first two – in April and November 2017 – did not prevent the trade war. Neither did high-level negotiations in May 2018, which produced a “trade truce” that did not last a week. However, much has changed since then: the U.S. has imposed tariffs on half of Chinese imports, while China has suffered a bear market and some signs of domestic economic stress (Chart 2). Chart 2Signs Of Economic Weakness Signs Of Economic Weakness Signs Of Economic Weakness Over the past month, some developments suggest that the U.S. and China are managing their strategic tensions a bit better than they were earlier this year. Tensions peaked in early October, when the U.S. imposed sanctions on China’s People’s Liberation Army for purchasing Russian Sukhoi-25 jets and S400 surface-to-air missiles, under a law designed to punish Russia for meddling in the U.S.’s 2016 election. Meanwhile CNN reported that the U.S. military was considering staging a “global show of force” in November, a show that would have included sensitive operations in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea. Since then, however, positive signs have emerged: Presidents Trump and Xi confirmed their meeting at the G20 in Buenos Aires. The two sides have exchanged letters and will bring trade negotiators to the summit, making it at least possible for substantive work to be done. Various preparatory discussions have been held, including a phone call between Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and top Chinese economic adviser and negotiator, Vice Premier Liu He. Beijing offered to hold military-to-military talks that it had previously canceled between Defense Minister Wei Fenghe and Secretary of Defense James Mattis. The two officials met in Singapore and in Washington for the second round of the U.S.-China Diplomatic and Security Dialogue. The U.S. and China tentatively agreed to a multilateral protocol for avoiding accidental encounters by military aircraft, supplementing a similar agreement covering unplanned encounters at sea.1 Treasury Secretary Mnuchin met with People’s Bank of China Governor Yi Gang on the sidelines of the World Bank’s annual meeting in Bali, Indonesia in October, and afterwards refrained from accusing China of currency manipulation in the Treasury’s biannual foreign exchange report. Director of the National Trade Council Peter Navarro, a fierce trade hawk on China, is reportedly not attending the G20 summit. National Economic Adviser Larry Kudlow publicly chastised Navarro for criticizing the new negotiations as a Wall Street capitulation to China.2 This piece of anecdotal evidence has captured the imagination of sell-side analysts and many of our clients. These developments, in addition to Trump’s positive tweets on the subject, suggest that both China and the U.S. are trying to step back from the brink and accomplish something at the upcoming summit. However, there are many reasons to take these developments with a grain of salt: China is negotiating under duress: In statements over the past month, and reiterated by President Trump as we go to press, the U.S. has warned that if the G20 summit does not go well, it will ratchet up the pressure. In early December, it might move forward with the third round of threatened tariffs, covering the remaining $267 billion in imports from China. On December 19, the U.S. Department of Commerce will conclude consultations on whether to impose new export controls on “emerging technologies.” And on January 1, 2019, the existing tariff rate on $200 billion worth of imports (the second round) is supposed to rise from 10% to 25%, which implies that a third round of tariffs would eventually have the same rate. Indeed, since the confirmation of the G20 summit, the U.S. has imposed sanctions on Chinese technology companies like Fujian Jinhua. It has also begun implementing a new law strengthening the Committee for Foreign Investment in the United States and its foreign investment reviews, which already mostly target China (Chart 3). Chart 3Rising Scrutiny Of Chinese Investment Rising Scrutiny Of Chinese Investment Rising Scrutiny Of Chinese Investment Further, the U.S. has taken the occasion in the recent military and diplomatic dialogue to demand, for the first time ever, that China remove its missile systems from the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea.3 Some of these moves can be read as evidence that the U.S. will impose penalties for various grievances even if China agrees to some of its key trade demands. The demands on the South China Sea and arms purchases, for instance, will stand even if China makes major concessions on key trade issues like technology acquisition. At minimum, the above details suggest that Xi Jinping will be negotiating with a sword over his head and thus may refuse to make concessions on principle, despite the negative impact on China’s stock market and export sector (Chart 4). Chart 4The Impending Tariff Impact The Impending Tariff Impact The Impending Tariff Impact Leaks from the negotiations do not suggest any breakthroughs: China’s written response to Trump’s letter reportedly contains no new, significant trade concessions.4 U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, the sine qua non of any trade deal, has issued a hawkish report on the eve of the summit arguing that China has not substantively changed any of the trade practices that prompted the tariffs so far.5 The report, an update to his initial Section 301 report, makes grave accusations about China’s use of cyber theft and corporate espionage over the past year alone, in addition to earlier years. These activities go far beyond trade disputes and clearly affect national security: a tariff freeze is hardly possible without substantial commitments by China to rein in these operations. Lighthizer also argues that China’s trade concessions so far are merely “incremental” and in several cases deceptive. For instance, China’s propaganda outlets have de-emphasized the “Made in China 2025” program even though the government is continuing apace with this program as well as other state-subsidized industrial programs that utilize stolen tech, such as the “Strategic Emerging Industries” (SEI) policy. Not only has China maintained certain targets for domestic market share in key technologies (Chart 5), but modifications to the program have in some cases increased these targets, such as in the production of “new energy vehicles” (Chart 6). Chart 5China’s High-Tech Protectionism Trump And Xi: Third Time Not A Charm Trump And Xi: Third Time Not A Charm Chart 6More High-Tech Protectionism Trump And Xi: Third Time Not A Charm Trump And Xi: Third Time Not A Charm Lighthizer further claims that China’s state-backed investment campaign in Silicon Valley continues despite a headline reduction in capital flight to the United States. And he also presents evidence that the full range of U.S. government agencies as well as the U.S.’s major allies are observing the same malicious or abusive practices from China and share the U.S.’s concerns. As for China hawk Navarro – who is far less important than Lighthizer to trade negotiations – his status today is not worse than it was in 2017, when his office was subordinated to that of former National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn. Of course, Cohn got fired, while Navarro’s office was upgraded and his pro-tariff argument won out. Trump’s olive branch is suspicious: Trump and his administration adopted friendly rhetoric during the lead-up to the midterm election, when it might have been desirable to show “progress” in the trade negotiations. It would have been impossible to engineer credible signs of progress without genuinely engaging the Chinese. Now, however, the midterms are over and there is no pressing political need for Trump to agree to a deal. Many of our clients – and almost all broker research – believe that Trump has a financial need to agree to a deal – i.e. to calm the stock market. However, there are two problems with this thesis. First, it is not clear that stock performance has had any relationship with President Trump’s approval rating (Chart 7). Chart 7Trump No Slave To Stock Market Trump No Slave To Stock Market Trump No Slave To Stock Market Second, both of the U.S. stock market pullbacks this year were catalyzed by sharp rises in treasury