Elections

Special Report

Highlights Public opinion has a significant impact on labor-management outcomes: Organized labor cannot make any headway unless elected officials and the courts give it a fighting chance. They will only do so if the public desires it. The face of organized labor is changing: Manufacturing’s decline does not ensure the demise of organized labor. Unions have already pivoted to services, just like the overall economy. Elections have consequences: The power to pass legislation, staff departments and agencies, and exert control over judicial appointments can have a tremendous workplace impact. Organized labor isn’t dead: We do not expect a return to unions’ heyday, but we are convinced that labor’s potential to achieve significant incremental progress is much larger than most investors believe. The election could serve as a catalyst for tapping that potential. Feature We have read quite a bit about US labor relations over the last month and a half. Several themes were apparent, but the most basic was a constant from the 1800s to today: For-profit employers will seek the most favorable terms they can get, to the extent that they are socially acceptable. This is not to say that management is out to get labor, or that Marx might have had a point; it simply acknowledges the pre-New Deal and post-Reagan empirical record. Before the legal and social buffers that sheltered labor were put in place, and after they began to be eroded, employees found themselves steadily losing ground. Capturing Hearts And Minds Public opinion has shaped the outcomes of labor-management contests throughout US labor relations history. Labor was continually outgunned before the New Deal, coming up against private security forces, local police and/or the National Guard when they struck. Employers were able to turn to hired muscle, or request the deployment of public resources on their behalf, because the public had few qualms about using force to break strikes. College athletes were even pressed into service as strikebreakers after the turn of the century for what was viewed at the time as good, clean fun.1 Public opinion is not immutable, however, and by the time of the Flint sit-down strike, it had begun to shift in the direction of labor. The widespread misery of the Depression went a long way to overcoming Americans’ deep-seated suspicion of the labor movement and the fringe elements associated with it. Some employers were slow to pick up on the change in the public mood, however, and Ford’s security force thuggishly beat Walter Reuther and other UAW organizers while they oversaw the distribution of union leaflets outside a massive Ford plant just three months after Flint. Ford won the Battle of the Overpass, but its heavy-handed, retrograde tactics helped cost it the war. Reuther, who later led the UAW in its ‘50s and ‘60s golden age, was a master strategist with a knack for public relations. Writing the playbook later used to great effect by civil rights leaders, Reuther invited clergymen, Senate staffers and the press to accompany the largely female team of leafleteers. When the Ford heavies commenced beating the men, and roughly scattering the women, photographers were on hand to document it all.2 The photos helped unions capture public sympathy, just as televised images of dogs and fire hoses would later help secure passage of landmark civil rights legislation. Unions’ Fall From Grace Labor unions enjoyed their greatest public support in the mid-fifties, and largely maintained it well into the sixties (Chart 1), until rampant corruption and ties to organized crime undermined their public appeal. The shoddy quality of American autos further turned opinion against the UAW, the nation’s most prominent union, and a college football star named Brian Bosworth caused a mid-eighties furor by claiming that he had deliberately sought to prank new car buyers during his summer job on a Chevrolet assembly line. Bosworth later retracted the claim that GM workers had shown him how to insert stray bolts in inaccessible parts of car bodies to create a maddening mystery rattling, but the fact that so many Sports Illustrated readers found it credible eloquently testified to the UAW’s image problem. Chart 1Unions' Public Image Has Recovered Nicely Since The Crisis Figure 1Unions' 1980s Public Opinion Vortex President Reagan accelerated the trend when he successfully stood up to the striking air traffic controllers, but his administration could not have taken such a hard line if unions hadn’t already been weakened by declining public support. In the final analysis, it was PATCO’s disastrous misreading of public opinion – fed-up voters supported the White House, and other air travel unions refused to strike in sympathy with the controllers – that led it to spurn the administration’s generous initial offer and brought about its demise. Together, the public’s waning support for unions and the Reagan administration’s antipathy for them were powerfully self-reinforcing, and they fueled a vicious circle that powered four decades of union reversals (Figure 1). Companies will do whatever they perceive to be socially acceptable in conflicts with employees, but no more. As a prescient November 1981 Fortune report put it, “‘Managers are discovering that strikes can be broken, … and that strike-breaking (assuming it to be legal and nonviolent) doesn’t have to be a dirty word. In the long run, this new perception by business could turn out to be big news.’”3 Emboldened by the federal government’s replacement of the controllers, and the growing public perception that unions had devolved into an insular interest group driving the cost of living higher for everyone else, businesses began turning to permanent replacement workers to counter strikes.4 As an attorney that represented management in labor disputes told The New York Times in 1986, “If the President of the United States can replace [strikers], this must be socially acceptable, politically acceptable, and we can do it, also.”5 Labor’s New Face … Polling data indicate that unions have been recovering in the court of public opinion since the crisis, when the public presumably soured on them over the perception that the UAW was selfishly impeding the auto industry bailout. Their image got a boost in 2018 (Chart 2), as striking red-state teachers embodied the shift from unions’ factory past to their service-provider present. “The teachers, many of them women, are redefining attitudes about organized labor, replacing negative stereotypes of overpaid and underperforming blue-collar workers with a more sympathetic face: overworked and underappreciated nurturers who say they’re fighting for their students as much as they’re fighting for themselves.”6 Chart 2Feeling The Bern? Several commentators have heard organized labor’s death knell in US manufacturing’s irreversible decline. Unions gained critical mass on docks, factory floors, steel mills and coal mines, but few of today’s workers make their living there. Those who remain have little recourse other than to accept whatever terms management offers, as their jobs can easily be outsourced to lower-cost jurisdictions. The decline in private-sector union membership has traced the steady diminution of factory workers’ leverage (Chart 3). Chart 3Tracking Manufacturing's Slide Service workers represent unions’ future, and they have two important advantages over their manufacturing counterparts: many of their functions cannot be offshored, and a