yields, not disruptive news on the trade front (Chart 8). As such, positive news about the trade war will yield only a passing relief rally in the United States. Chart 8Yields, Not Trade, Drive U.S. Selloff Yields, Not Trade, Drive U.S. Selloff Yields, Not Trade, Drive U.S. Selloff On this basis, we doubt that President Trump will agree to a hurried, watered-down trade deal that the Democrats will slam as a “giveaway” to China for the remaining two years of his presidency. With the U.S. economy fired up, the trade deficit is likely to widen regardless of tariffs (Chart 9), rendering any weak Trump-China deal a humiliation. Chart 9Trade Deficit To Rise Despite Tariffs Trade Deficit To Rise Despite Tariffs Trade Deficit To Rise Despite Tariffs However, while a trade deal is out of reach, there is a logic to suspending further tariff impositions: Trump may wish to disperse the negative impact of the trade tariffs over a longer period of time. This would give him room to try to settle a very tricky trade agreement before the 2020 election. Then, if the talks succeed, he can present himself as a great dealmaker. If the talks fail, he has all the more ammunition to launch a third round of tariffs. (And on this time frame, the effects of the third round would not be felt by consumers until after the election.) Xi, for his part, may wish to “lock in” Trump with concessions today rather than wait to see how aggressive Trump will become as 2020 draws near. True, Xi cannot afford to “lose face” by capitulating abjectly. But he is the dictator of a regime that has full control of the media; he will be able to suppress domestic criticism of his concessions. In fact, the most insidious criticism of Xi is that he flouted the maxims of both Sun Tzu and Deng Xiaoping by provoking the wrath of China’s greatest enemy prematurely. Thus, if he stays Trump’s hand on tariffs in exchange for a new round of talks or minor concessions, then he comes out of Buenos Aires looking okay. The reason we put this ceasefire scenario at only 30%-40% probability is that we still do not see Trump as heavily constrained by the trade war. His greatest constraint is political and works against a trade deal: it comes from the Democrats, whose protectionist candidates performed very well in the midterm election in the Rust Belt states that are critical for Trump’s reelection (Table 1). Table 1Massive Republican Losses Across The Midwest Trump And Xi: Third Time Not A Charm Trump And Xi: Third Time Not A Charm Economically, our assessment is that the selloff in U.S. financial markets is a correction, not a bear market, and that there is no sign that the U.S. economy is likely to slip into recession (Chart 10). Trump is constrained by the unemployment rate, not by the stock market alone. As long as Trump shares this assessment, he will not be lulled into a politically damaging capitulation to China. Chart 10No Sign Of Recession Yet No Sign Of Recession Yet No Sign Of Recession Yet Also, Xi will fear that difficult concessions will encourage Washington to continue what Chinese government officials have called “trade bullyism,” i.e. using coercive measures and upping its demands. In other words, the main argument for a tariff ceasefire is that Trump might simply prefer one to boost the stock market and thus may accept few or no concessions. And that preference is not enough to change our baseline view in light of his political constraints. Bottom Line: There is no basis for a resolution of the trade war at present, but there is a basis for a tariff ceasefire and a new effort at trade negotiations. Still, it is not our base case. Xi has good reason not to make major concessions under duress and Trump does not want to get outflanked by his political opponents by freezing tariffs without major Chinese concessions. Do Presidential Summits Matter? Have presidential summits between the U.S. and China ever brought about major breakthroughs? Yes, but not since the Great Recession. As Table 2 demonstrates, looking at 50 U.S.-China leadership summits since 1972, only 18 qualify as true “green light” summits in which the outcome was a concrete improvement in relations over the period before the next summit – and 10 of these were during the first decade of the 2000s, the heyday of “Chinamerica,” when China and Emerging Market economies roared ahead while George W. Bush courted China’s cooperation on terrorism and North Korea. Table 2U.S.-China Leaders Summits: A Chronology Trump And Xi: Third Time Not A Charm Trump And Xi: Third Time Not A Charm Only eight summits mark truly historic positive inflection points: Nixon 1972, Carter 1979, Reagan 1984, Clinton 1997, Clinton 2000, Bush 2002, Bush 2005, and arguably Obama 2009. Since 2009, under four different leaders (two from each country), Sino-American relations have categorically worsened. Moreover, both President Obama’s and President Trump’s major meetings with President Xi, at the Sunnylands estate in California in 2013 and at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida in 2017, saw much fanfare at the time but were followed by a significant deterioration in relations. Indeed, the Obama administration launched a more aggressive China policy in September 2015, including freedom of navigation operations in disputed areas of the South China Sea. This was after President Xi declared that China “does not intend to pursue militarization” of the Spratly Islands – a statement that American officials have repeatedly cited when arguing that China’s foreign policy is increasingly aggressive and that China is not following through with diplomatic promises. Investors should focus not on the Trump-Xi summit on December 1 but rather on the two governments’ actions afterwards. The substance of any positive outcome will depend, in particular, on whether Trump indicates that he will proceed with the tariff rate hike on January 1, 2019 and/or the initiation of a third round of tariffs covering the remainder of U.S. imports from China.6 Bottom Line: History does not give reason for optimism about the summit – especially not recent history, in which heavily hyped summits have not been able to arrest the secular decline in U.S.-China cooperation due to underlying strategic distrust. Investment Implications The primary driver of the recent selloff in global risk assets is not the trade war but the divergence between U.S. and Chinese economic policy writ large. The U.S. economy continues to support the case for Fed normalization, while China’s stimulus continues to disappoint. The result is a double whammy for commodity prices and EM assets as the dollar strengthens and exports of resources and capital goods to China soften (Chart 11). Chart 11A Bad Combination For EM A Bad Combination For EM A Bad Combination For EM Given that China’s December Central Economic Work Conference will likely reinforce the message of greater policy support, and that China tends to frontload new credit expansion in the beginning of the year (Chart 12), it is entirely possible that a rally in global risk assets on the back of positive trade news in late November could gain traction in December and the New Year. BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy will continue to hedge against the risk of substantial reflation in China by means of our Foreign Exchange Strategy’s long “China Play Index” trade (Chart 13). Chart 12China May See A Q1 Credit Spike Trump And Xi: Third Time Not A Charm Trump And Xi: Third Time Not A Charm Chart 13Monitoring The Risk To Our View Monitoring The Risk To Our View Monitoring The Risk To Our View Fundamentally, however, we would view a December-January rally as a short-term movement that is not worth playing. We expect the Xi administration to remain disciplined in its use of stimulus measures, for the purposes of economic restructuring. Ever worsening trade tensions give Xi the option of blaming the American administration for the economic pain incurred due to his reform agenda. Therefore we think global divergence can persist, which is positive for the dollar and USD/CNY exchange rate. While acknowledging the potential for a near-term rally, we remain neutral Chinese stocks relative to their global counterparts over a 6-12 month horizon and continue to favor low-beta stocks within the Chinese equity universe. We also remain neutral on Taiwanese equities. The ruling Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) loss in local elections on November 24 was severe (Chart 14), though not unexpected. The election result does not change Geopolitical Strategy’s view that Taiwan faces heightened geopolitical risk. Chart 14Taiwanese Voters Seek More Conciliatory Approach To Beijing Trump And Xi: Third Time Not A Charm Trump And Xi: Third Time Not A Charm Indeed, the election suggests that the Tsai Ing-wen administration may only have 14 months remaining in power, and hence that it will try rapidly to finalize some material improvement in the U.S.-Taiwan relationship. Since the Trump administration will also try to exploit this closing window of opportunity, the potential is rising for a controversy to erupt over diplomatic or military relations. This could prompt a negative, market-relevant reaction from Beijing. It is also too soon to bottom-fish within the tech sector in China and the U.S., and we remain pessimistic about the earnings outlook for companies exposed to the U.S.-China trade relationship.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      While these agreements do not ensure collisions will not occur, given the USS Decatur incident earlier this year, they are at least a sign of coordination. 2      Navarro had said the following at a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies: “Consider the shuttle diplomacy that’s now going on by a self-appointed group of Wall Street bankers and hedge fund managers between the U.S. and China. As part of a Chinese government influence operation, these globalist billionaires are putting a full-court press on the White House in advance of the G-20 in Argentina. The mission of these unregistered foreign agents – that’s what they are; they’re unregistered foreign agents – is to pressure this president into some kind of deal.” Please see “Economic Security as National Security: A Discussion with Dr. Peter Navarro,” CSIS, November 13, 2018, available at www.csis.org. 3      Please see U.S. Department of State, “U.S.-China Diplomatic and Security Dialogue,” November 9, 2018, available at www.state.gov.   For the proposed export controls, open for public comment until December 19, 2018, please see U.S. Department of Commerce, “Review of Controls for Certain Emerging Technologies,” Bureau of Industry and Security, November 19, 2018, available at www.bis.doc.gov. 4      Please see Jeff Mason and David Shepardson, “Exclusive: China sends written response to U.S. trade reform demands - U.S. government sources,” Reuters, November 14, 2018, available at www.reuters.com. 5      Please see Office of the United States Trade Representative, “Update Concerning China’s Acts, Policies, And Practices Related To Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, And Innovation,” dated November 20, 2018, available at https://ustr.gov/ 6      It is very unlikely, but perhaps not impossible, that China would accept a ceasefire that allows the January 1 tariff hike to go forward but forswears the third round of tariffs on the remaining Chinese imports.

Highlights So What? A collapse in Venezuelan oil production could cause Brent prices to average $92/bbl next year. Why? Venezuelan oil output is in freefall. Years of mismanagement constrain its production potential, severely denting government revenues. External debt is sky-high. Venezuela faces challenges in repaying its obligations. China and Russia are unlikely to provide the large-scale subsidies necessary to stabilize the regime over a long period. The United States is unlikely to lift sanctions anytime soon. Rather they may expand them. Feature "PDVSA is red, red from top to bottom." - Former Energy Minister Rafael Ramí­rez "It has been an interesting activity, working without payment." - Sergio Requensa, President of the Corporation of Intermediary Industries, on volunteer groups trying to boost oil output. Global oil prices have fallen by 28.5% since their peak on October 4. While the world awaits OPEC 2.0's meeting on December 6 in Vienna, it is important to remember that global spare capacity is low while serious supply risks loom in many corners of the world. One such risk is the deterioration of Venezuela's economic, political and social situation, which has already precipitated steady declines in oil production (Chart 1). The odds of halting or reversing this trend are razor thin. The Nicolás Maduro government has managed to hobble along, but there is no firm basis for projecting a stabilization either of the regime or oil output. Although it is possible that Venezuela will secure enough ad hoc funding to survive another year, we have no solid grounds for arguing that it will. Chart 1On A Downward Spiral On A Downward Spiral On A Downward Spiral In our dominant scenario of steadily declining Venezuelan output, we forecast Brent to average $82/bbl in 2019. The event of a complete collapse could push Brent prices as high as $92/bbl next year (Chart 2). Chart 2A Production Collapse Would Trigger A Price Spike A Production Collapse Would Trigger A Price Spike A Production Collapse Would Trigger A Price Spike Venezuelan Production In Freefall While Venezuelan authorities have stopped reporting official economic data, declining oil production offers clear evidence of a deepening crisis. Venezuela is a founding member of OPEC and was once one of the most prosperous Latin American countries. Decades of gross mismanagement have pushed the country into crisis. Estimated to hold the world's largest crude oil reserves (Chart 3), Venezuela's potential role in global oil markets is massive. Its oilfields have, in the past, accounted for 4% of global oil supply, but have dwindled down to 1% so far this year (Chart 4). Nevertheless, Venezuela's role should not be underestimated. Price risks could be to the upside - on the back of a collapse in output - or to the downside in the unlikely event of production restoration. For now, we project monthly declines will average 35k b/d over the coming year, ending at 681k b/d by the end of 2019. Chart 3Venezuala's Potential Is Unrivaled... Venezuela: What Cannot Go On Forever Will Stop Venezuela: What Cannot Go On Forever Will Stop Chart 4...But Not Captured By Its Dwindling Production Venezuela: What Cannot Go On Forever Will Stop Venezuela: What Cannot Go On Forever Will Stop Continued deterioration in supply comes on the back of decades of economic mismanagement at the hands of former President Hugo Chávez and his United Socialist Party of Venezuela. The failed 2002 coup attempt and related labor strikes at Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA) - the state-owned oil and gas company - led to the firing of thousands of employees and their replacement with Chávez loyalists, Chavistas. This event politicized the country's economic engine, catalyzing a steady loss in capital and technical expertise. Furthermore, regulations imposed on the energy sector are unfavorable to international investors. For example, the 2001 Hydrocarbons Law stipulated a massive rise in royalties paid by foreign companies - increasing from a range of 1%-17% to 20%-30%. Today, taxes per barrel in Venezuela are the highest among the major producers and form the largest cost component per barrel of oil and gas (Chart 5). Chart 5High Tax Rate Is Unattractive Venezuela: What Cannot Go On Forever Will Stop Venezuela: What Cannot Go On Forever Will Stop Other damaging state actions include: A law requiring PDVSA to hold at least 60% equity in joint ventures with foreign firms investing in the Venezuelan oil sector; The nationalization of the Orinoco Belt - a highly fertile region home to the world's largest petroleum deposits; Government expropriation of foreign assets; Payment failures to international oil service companies. These events ultimately culminated in today's production freefall, which has continued despite the rebound in oil prices after 2015. Needless to say, falling revenues are deadly for petro states. Caracas relies on oil sales for 95% of the government's revenue. Falling rig counts are an ominous sign (Chart 6). Chart 6An Ominous Sign An Ominous Sign An Ominous Sign To make matters worse, export figures actually understate the dire economic situation. The U.S. EIA estimates that roughly half of Venezuela's oil exports are not generating cash! The Venezuelan