great deal of them are customer-facing. When MGM’s chairman was ousted from his job after clashing with Las Vegas’ potent UNITE-HERE local over the new MGM Grand Hotel’s nonunion policy, his successor explained why he immediately came to terms with the union. “‘The last thing you want is for people who are coming to enjoy themselves to see pickets and unhappy workers blocking driveways. … When you’re in the service business, the first contact our guests have is with the guest-room attendants or the food and beverage servers, and if that person’s [sic] unhappy, that comes across to the guests very quickly.’”7 … Management’s New Leaf … The Business Roundtable’s latest statement on corporate governance principles laid out a new stakeholder vision, displacing the Milton Friedman view that corporations are solely responsible for maximizing shareholder wealth. The statement itself is pretty bland, but the preamble in the press release accompanying it sounds as if it had been developed with labor advocates’ help (Box 1). It is a stretch to think that the ideals in the Roundtable’s communications will take precedence over investment returns, but they may signal that management fears the labor-management rubber band has been stretched too far.8 Box 1 Farewell, Milton Friedman America’s economic model, which is based on freedom, liberty and other enduring principles of our democracy, has raised standards of living for generations, while promoting competition, consumer choice and innovation. America’s businesses have been a critical engine to its success. Yet we know that many Americans are struggling. Too often hard work is not rewarded, and not enough is being done for workers to adjust to the rapid pace of change in the economy. If companies fail to recognize that the success of our system is dependent on inclusive long-term growth, many will raise legitimate questions about the role of large employers in our society. With these concerns in mind, Business Roundtable is modernizing its principles on the role of a corporation. Since 1978, Business Roundtable has periodically issued Principles of Corporate Governance that include language on the purpose of a corporation. Each version of that document issued since 1997 has stated that corporations exist principally to serve their shareholders. It has become clear that this language on corporate purpose does not accurately describe the ways in which we and our fellow CEOs endeavor every day to create value for all our stakeholders, whose long-term interests are inseparable. We therefore provide the following Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation, which supersedes previous Business Roundtable statements and more accurately reflects our commitment to a free market economy that serves all Americans. This statement represents only one element of Business Roundtable’s work to ensure more inclusive prosperity, and we are continuing to challenge ourselves to do more. Just as we are committed to doing our part as corporate CEOs, we call on others to do their part as well. In particular, we urge leading investors to support companies that build long-term value by investing in their employees and communities. The Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) movement has the potential to improve rank-and-file workers’ wages and working conditions. ESG proponents have steadily groused about outsized executive pay packages, but if asset owners and institutional investors were to begin pushing for higher entry-level pay to narrow the income-inequality gap, unions could gain some powerful allies. … And The Public’s Left Turn Chart 4Help! As our Geopolitical Strategy colleagues have argued since the 2016 primaries, the median voter in the US has been moving to the left as the financial crisis, the hollowing out of the middle class and the widening wealth gap have dimmed the luster of Reagan-Thatcher free-market policies.9 Globalization has squeezed unskilled labor everywhere in the developed world, and white-collar workers are starting to look over their shoulders at artificial intelligence programs that may render them obsolete as surely as voice mail and word processing decimated secretaries and typists. Banding together hasn’t sounded so good since the Depression, and nearly half of all workers polled in 2017 said they would join a union if they could (Chart 4). Millennials are poised to become the single biggest voting bloc in the country. They were born between 1981 and 1996, and their lives have spanned two equity market crashes, the September 11th attacks, and the financial crisis, instilling them with a keen awareness of the way that remote events can upend the best-laid plans. Many of them emerged from college with sizable debt and dim earnings prospects. They would welcome more government involvement in the economy, and their enthusiastic embrace of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren (Chart 5) indicates they’re on unions’ side. Chart 5No "Third Way" For Millennials Elections Have (Considerable Regulatory) Consequences Electoral outcomes influence the division of the economic pie between employers and employees. Labor-friendly presidents, governors and legislatures are more likely to expand employee protections, while more vigilantly enforcing the employment laws and regulations that are already on the books. The White House appoints top leadership at the Labor Department, the National Labor Review Board (NLRB), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), along with the attorney general, who dictates the effort devoted to anti-trust enforcement. It's no surprise that unions have started to look pretty good to workers after a decade of sluggish growth and widening inequality. The differences can be stark. Justice Scalia’s son would no more have led the Obama Department of Labor than Scott Pruitt (EPA), Wilbur Ross (Commerce) or Betsy Devos (Education) would have found employment anywhere in the Obama administration. McDonald’s has good reason to be happy with the outcome of the 2016 election; its business before the NLRB wound up being resolved much more favorably in 2019 than it would have been when it began in 2014 (Box 2). At the state level, Wisconsin public employees suffered a previously unimaginable setback when Scott Walker won the 2010 gubernatorial election, along with sizable legislative majorities (Box 3). Box 2 The Right Referee Makes All The Difference The Fight for $15 movement that began in 2012 aimed to nearly double the median fast-food worker’s wages. A raise of that magnitude would pose an existential threat to fast-food’s business model, and McDonald’s and its franchisees sought to stymie the movement’s momentum. The NLRB opened an investigation in 2014 following allegations that employees were fired for participating in organizing activities. McDonald’s vigorously contested the case in an effort to avoid the joint-employer designation that would open the door for franchise employees to bargain collectively with the parent company. (Absent a joint-employer ruling, a union would have to organize the McDonald’s work force one franchise at a time.) When the case was decided in McDonald’s favor in December, the headline and sub-header on the Bloomberg story reporting the outcome crystallized our elections-matter thesis: McDonald’s Gets Win Under Trump That Proved Elusive With Obama Board led by Trump appointees overrules judge in case that threatened business model Box 3 Wisconsin Guts Public-Sector