government has mortgaged much of its production in exchange for loans from China and Russia in recent years. Under these loans-for-oil schemes, the government secured emergency funding to keep its ailing economy afloat, but sacrificed the long-term ability to ensure its own liquidity. This arrangement also includes shipments to the Vadinar refinery in India, which is owned by Russia's Rosneft (Chart 7). Chart 7U.S. Exports Are Main Source Of Revenue U.S. Exports Are Main Source Of Revenue U.S. Exports Are Main Source Of Revenue This leaves exports to the U.S. as the main source of revenue for the Venezuelan government. The result is a Catch-22: With fewer oil barrels to go around, Venezuela can either satisfy its foreign creditors to keep open the possibility of future lines of credit, or it can sell to the U.S. in return for badly needed cash. For the moment, Venezuela is opting for cash. Despite having been cut by ~20% since last year, exports to the U.S. appear to have hit a floor. According to EIA data, after coming in at 13.21mm bbl in February, they have rebounded slightly averaging 19mm bbl/month since June. This is occurring despite ongoing production declines. This is ultimately unsustainable, as the evidence of mismanagement goes beyond production facilities: A breakdown in domestic refining facilities has necessitated an increase in Venezuela's imports of U.S. crude. The lighter oil is needed as a diluent - to blend with Venezuela's heavy crude, facilitating transportation. This is forcing Venezuela's economy to divert scarce hard currency to these imports. In fact, imports have picked up even amid declining oil production and the deepening economic crisis. Earlier this year, PDVSA's Caribbean assets fell under risk of being handed over to ConocoPhillips as compensation for Chavez's 2007 nationalization of Conoco's facilities. These Caribbean assets include storage facilities, refineries, and export terminals on the islands of Bonaire, Curacao, St. Eustatius, and Aruba. Terminals there account for 17% of the company's exports - mainly destined for Asia (Table 1). To prevent this transfer, Venezuela has agreed to pay the American company $2 billion in compensation, $345 million of which has been paid. If these payments cannot be met, the Caribbean assets will be in jeopardy once again - and Conoco is by no means the only company preparing lawsuits to claim assets in the event of further defaults. Table 1Caribbean Assets At Risk Of Seizure Venezuela: What Cannot Go On Forever Will Stop Venezuela: What Cannot Go On Forever Will Stop Similarly, CITGO - PDVSA's U.S. refiner and crown jewel - is at risk to being handed over to creditors. A loss of control of CITGO would disrupt one of the most reliable sources of cash for Venezuela. While U.S. sanctions prevent CITGO from sending dividends to Venezuela, it is so far still allowed to purchase Venezuelan crude. CITGO's assets include three U.S. refineries with a total capacity of 750k b/d. To complicate matters, several creditors are claiming stakes in the refiner: Crystallex International, a Canadian mining company whose Venezuelan assets were nationalized in 2011, is making claims on CITGO. In August, a U.S. federal judge ruled in favor of Crystallex, giving it permission to seize shares of PDV Holding Inc., which owns CITGO. However, the judge also issued a temporary stay on Crystallex - which is planning to auction the shares - until an appeal is decided. If the appeal is in favor of Crystallex it will encourage additional asset grabs by aggrieved foreign companies. PDVSA has offered bond investors a 51% claim on CITGO to push back maturing payments to 2020. The remaining 49% of CITGO was put up as collateral for a $1.5 billion loan from Rosneft. The risk - which intensifies with each missed payment - is that as Venezuela defaults on its debts, more of its facilities will be seized, further reducing its production, refining, and export potential. This would ultimately accelerate the total collapse of Venezuelan output. Bottom Line: Venezuelan oil production is steadily crumbling. Almost two decades of mismanagement have preceded this outcome and, as such, it cannot be reversed easily. We expect monthly declines to average 35k b/d, with the probability of a complete collapse in output rising with each passing day. A Macroeconomic Mess Venezuelans today are paying the price for the unsustainable external debt amassed over the past decade (Chart 8). Estimates of external debt place it around a staggering $150-$200 billion! Sovereign and PDVSA bonds due next year are estimated to be about $9 billion (Chart 9). This does not even account for payments due from other forms of debt (Table 2). Chart 8Debt Levels Are Unsustainable Debt Levels Are Unsustainable Debt Levels Are Unsustainable Chart 9It's Payback Time Venezuela: What Cannot Go On Forever Will Stop Venezuela: What Cannot Go On Forever Will Stop Table 2Yikes! Venezuela: What Cannot Go On Forever Will Stop Venezuela: What Cannot Go On Forever Will Stop Total reserves leave little room for optimism (Chart 10). They now stand at less than $10 billion, down from $43 billion less than a decade ago. Chart 10Reserves Cannot Lend Support Reserves Cannot Lend Support Reserves Cannot Lend Support In projecting the country's ability to make payments in 2019, we looked at several oil-price and production scenarios. All scenarios point to default, as shown in Table 3. Even in the optimistic scenario in which production is flat (which is highly unlikely given that it has been declining at an average monthly rate of 47k b/d so far this year), the country needs $14.8 billion in foreign exchange reserves to cover rising PDVSA expenses plus debt-service costs and its total import bill. This will put Venezuela $6 billion in the red. Table 3All Roads Lead To Default Venezuela: What Cannot Go On Forever Will Stop Venezuela: What Cannot Go On Forever Will Stop This forecast would become even more somber if we were to include payments due on other forms of debt (e.g. private bonds, loans, etc), for which there is no published repayment schedule. Stability is entirely out of reach for the Venezuelan government alone. Maduro's recovery plan announced earlier this year will do nothing to combat the root of the crisis. For instance, the launch of a cryptocurrency - the "petro" - that is backed by five billion barrels of oil reserves, to which the bolivar will be pegged, is not a viable solution.1 In fact, Venezuela's policy options are extremely limited. Only a massive show of support from China and Russia can realistically bring about a substantial improvement. This would require a commitment to pay: (1) debt servicing and import costs; (2) the operating costs of PDVSA and the funds needed to preserve CITGO and other critical assets; (3) the funding of new investment required to revive the oil sector. Over the past decade, China and Russia have provided loans worth ~ $60 billion and ~ $20 billion, respectively. Of these loans, an estimated $28.1 billion and $9.1 billion remain outstanding for China and Russia, respectively.2 Venezuela has paid off not quite half of its debts to these powerful patrons. The last Chinese loan was in 2016. China stopped the credit tap throughout 2017 and most of 2018 amid Venezuelan instability. While China expressed its intention to extend a $5 billion loan in September, this amount is small by comparison with the double-digit billions of loans and direct investment that China provided annually from 2009-15. It would not cover Venezuela's shortfall of funding in our three scenarios even if it were devoted entirely to paying immediate obligations. Moreover, the Chinese loan has not been finalized.3 Thus, China's diplomatic "return" to Venezuela suggests that Beijing is not willing to provide the large-scale subsidies necessary to stabilize the regime over a long period. Indeed, China's state oil firm Sinopec has joined other foreign companies in suing Venezuela for unpaid debts!4 Moreover, Chinese and Russian funds are hardly likely to exceed the large amount invested over the past decade - and those amounts did not prevent Venezuela from falling into its current crisis. Russia is no longer capable of fully financing a satellite state in the way the Soviet Union financed Cuba in the twentieth century. It is hoping that China will foot most