Unions Soon after Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker took office in January 2011, backed by sizable Republican majorities in both houses of the legislature, he sent a bill to legislators that would cripple the state’s public-sector unions. Protestors swarmed Madison and filled the capitol building every day for a month to contest the bill, and Democratic legislators fled the state to forestall a vote, but it eventually passed nonetheless. The bill struck at a rare union success story; nearly one-third of public-sector employees are union members and that ratio has remained fairly steady over the last 40 years (Chart 6). Wisconsin’s public-sector unions now do little more than advocate for their members in disciplinary and grievance proceedings, and overall union membership in the state has fallen by a whopping 43% since the end of 2009. Chart 6Public-Sector Union Membership Has Held Up Well Judicial appointments make a difference, too. The Supreme Court’s Janus decision in April 2018, banning any requirement that public employees pay dues to the unions that bargain for them on not-so-readily-apparent First Amendment grounds,10 was widely viewed as a body blow to public-sector unions. The 5-4 decision would certainly have gone the other way had President Obama’s nominee to succeed the late Justice Scalia been confirmed by the Senate. Final Takeaways Six weeks of reading about US labor history, considering the game theory underlying employment negotiations, and examining the current landscape for insight into the drivers of management and labor leverage have left us pretty much where we started. We do not anticipate that organized labor will regain the position it enjoyed in the fifties and sixties, when global competition was weak and shareholders and consumers were anything but vigilant about corporate operations. Even a more modest flexing of labor muscle that pushes wages higher across the entire economy has a probability of less than one half. Investors seem to think the probability is negligible, though, and therein lies an opportunity. We stated two major themes at the outset. One, employees have little chance of gaining ground if government is disposed to side with employers, and, two, successful strikes beget strikes. Public opinion is the tissue that connects the two themes. Elected officials deliver what their constituents want, as do the courts, albeit with a longer lag. Society’s view of striking/strikebreaking tactics heavily influences how they’re deployed and whether or not they’ll be successful. If the electorate has had enough of Reagan-Thatcher policies, elected officials will stop implementing them. We believe that public opinion is beginning to coalesce on employees’ side as labor puts on a more appealing face; as businesses increasingly fret about inequality’s consequences; and as millennials swoon over progressives, undeterred by labels that would have left their Cold War ancestors reaching for weapons. The median voter theory has importance beyond predicting future outcomes; it directly influences them. As the center of the electorate leans to the left, elected officials will have to deliver more liberal outcomes if they want to keep their jobs. If the electorate has given up on Reagan-Thatcher principles, organized labor is bound to get a break from the four-decade onslaught that has left it shrunken and feeble. There is one overriding market takeaway from our view that a labor recovery is more likely than investors realize: long-run inflation expectations are way too low. Although we do not expect wage growth to rise enough this year to give rise to sustainable upward inflation pressures that force the Fed to come off of the sidelines, we do think investors are overly complacent about inflation. We continue to advocate for below-benchmark duration positioning over a cyclical timeframe and for owning TIPS in place of longer-maturity Treasury bonds over all timeframes. Watch the election, as it may reveal that labor’s demise has been greatly exaggerated.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Students were excused from classes and exams and sometimes even received academic credit for their work. 2 King, Gilbert, “How The Ford Motor Company Won a Battle and Lost Ground,” Smithsonian.com, April 30, 2013. 3 Greenhouse, Steven, Beaten Down, Worked Up, Alfred A. Knopf: New York (2019), pp. 137-8. 4 High unemployment, in addition to declining respect for unions, helped erase the stigma of crossing picket lines. 5 Serrin, William, “Industries, in Shift, Aren’t Letting Strikes Stop Them,” New York Times, September 30, 1986, p. A18. 6 Emma, Caitlin, “Teachers Are Going on Strike in Trump’s America,” Politico, April 12, 2018. 7 Greenhouse, p. 44. 8 Please see the January 20, 2020 US Investment Strategy Special Report, “Labor Strikes Back, Part 2: Where Strikes Come From And Who Wins Them,” available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see the June 8, 2016 Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, “Introducing The Median Voter Theory,” available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 The Court found for the plaintiff in Janus, who bridled at the closed-shop law that forced him to join the union that bargained on his and his colleagues’ behalf, because the union’s espousal of views with which he disagreed constituted a violation of his free-speech rights as guaranteed by the First Amendment. Bibliography Aamidor, Abe and Evanoff, Ted. At The Crossroads: Middle America and the Battle to Save the Car Industry. Toronto: ECW Press (2010). Allegretto, S.A.; Doussard, M.; Graham-Squire, D.; Jacobs, K.; Thompson, D.; and Thompson, J. Fast Food, Poverty Wages: The Public Cost of Low-Wage Jobs in the Fast-Food Industry. Berkeley, CA. UC-Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education, October 2013. Bernstein, Irving. The Lean Years: A History of the American Worker, 1920-1933. Boston: Houghton Mifflin (1960). Blanc, Eric. Red State Revolt: The Teachers’ Strike Wave and Working-Class Politics. Brooklyn, NY: Verso (2019). Emma, Caitlin. “Teachers Are Going on Strike in Trump’s America.” Politico, April 12, 2018, accessed January 20, 2020. Finnegan, William. “Dignity: Fast-Food Workers and a New Form of Labor Activism.” The New Yorker, September 15, 2014 Greenhouse, Steven. Beaten Down, Worked Up: The Past, Present and Future of American Labor. New York: Alfred A. Knopf (2019). Greenhouse, Steven. “The Return of the Strike.” The American Prospect, Winter 2019 Ingrassia, Paul. Crash Course: The American Auto Industry’s Road from Glory to Disaster. New York: Random House (2010). King, Gilbert. “How the Ford Motor Company Won a Battle and Lost Ground.” smithsonianmag.com, April 30, 2013, accessed January 24, 2020. Loomis, Erik. A History of America in Ten Strikes. New York: The New Press (2018). Manchester, William. The Glory and the Dream: A Narrative History of America, 1932-1972. New York: Bantam (1974). Norwood, Stephen H. “The Student As Strikebreaker: College Youth and the Crisis of Masculinity in the Early Twentieth Century. Journal of Social History Winter 1994: pp. 331-49. Sears, Stephen W. “Shut the Goddam Plant!” American Heritage Volume 33, Issue 3 (April/May 1982) Serrin, William. “Industries, in Shift, Aren’t Letting Strikes Stop Them.” The New York Times, September 30, 1986 Wolff, Leon. “Battle at Homestead.” American Heritage Volume 16, Issue 3 (April 1965) *Current newspaper and Bloomberg articles omitted.

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

Special Report

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

Highlights The liquidity-driven rally will soon be followed by an acceleration in global growth. The economic recovery will bump up expectations of long-term profit growth. The dollar has downside, but the euro will not benefit much. Overweight stocks relative to bonds and bet on traditional cyclical sectors and commodities. The potential for outperformance of value relative to growth favors European equities. The probability of a tech mania is escalating: how should investors factor an expanding bubble into their portfolios? Feature Chart I-1A Bull Market In Stocks And Volatility? Despite all odds, the nCoV-2019 outbreak is barely denting the S&P 500’s frenetic rally. Plentiful liquidity, thawing Sino-US trade relations and improving economic activity in Asia, all have created ideal conditions for risk assets to appreciate on a cyclical basis. Stocks may look increasingly expensive and are primed to correct, but the bubble will expand further. After lifting asset valuations, monetary policy easing will soon boost worldwide economic activity. Consequently, earnings in the US and Europe will improve. As long as central bankers remain unconcerned about inflation, investors will bid up stocks. Investors should remember we are in the final innings of a bull market. Stocks can deliver outsized returns during this period, but often at the cost of elevated volatility, and the options market is not pricing in this uncertainty (Chart I-1). Moreover, timing the ultimate end of the bubble is extremely difficult. Hence, we prefer to look for assets that can still benefit from easy monetary conditions and rebounding growth, but are not as expensive as equities. Industrial commodities fit that description, especially after their recent selloff. The dollar remains a crucial asset to gauge the path of least resistance for assets. If it refuses to swoon, then it will indicate that global growth is in a weaker state than we foresaw. The good news is that the broad trade-weighted dollar seems to have peaked. Accommodative Monetary Conditions Are Here To Stay Easy liquidity has been the lifeblood of the S&P 500’s rally. The surge in the index coincided with the lagged impact of the rise in our US Financial Liquidity Index (Chart I-2). Low rates have allowed stocks to climb higher, yet earnings expectations remain muted. For example, since November 26, 2018, the forward P/E ratio for the S&P 500 has increased from 15.2 to 18.7, while 10-year Treasury yields have collapsed from 3.1% to 1.6%. Meanwhile, expectations for long-term earnings annual growth extracted from equity multiples using a discounted cash flow model have dropped from 2.4% to 1.2%. Historically, easier monetary policy pushes asset prices higher before it lifts economic activity. Historically, easier monetary policy pushes asset prices higher before it lifts economic activity. Yet, stocks and risk assets normally continue to climb when the economy recovers. Even without any additional monetary easing, as long as policy remains accommodative, risk assets will generate positive returns. Expectations for stronger cash flow growth become the force driving asset prices higher. Policy will likely remain accommodative around the world. Within this framework, peak monetary easing is probably behind us, even though liquidity conditions remain extremely accommodative. Nominal interest rates remain very low, and real bond yields are still falling. Unlike in 2018 and 2019, dropping TIPs yields reflect rising inflation expectations (Chart I-3). Those factors together indicate that policy is reflationary, which is confirmed by the gold rally. Chart I-2A Liquidity Driven Rally Chart I-3Today, Lower TIPS Yields Are Reflationary   Chart I-4Economic Activity To Respond To Liquidity Based on the historical lags between monetary easing and manufacturing activity, the global industrial sector is set to mend (Chart I-4). Moreover, the liquidity-driven surge in stock prices, combined with low yields and compressed credit spreads, has eased financial conditions, which creates the catalyst for an industrial recovery. Where will the growth come from? First, worldwide inventory levels have collapsed after making negative contributions to growth since mid-2018 (Chart I-5). Thus, there is room for an inventory restocking. Secondly, auto sales in Europe and China have rebounded to 18.5% from -23% and to -0.1% from -16.4%, respectively. Thirdly, China’s credit and fiscal impulse has improved. The uptick in Chinese iron ore imports indicates that the pass-through from domestic reflation to global economic activity will materialize soon (Chart I-6). Finally, following the Phase One Sino-US trade deal, global business confidence is bottoming, as exemplified by Belgium’s business confidence, Switzerland KOF LEI, Korea's manufacturing business survey, or US CFO and CEO confidence measures. The increase in EM earnings revisions shows that US capex intentions should soon re-accelerate, which bodes well for investment both in the US and globally (Chart I-7). Chart I-5Room For Inventory Restocking Chart I-6China Points To Stronger Global Growth   Construction activity, a gauge of the monetary stance, is looking up across the advanced economies. In the US, housing starts – a leading indicator of domestic demand – have hit a 13-year high. A pullback in this volatile data series is likely, but it should be limited. Vacancies remain at a paltry 1.4%, household formation is solid and affordability is not demanding (Chart I-8). In Europe, construction activity has been relatively stable through the economic slowdown. Even in Canada and Australia, housing transactions have gathered steam quickly following declines in mortgage rates (Chart I-9). Chart I-7Capex Is Set To Recover Chart I-8US Housing Is Robust Chart I-9Even The Canadian And Australian Housing Markets Are Stabilizing Consumers will remain a source of strength for the global economy. The dichotomy between weak manufacturing PMIs and the stable service sector reflects a healthy consumer spending. December retail sales in Europe and the US corroborate this assessment. The stabilization in US business confidence suggests that household incomes are not in as much jeopardy as three months ago. As household net worth and credit growth improve further, a stable outlook for household income will underwrite greater gains in consumption. Policy will likely remain accommodative around the world. For the time being, US inflationary pressures are muted. The New York Fed’s Underlying Inflation Gauge has rolled over, hourly earnings growth has moved back below 3%, our pipeline inflation indicator derived from the ISM is weak, and core producer prices are flagging (Chart I-10). This trend is not US-specific. In the OECD, core consumer price inflation is set to decelerate due to the lagged impact of the manufacturing slowdown. Central banks are also constrained to remain dovish by their own rhetoric. The Fed's statement this week was a testament to this reality. Central banks are increasingly looking to set symmetrical inflation targets. After a decade of missing their targets, a symmetric target would imply keeping policy easier for longer, even if realized inflation moves back above 2%. A rebound in global growth and weak inflation should create a poisonous environment for the US dollar. Finally, fiscal policy will make a small positive contribution to growth in most major advanced economies in 2020, particularly in Germany and the UK (Table I-1). Chart I-10Limited Inflation Will Allow The Fed To Remain Easy Table I-1Modest Fiscal Easing In 2020   The Dollar And The Sino-US Phase One Deal At first glance, a rebound in global growth and weak inflation should create a poisonous environment for the US dollar (Chart I-11). As we have often argued, the dollar’s defining characteristic is its pronounced counter-cyclicality. Chart I-11A Painful Backdrop For The Greenback Deteriorating dollar fundamentals make this risk particularly relevant. US interest rates are well above those in the rest of