of the bill. While China is probably able to do so in cash terms, it is so far unwilling to pay the strategic price of setting up a Soviet-style power struggle with the United States in violation of the Monroe Doctrine.5 Indeed, plowing tens of billions of additional dollars into Venezuela may be unwise if the U.S. reverts back to its tried and tested strategy of directly intervening in the domestic affairs of Latin American countries. Venezuela, being in South America and on the Atlantic coast, is too far away for China to secure in the event of a showdown with the United States. As such, Beijing must understand that any investment in Venezuela could one day become stranded capital in a traditionally American sphere of influence. In fact, China is concentrated on building its own sphere of influence in Asia. While Venezuela is nominally part of the expansive Belt and Road Initiative, the latter is ultimately directed at making China's outward investment more coherent and expanding influence on the Eurasian continent. Neither of these aims is all that favorable for Venezuela. While China certainly wants privileged access to Venezuelan oil, it does not "need" Venezuelan crude for supply security in the way that is often implied. It frequently re-sells the oil on global markets. Nevertheless, Russia and China can offer debt restructuring and relief. Out of the $9 billion outstanding that is owed to Russia, Moscow has agreed to restructure $3.15 billion to be paid over ten years. Other such restructuring deals could be forthcoming (although, notably, China did not agree to a restructuring when Maduro visited in September). Restructuring will not work with U.S. bondholders. The U.S. imposed sanctions on August 24, 2017 seem to prevent U.S. holders of Venezuelan bonds from participating in such arrangements. The U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control is unlikely to lift sanctions anytime soon.6 More likely, the United States will expand sanctions, as U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton indicated in a speech in Miami on November 2. There he dubbed Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua the "troika of tyranny" in the western hemisphere. Possible sanctions include: First, the Trump administration has moved to restrict purchases of Venezuelan gold, as the government has been increasing exports to Turkey (and likely China).7 Trump is considering putting Venezuela on the list of state sponsors of terrorism, which will cut off aid and loans. Second, the financial sanctions announced in 2017 could be expanded to cover existing debts, the trading of government and PDVSA bonds on secondary markets, and CITGO's newly issued debt - all areas that the Department of Treasury has so far exempted. Third, sanctions on tanker insurance could impede Venezuela's ability to transport its oil to international destinations. Venezuela does not have the tanker capacity to ship its own oil. Fourth, in the most extreme case, restrictions on U.S. imports of crude oil could punish the Maduro administration. The U.S. is reluctant to exacerbate the humanitarian crisis and deal with its second-round effects. But it could ultimately use its leverage as importer to insist that its companies are compensated, one way or another, for Venezuelan defaults. Technically alternative buyers could absorb Venezuela's heavy crude, but the loss of the U.S.'s cash-generating imports would pile more pressure onto an already wobbling regime. Bottom Line: Venezuela has been relying on ad hoc funding to survive thus far. Loans in exchange for oil are now eating up its revenues. President Maduro's recovery plan does not address the root causes of the ongoing macroeconomic mess. All scenarios point to insolvency. A Regime Change Is In Order Hyperinflation and the absence of basic necessities have left Venezuelans pessimistic about their country's future (Chart 11). This is not surprising: A staggering 87% of households are estimated to be below the national poverty line, most of whom are in extreme poverty. GDP per capita is half the level it was only a decade ago (Chart 12). These are the ingredients of a revolutionary brew. Chart 11The Outlook Isn't Rosy The Outlook Isn't Rosy The Outlook Isn't Rosy Chart 12Purchasing Power Has Been Slashed By Half Purchasing Power Has Been Slashed By Half Purchasing Power Has Been Slashed By Half The deepening humanitarian and economic crisis is causing one of the largest outflows of emigrants in recent years. According to the United Nations, 2.6 million Venezuelans live abroad and 1.9 million of them have left since 2015 (Chart 13). Chart 13Venezuelans Are Fleeing Venezuela: What Cannot Go On Forever Will Stop Venezuela: What Cannot Go On Forever Will Stop The crisis has naturally translated into a massive shift in public opinion against the regime (Chart 14). Maduro's reelection for a second term in May occurred in an environment in which the opposition boycotted the elections and voter turnout was reported at just 46.1%, hardly half of the 80% rate in 2013. Venezuelans have also lost faith in the armed forces and police, which have buttressed the current regime (Chart 15). Chart 14Maduro Lacks Support Maduro Lacks Support Maduro Lacks Support Chart 15Loss Of Faith In Security Institutions Loss Of Faith In Security Institutions Loss Of Faith In Security Institutions Opposition parties do not have the power to force a transition to a new government, but under today's extreme circumstances they are not as divided as they were in the past. They all support regime change, domestic resistance, and international pressure. All have refused to participate in any dialogue unless it is to discuss the terms of Maduro's resignation. This means that a fracture within the regime, or an external factor like U.S. action, could tip the balance. Could a military coup provide the way out of the current morass? Ultimately, yes, in the sense that the military is the ultimate arbiter of Venezuelan society over the course of history. But short-term investors should not hold their breath. The Maduro regime has managed to survive as long as it has by ceding ever more power to the army, meaning that, in a sense, the coup has already occurred. Food distribution and oil production are now directly under the control of the military. Once the regime becomes completely fiscally defunct, military leaders may pin the blame on Maduro and reshape or expunge the Socialist Party. The timing, however, is nearly impossible to predict other than to emphasize that the current situation is unsustainable and we do not believe that Beijing will ride to the rescue. One foreboding sign is that Maduro has authorized hikes to domestic gasoline prices, which are heavily subsidized. A hike of this nature prompted the Caracazo social unrest in 1989, which helped motivate the attempted coups of 1992. Another option may be direct U.S. action. While the U.S. has been reluctant to intervene in Latin America since the short-lived, albeit successful, 1989 intervention in Panama, President Trump did raise the idea of a "military option" in August 2017.8 While Trump's comments were largely ignored, and subsequently opposed by the Pentagon itself, the reorientation of U.S. policy towards confronting China may convince the U.S. defense and intelligence establishment to view Venezuela through the prism of a new Cold War. As such, and especially if the humanitarian crisis grows, investors should not completely dismiss the possibility of a U.S. military-backed coup in Venezuela.9 Bottom Line: Opposition parties are not as divided as they were in the past, in a sign that the current regime is failing to maintain control. Given the unsustainability of the economic situation and the military's ever-growing role, odds are in favor of an army takeover at some point. The relevant takeaway for investors is that things will have to get worse before that occurs - adding pressure on global oil supply and leading to additional debt defaults. Investment Implications Declining Venezuelan oil production will continue weighing on global supply. We model monthly production declines of 35kb/d as the dominant scenario in our supply-demand balances. On this basis, we expect Brent to average $82/bbl in 2019 and WTI to trade $6/bbl below that. A complete collapse in Venezuelan production next year could push prices much higher - up to $92/bbl and $86/bbl for Brent and WTI, respectively. While an eventual production collapse is inevitable, Venezuela may be able to hobble along for another year through ad hoc funding. Thus, a premium will be priced into global oil markets in 2019 on the back of falling Venezuelan production - and the risk of its collapse. Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Pavel Bilyk, Research Associate pavelb@bcaresearch.com Juan Egaña, Research Associate juane@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The U.S. is already considering sanctions targeting the cryptocurrency. Please see Franco Ordonez, "Top lawmakers in Congress push tough new measures against Venezuela," September 24, 2018, available at www.mcclatchydc.com. For the text of an earlier proposal please see "Venezuela Humanitarian Relief, Reconstruction, and Rule of Law Act of 2018," introduced into the Senate by Senator Robert Menendez (D, NJ) on the foreign relations committee, S. 3486 at www.congress.gov. 2 Please see "Venezuela: Deuda externa per capita del sector público," Prodavinci, available at especiales.prodavinci.com. 3 Please see "China y Rusia desconfían del régimen chavista y aumentan la supervisión de sus inversiones en Caracas," PD América, October 31, 2018, available at www.periodistadigital.com. 4 Please see Jonathan Wheatley, "Sinopec settles with Venezuela's PDVSA, ending 5-year dispute," Financial Times, December 12, 2017, available at www.ft.com. 5 The Monroe Doctrine was reinforced specifically in relation to Venezuela by the "Roosevelt Corollary" in 1902-03. Recently the United States has reasserted the Monroe Doctrine in the face of a widespread perception that China has gained strategic ground on the continent, namely in Venezuela. Please see Vice President Mike Pence, "Remarks by Vice President Pence on the Administration's Policy Toward China," the White House, October 4, 2018, available at www.whitehouse.gov. 6 On the contrary, sanctions are expanding. Please see U.S. Treasury Department, "Treasury Targets Venezuelan President Maduro's Inner Circle and Proceeds of Corruption in the United States," September 25, 2018, available at home.treasury.gov. 7 Please see the White House, "Executive Order Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela," November 1, 2018, available at www.whitehouse.gov. 8 Please see Jeremy Diamond, "Trump asked advisers about invading Venezuela in 2017," CNN, July 5, 2018; and Dan Merica, "Trump says he won't rule out military option in Venezuela," CNN, August 11, 2017, both available at www.cnn.com. 9 Even the Secretary General of the Organization of American States, Luis Almagro, has refused to rule out any options, including military intervention. Pro-Maduro commentators have claimed that the U.S., along with Colombia and other enemies of the regime, supported the apparent attempt to assassinate Maduro by drones in August this year. Please see "Venezuela President Maduro survives 'drone assassination attempt,'" BBC, August 5, 2018, available at www.bbc.com. The New York Times has also reported that the Trump administration sent officials to "listen" to rebel Venezuelan military officers proposing a coup attempt. Please see Ernesto Londono and Nicholas Casey, "Trump Administration Discussed Coup Plans With Rebel Venezuelan Officers," NYT, September 8, 2018, available at www.nytimes.com. We Read (And Liked)... The Great Leveler: Violence And The History Of Inequality From The Stone Age To The Twenty-First Century Professor Walter Scheidel's opus - The Great Leveler - introduces the "Four Horsemen" of equality: warfare, revolution, state collapse, and pandemics.10 These four factors, he argues, explain all significant levelling of wealth and income throughout history. And by history, Scheidel really means all of human history. The thesis behind The Great Leveler is that only through the "aid" of the Four Horsemen has wealth ever been distributed more evenly in human societies. In every grand passage in history, one of the four terrible afflictions has tipped the scales away from capital and landholders and in favor of laborers. Otherwise, when there is not war, revolution, state collapse, or pandemics, capital and landholders acquire sufficient wealth and political capital to stave off any attempts at leveling. Scheidel's focus on World War I and II is particularly interesting. He controversially argues that the prosperity and equality that prevailed in the western world after these wars was to a great extent the product of government measures imposed in order to win the conflict. These included nationalization, direct intervention in production, fiscal policy, and inflationary monetary policy. Mass mobilization necessary to wage and win a total war left western societies, and Japan, "levelled" by the time the wars ended. BCA Research was honored to have Professor Scheidel attend our annual Investment Conference in Toronto this September. In the talk, he warned the room full of investors to "be careful what you wish for," since the suppression of inequality has "only ever brought forth sorrow." Furthermore, Scheidel rejected the hypothesis that wealth and income inequality bring about their own demise. They usually grow unchecked until one of the Four Horsemen appears exogenously. The takeaway from Scheidel's work is that income and wealth inequality are, according to the scales of human history, essentially part of human existence. As such, one should neither fret too much about them nor worry that they will lead to serious efforts to curb them. There are two weaknesses in this argument. First, the book is primarily a treatise on medieval history. The vast amount of empirical evidence that Scheidel has carefully collected occurred before societies became democratic, and specifically before universal suffrage. While Scheidel focuses on the effects of the world wars in the twentieth century as the causes of modern leveling, he barely mentions the role played by the spread of the electoral franchise during and after the conflicts. And it is true that democracy has not prevented the rise of income inequality in much of the developed world since the 1980s - that is, since the laissez-faire revolution. However, the end to that story is yet to be written. Which brings us to the second weakness: Scheidel dismisses GINI coefficient data on income inequality. It does not support his thesis. For example, his tables show that the "market GINI" of many western European countries is as high as that in the United States. However, after accounting for redistributive effects, it is in many cases significantly lower. Instead, Scheidel focuses on the wealth accruing to the top 1%. But again, continental European countries have experienced much lower concentration of wealth than the laissez-faire economies of the U.K. and the United States. Yes, there is growth in concentration even in the social democracies of Europe, but it is at a much slower pace than in the countries that have been the most committed adherents of the Reagan-Thatcher revolution. The greatest failing of Scheidel's thesis is that it lacks nuance when it comes to the modern era. Its parsimony over the course of human history is astounding and commendable - it is what makes this a true magnum opus of social science. However, the real world is rarely as parsimonious. The facts are quite different from the theory. Chart 1 shows that the wealth accruing to the top 10% of income distribution in France was higher in the 1950-1970 era than in the U.S., and much higher than in the United Kingdom. Then, the supply-side revolution took hold in the Anglo-Saxon world, while France pursued policies that sought to reverse the causes of the May 1968 social angst. The shift in wealth distribution was jarring. Chart 1No Horsemen Here, Just Social Democracy No Horsemen Here, Just Social Democracy No Horsemen Here, Just Social Democracy From this one example we can draw two conclusions. First, Scheidel is wrong when he says that the march of income inequality is inevitable. It clearly has not been in western Europe in recent memory. Second, Scheidel is also wrong when he argues that the march of income inequality is irreversible. France was once a right-of-center country ruled by elites who saw revenues accrue to their capital and wealth holdings. Then, all hell broke loose in the country, with teenage Baby Boomers joining up with common workers in a (relatively) bloodless socialist revolution. Rather than adopt laissez-faire capitalism with vigor, French policymakers adopted wealth and income taxes that reversed the rising share of income accruing to the top 10%. Only today, after decades of a deliberately orchestrated and significant leveling, are policymakers in France looking in a different direction. Scheidel claims that his book is pessimistic, but that of course depends on the audience. Our audiences tend to be made up of investors, i.e. of savers. As such, Scheidel's thesis is in fact joyous! A historical opus that proves, without a doubt, that income inequality is irreversible short of apocalypse!? Sounds too good to be true! It is. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 10 Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017, 504 pages.