the G10, but the gap in short rates has significantly narrowed. Historically, the direction of rates differentials and not their levels has determined the trend in the USD (Chart I-12). Moreover, real differentials at the long end of the curve support the notion that the maximum tailwinds for the dollar are behind us (Chart I-12, bottom panel). Furthermore, now that the US Treasury has replenished its accounts at the Federal Reserve, the Fed’s addition of excess reserves in the system will likely become increasingly negative for the dollar, especially against EM currencies. Likewise, relative money supply trends between the US, Europe, Japan and China already predict a decline in the dollar (Chart I-13). Chart I-12Interest Rate Differentials Do Not Favor The Dollar... Chart I-13...Neither Do Money Supply Trends   Chart I-14The Phase One Deal Is Ambitious The recent Sino-US trade agreement obscures what appears to be a straightforward picture. According to the Phase One deal signed mid-January, China will increase its US imports by $200 billion in the next two years vis-à-vis the high-water mark of $186 billion reached in 2017. This is an extremely ambitious goal (Chart I-14). Politically, it is positive that China has committed to buy manufactured goods and services in addition to commodities. However, the scale of the increase in imports of US manufactured goods is large, at $77 billion. China cannot fulfill this obligation if domestic growth merely stabilizes or picks up just a little, especially now that the domestic economy is in the midst of a spreading illness. It will have to substitute some of its European and Japanese imports with US goods. A consequence of this trade deal is that the euro’s gains will probably lag those recorded in normal business cycle upswings. Historically, European growth outperforms the US when China’s monetary conditions are easing and its marginal propensity to consume is rising (Chart I-15). However, given the potential for China to substitute European goods in favor of US ones, China’s economic reacceleration probably will not benefit Europe as much as it normally does. China may not ultimately follow through with as big of US purchases as it has promised, but it is likely, at least initially, to show good faith in the agreement. The euro’s gains will probably lag those recorded in normal business cycle upswings. While the trade agreement is a headwind for the euro, it is a positive for the Chinese yuan. The US output gap stands at 0.1% of potential GDP and the US labor market is near full employment. The US industrial sector does not possess the required spare capacity to fulfill additional Chinese demand. To equilibrate the market for US goods, prices will have to adjust to become more favorable for Chinese purchasers. The simplest mechanism to achieve this outcome is for the RMB to appreciate. Meanwhile, the euro is trading 16% below its equilibrium, which will allow European producers to fulfill US domestic demand. A widening US trade deficit with Europe would undo improvements in the trade balance with China. The probability that US equities correct further in the short-term is elevated. The implication for the dollar is that the broad trade-weighted USD will likely outperform the Dollar Index (DXY). The euro represents 18.9% of the broad trade-weighted dollar versus 57.6% of the DXY. Asian currencies, EM currencies at large, the AUD and the NZD, all should benefit from their close correlation with the RMB (Chart I-16). Chart I-15Europe Normally Wins When China Recovers Chart I-16EM, Asian, And Antipodean Exchange Rates Love A Strong RMB   Obviously, before the RMB and the assets linked to it can appreciate further, the panic surrounding the coronavirus will have to dissipate. However, the economic damage created by SARS was short lived. This respiratory syndrome resulted in a 2.4% contraction Hong-Kong’s GDP in the second quarter of 2003. The economy of Hong Kong recovered that loss quickly afterward. Investment Forecasts BCA continues to forecast upside in safe-haven yields. Global interest rates remain well below equilibrium and a global economic recovery bodes poorly for bond prices (Chart I-17). However, inflation expectations and not real yields will drive nominal yield changes. The dovish slant of global central banks and the growing likelihood that symmetric inflation targets will become the norm is creating long-term upside risks for inflation. Moreover, if symmetric inflation targets imply lower real short rates in the future, then they also imply lower real long rates today. Investors should begin switching their risk assets into industrial commodity plays, especially after their recent selloff. Easy monetary conditions, decreased real rates and an improvement in economic activity are also consistent with an outperformance of assets with higher yields. High-yield bonds, which offer attractive breakeven spreads, will benefit from this backdrop (Chart I-18). Furthermore, carry trades will likely continue to perform well. In addition to low interest rates across most of the G10, the low currency volatility caused by an extended period of easy policy will continue to encourage carry-seeking strategies. Chart I-17Bonds Are Still Expensive Chart I-18Where Is The Value In Credit?   An environment in which growth is accelerating and monetary policy is accommodative argues in favor of stocks. Our profit growth model for the S&P 500 has finally moved back into positive territory. As earnings improve, investors will likely re-rate depressed long-term growth expectations for cash flows (Chart I-19). The flip side is that equity risk premia are elevated, especially outside the US (Chart I-19). Hence, as long as accelerating growth (but not tighter policy) drives up yields, equities should withstand rising borrowing costs. The use of passive investing and the prevalence of “closet indexers” accentuates the risk that a tech mania could blossom. The 400 point surge in the S&P 500 since early October complicates the picture. The probability that US equities correct further in the short-term is elevated, based on their short-term momentum and sentiment measures, such as the put/call ratio (Chart I-20). Foreign equities will continue to correct along US ones, even if they are cheaper. Chart I-19Elevated Stock Multiples Reflect Low Yields, Not Growth Exuberance Chart I-20Tactical Risks For Stocks   Chart I-21Buy Commodities/Sell Stocks? The coronavirus panic seems to be the catalyst for such a correction. When a market is overextended, any shock can cause a pullback in prices. Moreover, as of writing, medical professionals still have to ascertain the virus’s severity and potential mutations. Therefore, risk assets must embed a significant risk premium for such uncertainty, even if ultimately the infection turns out to be mild. However, that risk premium will likely prove to be short lived. During the SARS crisis in 2003, stocks bottomed when the number of reported new cases peaked. The tech sector has plentiful downside if the correction gathers strength. As indicated in BCA’s US Equity Sector Strategy, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon and Facebook account for 18% of the US market capitalization, which is the highest market concentration since the late 1990s tech bubble. Investors should begin switching their risk assets into industrial commodity plays, especially after their recent selloff. Commodity prices are trading at a large discount to US equities. Moreover, the momentum of natural resource prices relative to stocks has begun to form a positive divergence with the price ratio of these two assets (Chart I-21). Technical divergences such as the one visible in the ratio of commodities to equities are often positive signals. Low real rates, an ample liquidity backdrop, a global economic recovery, a weak broad trade-weighted dollar and a strong RMB, all benefit commodities over equities. Tech stocks underperform commodities when the dollar weakens and growth strengthens. Moreover, our positive stance on the RMB justifies stronger prices for copper, oil and EM equities (Chart I-22). Chart I-22The Winners From A CNY Rebound Our US Equity Strategy Service has also reiterated its preference for industrials and energy stocks, and it recently upgraded materials stocks to neutral.1 All three sectors trade at significant valuation discounts to the broad market and to tech stocks in particular. They are also oversold in relative terms. Finally, their operating metrics are improving, a trend which will be magnified if global growth re-accelerates. Do not make these bets aggressively. A weakening broad trade-weighted dollar would allow for a rotation into foreign equities and an outperformance of value relative to growth stocks. The share of US equities in the MSCI All-Country World Index is a direct function of the broad trade-weighted dollar (Chart I-23). Moreover, since 1971, the dollar and the relative performance of growth stocks versus value stocks have exhibited a positive correlation (Chart I-24). Thus, the dollar’s recent strength has been a key component behind the run enjoyed by tech stocks. Chart I-23Global Stocks Love A Soft Dollar Chart I-24Value Stocks Needs A Weaker Dollar To Outperform Growth Stocks Despite the risks to the euro discussed in the previous section, European equities could still outperform US equities. Such a move would be consistent with value stocks beating growth equities (Chart I-24, bottom panel). This correlation exists because the euro area has a combined 17.7% weighting to tech and healthcare stocks compared with a 37.1% allocation in US benchmarks. Moreover, a cheap euro should allow European industrials and materials to outperform their US counterparts. Finally, the recent uptick in the European credit impulse indicates that an acceleration in European profit growth is imminent, a view that is in line with our preference for European financials (Chart I-25).2 Chart I-25Euro Area Profits Should Improve Bottom Line: The current environment remains favorable for risk assets on a 12-month investment horizon. As such, we expect stocks and bond yields to continue to rise in 2020. Moreover, a pick-up in global growth, along with a fall in the broad trade-weighted dollar, should weigh on tech and growth stocks, and boost the attractiveness of commodity plays, industrial, energy and materials stocks, as well as European and EM equities. Forecast Meets Strategy Liquidity-driven rallies, such as the current one, can carry on regardless of the fundamentals. As Keynes noted 90 years ago: “Markets can remain irrational longer than you can stay solvent.” The gap between forecast and strategy can be great. The use of passive investing and the prevalence of “closet indexers” accentuates the risk that a tech mania could blossom. We assign a substantial 30% probability to the risk of another tech mania. Outflows from equity ETFs and mutual funds have been large. Investors will be tempted to move back into those vehicles if stocks continue to rally on the back of plentiful liquidity and improving global growth (Chart I-26). In the process, the new inflows will prop up the over-represented, over-valued, and over-extended tech behemoths. Chart I-26Depressed Equity Flows Should Pick Up The current tech bubble can easily run a lot further. Based on current valuations, the NASDAQ trades at a P/E ratio of 31 compared with 68 in March 2000 (Chart I-27). Moreover, momentum is becoming increasingly favorable for the NASDAQ and other high-flying tech stocks. The NASDAQ is outperforming high-dividend stocks and after a period of consolidation, its relative performance is breaking out. Momentum often performs very well in liquidity-driven rallies. Chart I-27Where Is The Bubble? Chart I-28Debt Loads Are Already High Everywhere A full-fledged tech mania would make our overweight equities / underweight bonds a profitable call, but it would invalidate our sector and regional recommendations. Moreover, with a few exceptions in China and Taiwan, the major tech bellwethers are listed in the US. A tech bubble would most likely push our bearish dollar stance to the offside. Bubbles are dangerous: participating on the upside is easy, but cashing out is not. Moreover, financial bubbles tend to exacerbate the economic pain that follows the bust. During manic phases, capital is poorly invested and the economy becomes geared to the sectors that benefit from the financial excesses. These assets lose their value when the bubble deflates. Moreover, bubbles often result in growing private-sector indebtedness. Writing off or paying back this debt saps the economy’s vitality. Making matters worse, today overall indebtedness is unprecedented and central banks have little room to reflate the global economy once the bubble bursts (Chart I-28). Finally, US/Iran tensions will create additional risk in the years ahead. Matt Gertken, BCA’s Geopolitical Strategist, warns that the ratcheting down of tensions following Iran’s retaliation to General Soleimani’s assassination is temporary.3 As a result, the oil market remains a source of left-handed tail-risk. Section II discusses other potential black swans lurking in the geopolitical sphere. We continue to recommend that investors overweight industrials and energy, upgrade materials to neutral, Europe to overweight, and curtail their USD exposure as long as US inflation remains well behaved and the US inflation breakeven rate stays below the 2.3% to 2.5% range. However, do not make these bets aggressively. Moreover, some downside protection is merited. Due to our very negative view on bonds, we prefer garnering these hedges via a 15% allocation to gold and the yen. The yen is especially attractive because it is one of the few cheap, safe-haven plays (Chart I-29). Chart I-29The Yen Offers Cheap Portfolio Protection Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst January 30, 2020 Next Report: February 27, 2020   II. Five Black Swans In 2020 Our top five geopolitical “Black Swans” are risks that the market is seriously underpricing. With the “phase one” trade deal signed, Chinese policy could become less accommodative, resulting in a negative economic surprise. The trade deal may fall victim to domestic politics, raising the risk of a US-China military skirmish. A Biden victory at the Democratic National Convention or a Democratic takeover of the White House could trigger social unrest and violence in the US. A pickup in the flow of migrants to Europe would fundamentally undermine political stability there. Russia’s weak economy will add fuel to domestic unrest, risking an escalation beyond the point of containment. Over the past four years, BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy service has started off each year with their top five geopolitical “Black Swans.” These are low-probability events whose market impact would be significant enough to matter for global investors. Unlike the great Byron Wien’s perennial list of market surprises, we do not assign these events a “better than 50% likelihood of happening.” We offer risks that the market is seriously underpricing by assigning them only single-digit probabilities when we think the reality is closer to 10%-15%, a level at which a risk premium ought to be assigned. Some of our risks below are so obscure that it is not clear how exactly to price them. We exclude issues that are fairly probable, such as flare-ups in Indo-Pakistani conflict. The two major risks of the year – discussed in our Geopolitical Strategy’s annual outlook – are that either US President Donald Trump or Chinese President Xi Jinping overreaches in a major way. But what would truly surprise the market would be a policy-induced relapse in Chinese growth or a direct military clash between the two great powers. That is how we begin. Other risks stem from domestic affairs in the US, Europe, and Russia. Black Swan 1: China’s Financial Crisis Begins Chart II-1A Crackdown On Financial Risk Could Cause China's Economy To Derail The risk of Xi Jinping’s concentration of power in his own person is that individuals can easily make mistakes, especially if unchecked by advisors or institutions. Lower officials will fear correcting or admonishing an all-powerful leader. Inconvenient information may not be