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

Highlights Gold's performance during the "Red October" equities sell-off, coupled with that of the most widely followed gold ratios (copper- and oil-to-gold), indicates investors and commodity traders are not pricing in a sharp contraction in global growth. These ratios are, however, picking up divergent trends in EM and DM growth (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekGold Ratios Lead Divergence Of Global Bond Yields Gold Ratios Lead Divergence Of Global Bond Yields Gold Ratios Lead Divergence Of Global Bond Yields In the oil markets, the Trump Administration appears to have blinked on its Iran oil-export sanctions. On Monday, the U.S. granted waivers to eight "jurisdictions" - China, India, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, Italy, Greece and Taiwan - allowing them to continue to import Iranian oil for 180 days (Chart 2).1 The higher-than-expected number of waivers indicates the Trump Administration is aligned with our view that the global oil market is extremely tight, despite the recent production increases from OPEC 2.0 and the U.S.2 The U.S. State Department, in particular, apparently did not want to test the ability of OPEC spare capacity - mostly held by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) - to cover the combined losses of Iranian exports, Venezuela's collapse, and unplanned random production outages. No detail of volumes that will be allowed under these waivers was available as we went to press. Chart 2Waivers Will Restore Iranian Exports For 180 Days Gold Ratios Wave Off "Red October" ... Iran Export Waivers Highlight Tight Market Gold Ratios Wave Off "Red October" ... Iran Export Waivers Highlight Tight Market Energy: Overweight. Iran's exports are reportedly down ~ 1mm b/d from April's pre-sanction levels of ~ 2.5mm b/d. We assume Iran's exports will fall 1.25mm b/d. Base Metals: Neutral. Close to 45k MT of copper was delivered to LME warehouses last week, according to Metal Bulletin's Fastmarkets. This was the largest delivery into LME-approved warehouses since April 7, 1989. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold is trading close to fair value, while the most widely followed gold ratios - copper- and oil-to-gold - indicate global demand is holding up. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA's crop report shows the corn harvest accelerated at the start of November, reaching 76% vs. 68% a year ago. Feature Gold Ratios Suggest Continued Growth Gold is trading mostly in line with our fair-value model, based on estimates using the broad trade-weighted USD and U.S. real rates (Chart 3).3 Safe-haven demand - e.g., buying prompted by the fear of a global slowdown or a deepening of the global equity rout dubbed "Red October" in the press - does not appear to be driving gold's price away from fair value. Neither is rising volatility in the equity markets. Chart 3Gold Trading Close To Fair Value Gold Trading Close To Fair Value Gold Trading Close To Fair Value This assessment also is supported by the behavior of the widely followed gold ratios - copper-to-gold and oil-to-gold - which have become useful leading indicators of global bond yields and DM equity levels following the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). From 1995 up to the GFC, the gold ratios tracked changes in the nominal yields of 10-year U.S. Treasury bonds fairly closely. During this period, bond yields led the ratios as they expanded and contracted with global growth, as seen in Chart 4. Post-GFC, this relationship has reversed, and the gold ratios now lead global bond yields. Chart 4Gold Ratios Followed Global 10-Year Yields Pre-GFC Gold Ratios Followed Global 10-Year Yields Pre-GFC Gold Ratios Followed Global 10-Year Yields Pre-GFC To understand this better, we construct two variables to isolate the common growth-related and idiosyncratic factors driving these ratios over the long term, particularly following the GFC.4 The common factor is labeled growth vs. safe-haven in the accompanying charts. It consistently tracks changes in global bond yields and DM equities, which also follow global GDP growth closely. If investors were fleeing economically sensitive assets and buying the safe haven of gold, the correlation between these variables would fall. As it happens, the strong correlation held up well following the "Red October" equities rout, indicating investors have not become overly risk-averse or fearful global growth is taking a downturn. When regressing our proxy for global 10-year yields and the U.S. 10-year yields on the growth vs. safe-haven factor, we found this factor explains a significantly larger part of the variation in global yields than U.S. bond yields alone (Chart 5).5 This common factor also is highly correlated with DM equity variability (Chart 6). Chart 5Gold Ratios' Common Factor Correlates With 10-Year Global Yields ... Gold Ratios" Common Factor Correlates With 10-Year Global Yields... Gold Ratios" Common Factor Correlates With 10-Year Global Yields... Chart 6... And DM Equities ... And DM Equities ... And DM Equities The second, or idiosyncratic, factor we constructed, captures the fundamental drivers that impact each of the gold ratios through supply-demand fundamentals in the copper and oil markets, and EM vs. DM economic performance. The latter is proxied using EM equity returns relative to DM returns.6 This analysis shows oil outperforms copper in periods of rising DM and slowing EM economic growth (Chart 7). Our analysis also indicates this idiosyncratic factor explains the divergence of the gold ratios seen in 2018: Copper demand is heavily influenced by EM demand, particularly China, which accounts for ~ 50% of global copper demand, but less than 15% of global oil demand. Oil demand - some 100mm b/d - is much more affected by the evolution of global GDP. Chart 7Relative DM Outperformance Drives Idiosyncratic Factors Relative DM Outperformance Drives Idiosyncratic Factors Relative DM Outperformance Drives Idiosyncratic Factors At the moment, this idiosyncratic factor is driving both ratios apart because of: Relative economic underperformance of EM vs. DM, which favors oil over copper; and Persistent fears of escalating Sino-U.S. trade tensions, which are weighing on copper. Price-supportive supply-shocks in the oil market (sanctions on Iranian oil exports, falling Venezuelan production) and still-strong demand continue to drive oil prices. These dynamics likely will remain in place for the foreseeable future (1H19), which will favor oil over copper. Gold Ratios As Leading Indicators To round out our analysis, we looked at causal relationships between the performance of financial assets - EM and DM stocks and bonds - and the gold ratios.7 From 1995 to 2008, the causality ran from stocks and bond yields to our growth vs. safe-haven factor for the gold ratios. However, since 2009, causality has gone from the common factor to bond yields (Table 1). Table 1Granger-Causality Results Gold Ratios Wave Off "Red October" ... Iran Export Waivers Highlight Tight Market Gold Ratios Wave Off "Red October" ... Iran Export Waivers Highlight Tight Market In our view, this suggests that the widely traded industrial commodities - copper and oil being the premier examples of such commodities - convey important economic information on the state of the global economy, as a result of their respective price-formation processes.8 It also suggests that in the post-GFC world, commodity markets assumed a larger role in discounting the impacts on the real economy of the numerous monetary experiments of central banks in the post-GFC era. Bottom Line: Our analysis of the factors driving the copper- and oil-to-gold ratios supports our view that demand for cyclical commodities - mainly oil and metals - is still strong. The behavior of our idiosyncratic factor leads us to favor oil over copper due to the rising EM vs. DM divergence, and the price-supportive supply dynamics in the oil market.   