relayed up the hierarchy. Such behavior was rampant in Chairman Mao Zedong’s time, leading to famine among other ills. Insofar as President Xi’s cult of personality successfully imitates Mao’s, it will be subject to similar errors. If President Xi overreaches and makes a policy mistake this year, it could occur in economic policy or other policies. We begin with economic policy, as we have charted the risks of Xi’s crackdown on the financial system since early 2017 (Chart II-1). This year is supposed to be the third and final year of Xi Jinping’s “three battles” against systemic risk, pollution, and poverty. The first battle actually focuses on financial risk, i.e. China’s money and credit bubble. The regime has compromised on this goal since mid-2018, allowing monetary easing to stabilize the economy amid the trade war. But with a “phase one” trade deal having been signed, there is an underrated risk that economic policy will return to its prior setting, i.e. become less accommodative (Chart II-2). When Xi launched the “deleveraging campaign” in 2017, we posited that the authorities would be willing to tolerate an annual GDP growth rate below 6%. This would not only cull excesses in the economy but also demonstrate that the administration means business when it says that China must prioritize quality rather than quantity of growth. While Chinese authorities are most likely targeting “around 6%” in 2020, it is entirely possible that the authorities will allow an undershoot in the 5.5%-5.9% range. They will argue that the GDP target for 2020 has already been met on a compound growth rate basis (Chart II-3), as astute clients have pointed out. They may see less need for stimulus than the market expects. Chart II-2Easing Of Trade Tensions May Re-Incentivize Tighter Policy Chart II-3Chinese Authorities Might Tolerate A Growth Undershoot In 2020   Similarly, while urban disposable income is ostensibly lagging its target of doubling 2010 levels by 2020, China’s 13th Five Year Plan, which concludes in 2020, conspicuously avoided treating urban and rural income targets separately. If the authorities focus only on general disposable income, then they are on track to meet their target (Chart II-4). This would reduce the impetus for greater economic support. The Xi administration may aim only for stability, not acceleration, in the economy. There are already tentative signs that Chinese authorities are “satisfied” with the amount of stimulus they have injected: some indicators of money and credit have already peaked (Chart II-5). The crackdown on shadow banking has eased, but informal lending is still contracting. The regime is still pushing reforms that shake up state-owned enterprises. Chart II-4Lower Impetus For Economic Support Due To Improvements In National Income? Chart II-5Has China's Stimulus Peaked?   An added headwind for the Chinese economy stems from the currency. The currency should track interest rate differentials. Beijing’s incremental monetary stimulus, in the form of cuts to bank reserve requirement ratios (RRRs), should also push the renminbi down over time (Chart II-6). However, an essential aspect of any trade deal with the Trump administration is the need to demonstrate that China is not competitively devaluing. Hence the CNY-USD could overshoot in the first half of the year. This is positive for global exports to China, but it tightens Chinese financial conditions at home. A stronger than otherwise justified renminbi would add to any negative economic surprises from less accommodative monetary and fiscal policy. Conventional wisdom says China will stimulate the economy ahead of two major political events: the centenary of the Communist Party in 2021 and the twentieth National Party Congress in 2022. The former is a highly symbolic anniversary, as Xi has reasserted the supremacy of the party in all things, while the latter is more significant for policy, as it is a leadership reshuffle that will usher in the sixth generation of China’s political elite. But conventional wisdom may be wrong – the Xi administration may aim only for stability, not acceleration, in the economy. It would make sense to save dry powder for the next US or global recession. The obvious implication is that China’s economic rebound may lose steam as early as H2 – but the black swan risk is that negative surprises could cause a vicious spiral inside of China. This is a country with massive financial and economic imbalances, a declining potential growth profile, and persistent political obstacles to growth both at home and abroad. Corporate defaults have spiked sharply. While the default rate is lower than elsewhere, the market may be sniffing out a bigger problem as it charges a much higher premium for onshore Chinese bonds (Chart II-7). Chart II-6CNY/USD Overshoot Would Tighten Chinese Financial Conditions Chart II-7Is China's Bond Market Sniffing Out A Problem?   Bottom Line: Our view is that China’s authorities will remain accommodative in 2020 in order to ensure that growth bottoms and the labor market continues to improve. But Beijing has compromised its domestic economic discipline since 2018 in order to fight trade war. The risk now, with a “phase one” deal in hand, is that Xi Jinping returns to his three-year battle plan and underestimates the downward pressures on the economy. The result would be a huge negative surprise for the Chinese and global economy in 2020. Black Swan 2: The US And China Go To War In 2013, we predicted that US-China conflict was “more likely than you think.” This was not just an argument for trade conflict or general enmity that raises the temperature in the Asia-Pacific region – we included military conflict. At the time, the notion that a Sino-American armed conflict was the world’s greatest geopolitical threat seemed ludicrous to many of our clients. We published this analysis in October of that year, months after the Islamic State “Soldier’s Harvest” offensive into Iraq. Trying to direct investors to the budding rivalry between American and Chinese naval forces in the South China Sea amidst the Islamic State hysteria was challenging, to say the least. Chart II-8Americans’ Attitudes Toward China Plunged… The suggestion that an accidental skirmish between the US and China could descend into a full-blown conflict involved a stretch of the imagination because China was not yet perceived by the American public as a major threat. In 2014, only 19%of the US public saw China as the “greatest threat to the US in the future.” This came between Russia, at 23%, and Iran, at 16%. Today, China and Russia share the top spot with 24%. Furthermore, the share of Americans with an unfavorable view of China has increased from 52% to 60% in the six intervening years (Chart II-8). The level of enmity expressed by the US public toward China is still lower than that toward the Soviet Union at the onset of the Cold War in the 1950s (Chart II-9). However, the trajectory of distrust is clearly mounting. We expect this trend to continue: anti-China sentiment is one of the few sources of bipartisan agreement remaining in Washington, DC (Chart II-10). Chinese sentiment toward the United States has also darkened dramatically. The geopolitical rivalry is deepening for structural reasons: as China advances in size and sophistication, it seeks to alter the regional status quo in its favor, while the US grows fearful and seeks to contain China. Chart II-9…But Not Yet To War-Inducing Levels Chart II-10Distrust Of China Is Bipartisan   Chart II-11Newfound American Concern For China’s Repression One example of rising enmity is the US public’s newfound concern for China’s domestic policies and human rights, specifically Beijing’s treatment of its Uyghur minority in Xinjiang. A Google Trends analysis of the term “Uyghur” or “Uyghur camps” shows a dramatic rise in mentions since Q2 of 2018, around the same time the trade war ramped up in a major way (Chart II-11). While startling revelations of re-education camps in Xinjiang emerged in recent years, the reality is that Beijing has used heavy-handed tactics against both militant groups and the wider Uyghur minority since at least 