Waivers On U.S. Sanctions Roil Oil Markets A week ago, we cautioned clients to "expect more volatility" on the back of news leaks the Trump administration was considering granting waivers to importers of Iranian crude oil, just before the sanctions kicked in this week. We certainly got it. Since hitting $86.1/bbl in early October, Brent crude oil prices have fallen $15.4/bbl (18%), as markets attempt to price in how much Iranian oil is covered by the sanctions and when importers can expect to see it arrive. On Monday, the U.S. granted waivers to eight "jurisdictions" - China, India, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, Italy, Greece and Taiwan - allowing them to continue to import Iranian oil for 180 days. This was a higher-than-expected number of waivers than we - and, given the volatility in prices - the market was expecting. This pushed down the elevated risk premium, which had been supporting prices over the past few months.9 The combined imports of these eight states is ~1.4mm b/d, according to Bloomberg estimates. The loss of these volumes in a market that was progressively tightening as OPEC 2.0 brought more of its spare capacity on line - while the USD continued to strengthen - likely would have driven the local-currency cost of fuel steadily higher (Chart 8). Because they are a de facto supply increase - albeit temporary, based on Trump Administration statements - they also will restrain price hikes in EM generally, barring an unplanned outage in 1H19 (Chart 9). Chart 8Waivers Will Contain Oil Price Rises In Local-Currency Terms Waivers Will Contain Oil Price Rises In Local-Currency Terms Waivers Will Contain Oil Price Rises In Local-Currency Terms \ Chart 9Oil Prices Rises In EM Economies Oil Prices Rises In EM Economies Oil Prices Rises In EM Economies No detail of volumes that will be allowed under these waivers was available as we went to press. Although it is obvious Iranian sales will recover some of the ~ 1mm b/d of exports lost in the run-up to the re-imposition of sanctions, it is not clear how much will be recovered. We believe the 180-day effective period for the waivers most likely was sought by KSA and Russia to give them time to bring on additional capacity to cover Iranian export losses. Markets will find out just how much spare capacity these states have in 1H19. By 2H19, additional production out of the U.S. from the Permian Basin will hit the market, as transportation bottlenecks are alleviated. This will allow U.S. exports to increase as well. However, it's not clear how much of this can get to export markets, given most of the dredging work needed to accommodate very large crude carriers (VLCCs) in the U.S. Gulf Coast has yet to be done. This could explain why the WTI - Cushing vs. WTI - Midland differentials are narrowing, while WTI spreads vs. Brent remain wide (Chart 10). Chart 10WTI Spreads Diverge WTI Spreads Diverge WTI Spreads Diverge It is important to note the market still is exposed to greater-than-expected declines in Venezuela's production, and to any unplanned outage anywhere in the world. OPEC spare capacity is 1.3mm b/d, according to the EIA and IEA, and most of that is in KSA. Russia probably has another 200k b/d or so it can bring on line. These production increases both are undertaking are cutting deeply into spare capacity, as the Paris-based International Energy Agency noted in its October 2018 Oil Market Report: Looking ahead, more supply might be forthcoming. Saudi Arabia has stated it already raised output to 10.7 mb/d in October, although at the cost of reducing spare capacity to 1.3 mb/d. Russia has also signaled it could increase production further if the market needs more oil. Their anticipated response, along with continued growth from the US, might be enough to meet demand in the fourth quarter. However, spare capacity would fall to extremely low levels as a percentage of global demand, leaving the oil market vulnerable to major disruptions elsewhere (p. 17). Bottom Line: We expected continued crude-oil price volatility, as markets sort out the U.S. waivers on Iranian oil imports. The supply side of the market remains tight, and spare capacity is being eroded by production increases. We believe OPEC 2.0 will use the 180 days contained in the waivers to mobilize additional production. How much of this becomes available is yet to be determined. Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "As U.S. starts oil sanctions against Iran, major buyers get waivers," published by reuters.com November 5, 2018. 2 OPEC 2.0 is a name we coined for the producer coalition led by KSA and Russia. Please see "Risk Premium In Oil Prices Rising; KSA Lifts West Coast Export Capacity" for our most recent supply-demand balances and price assessments, published October 25 by Commodity & Energy Strategy, and is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 We use the USD broad trade-weighted index (TWIB) and U.S. inflation-adjusted real rates as explanatory variables in these models. As Chart 3 indicates, actual gold prices are in line with these variables. 4 The first factor accounts for ~ 80% of the variation in the gold ratios. The second idiosyncratic factor, which captures (1) supply-demand fundamentals in the oil and copper markets, and (2) divergences in global growth using EM vs. DM equities as proxies, accounts for the remaining ~ 20% of the variation. 5 Throughout this report, we proxy global yield by summing the yield on the 10-year German Bunds, Japanese Government Bonds and U.S. Treasurys. Please see BCA Research European Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled "The 'Rule Of 4' For Equities And Bonds," dated August 2, 2018. Available at eis.bcaresearch.com. The adjusted R2 in the global yield model is 0.94 compared to 0.88 for the U.S. Treasury model. 6 Using MSCI Emerging Market Index and MSCI Word Index price index. 7 To conduct this analysis, we use a statistical technique developed by the 2003 Nobel laureate, Clive Granger. The eponymous Granger-causality test is used to see whether one variable (i.e., time series) can be said to precede the other in terms of occurrence in time. This test measures information in the variables, particularly the effect of information from the preceding variable on the following variable. Please see Granger, C.W.J. (1980). "Testing for Causality, Personal Viewpoint,"Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 2 (pp. 329 - 352). 8 This assessment is consistent with the Efficient Market Hypothesis, the literature on which is countably infinite at this point. Sewell notes: "A market is said to be efficient with respect to an information set if the price 'fully reflects' that information set (Fama, 1970), i.e. if the price would be unaffected by revealing the information set to all market participants (Malkiel, 1992). The efficient market hypothesis (EMH) asserts that financial markets are efficient." The EMH has been debated and tested for decades. Please see Sewell, Martin (2011). "History of the Efficient Market Hypothesis," Research Note RN/11/04, published by University College London (UCL) Department of Computer Science. 9 Please see BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Risk Premium In Oil Prices Rising; KSA Lifts West Coast Export Capacity," published October 25, 2018. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Gold Ratios Wave Off "Red October" ... Iran Export Waivers Highlight Tight Market Gold Ratios Wave Off "Red October" ... Iran Export Waivers Highlight Tight Market Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017 Gold Ratios Wave Off "Red October" ... Iran Export Waivers Highlight Tight Market Gold Ratios Wave Off "Red October" ... Iran Export Waivers Highlight Tight Market