2008 – and much earlier than that. As such, the surge of interest by the general American public and legislators – culminating in the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2019 – is a product of the renewed strategic tension between the two countries. The same can be said for Hong Kong: the US did not pass a Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act in 2014, during the first round of mass protests, which prompted Beijing to take heavy-handed legal, legislative, and censorship actions. It passed the bill in 2019, after the climate in Washington had changed. Why does this matter for investors? There are two general risks that come with a greater public engagement in foreign policy. First, the “phase one” trade deal between China and the US could fall victim to domestic politics. This deal envisions a large step up in Sino-American economic cooperation. But if China is to import around $200 billion of additional US goods and services over the next two years – an almost inconceivable figure – the US and China will have to tamp down on public vitriol. This is notably the case if the Democratic Party takes over the White House, given its likely greater focus on liberal concerns such as human rights. And yet the latest bills became law under President Trump and a Republican Senate, and we fully expect a second Trump term to involve a re-escalation of trade tensions to ensure compliance with phase one and to try to gain greater structural concessions in phase two. Second, mounting nationalist sentiment will make it more difficult for US and Chinese policymakers to reduce tensions following a potential future military skirmish, accidental or otherwise. While our scenario of a military conflict in 2013 was cogent, the public backlash in the United States was probably manageable.3 Today we can no longer guarantee that this is the case. The “phase one” trade deal risks falling victim to domestic politics due to greater public engagement in foreign policy. China has greater control over the domestic narrative and public discourse, but the rise of the middle class and the government’s efforts to rebuild support for the single-party regime have combined to create an increase in nationalism. Thus it is also more difficult for Chinese policymakers to contain the popular backlash if conflict erupts. In short, the probability of a quick tamping down of public enmity is actively being reduced as American public vilification of China is closing the gap with China’s burgeoning nationalism at an alarming pace. Another of our black swan risks – Taiwan island – is inextricably bound up in this dangerous US-China dynamic. To be clear, Washington will tread carefully, as a conflict over Taiwan could become a major war. Nevertheless Taiwan’s election, as we expected, has injected new vitality into this already underrated geopolitical risk. It is not only that a high-turnout election (Chart II-12) gave President Tsai Ing-wen a greater mandate (Chart II-13), or that her Democratic Progressive Party retained its legislative majority (Chart II-14). It is not only that the trigger for this resounding victory was the revolt in Hong Kong and the Taiwanese people’s rejection of the “one country, two systems” formula for Taiwan. It is also that Tsai followed up with a repudiation of the mainland by declaring, “We don’t have a need to declare ourselves an independent state. We are an independent country already and we call ourselves the Republic of China, Taiwan.” Chart II-12Tsai Ing-Wen Enjoys A Greater Mandate On Higher Turnout… Chart II-13…Popular Support… Chart II-14…And A Legislative Majority This statement is not a minor rhetorical flourish but will be received as a major provocation in Beijing: the crystallization of a long-brewing clash between Beijing and Taipei. Additional punitive economic measures against Taiwan are now guaranteed. Saber-rattling could easily ignite in the coming year and beyond. Taiwan is the epicenter of the US-China strategic conflict. First, Beijing cannot compromise on its security or its political legitimacy and considers the “one China principle” to be inviolable. Second, the US maintains defense relations with Taiwan (and is in the process of delivering on a relatively large new package of arms). Third, the US’s true willingness to fight a war on Taiwan’s behalf is in doubt, which means that deterrence has eroded and there is greater room for miscalculation. Bottom Line: A US-China military skirmish has been our biggest black swan risk since we began writing the BCA Geopolitical Strategy. The difference between then and now, however, is that the American public is actually paying attention. Political ideology – the question of democracy and human rights – is clearly merging with trade, security, and other differences to provoke Americans of all stripes. This makes any skirmish more than just a temporary risk-off event, as it could lead to a string of incidents or even protracted military conflict. Black Swan 3: Social Unrest Erupts In America There are numerous lessons that one can learn from the ongoing unrest in Hong Kong, but perhaps the most cogent one is that Millennials and Generation Z are not as docile and feckless as their elders think. Images of university students and even teenagers throwing flying kicks and Molotov cocktails while clad in black body armor have shocked the world. Perhaps all those violent video games did have a lasting impact on the youth! What is surprising is that so few commentators have made the cognitive leap from the ultra-first world streets of Hong Kong to other developed economies. Perhaps what is clouding analysts’ minds is the idiosyncratic nature of the dispute in Hong Kong, the “one China” angle. However, Hong Kong youth are confronted with similar socio-economic challenges that their peers in other advanced economies face: overpriced real estate and a bifurcated service-sector labor market with few mid-tier jobs that pay a decent wage. There is a risk of rebellion from Trump’s most ardent supporters if he loses the White House. In the US, Millennials and Gen Z are also facing challenges unique to the US. First, their debt burden is much more toxic than that of the older cohorts, given that it is made up of student loans and credit card debt (Chart II-15). Second, they find themselves at odds – demographically and ideologically – with the older cohorts (Chart II-16). Chart II-15Younger American Cohorts Plagued By Toxic Debt Chart II-16Younger And Older Cohorts At Odds Demographically   Chart II-17Massive Turnout To The 2016 Referendum On Trump The adage that the youth are apolitical and do not turn out to vote may have ended thanks to President Trump. The 2018 midterm election, which the Democratic Party successfully turned into a referendum on the president, saw the youth (18-29) turnout nearly double from 20% to 36% (the 30-44 year-old cohort also saw a jump in turnout from 35.6% to 48.8%). The election saw one of the highest turnouts in recent memory, with a 53.4% figure, just two points off the 2016 general election figure (Chart II-17). Despite the high turnout in 2018, the-most-definitely-not-Millennial Vice President Joe Biden continues to lead the Democratic Party in the polls. His probability of winning the nomination is not overwhelming, but it is the highest of any contender. In recent polls, Biden comes third place in Millennial/Gen-Z vote preferences (Chart II-18). Yet he is hardly out of contention, especially for the 30-44 year-old cohort. The view that “Uncle Joe” does not fit the Democratic Party zeitgeist has become so entrenched in the Democratic Party narrative that it became conventional wisdom last year, pulling oddsmakers and betting markets away from the clear frontrunner (Chart II-19). Chart II-18Biden Unpopular Among Young American Voters Chart II-19Bookies Pulled Down 'Uncle Joe’s' Odds, Capturing Democratic Party Zeitgeist     As such, a Biden victory at the Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin on July 13-16 may come as an affront to the left-wing activists who will surely descend on the convention. This will particularly be the case if Biden wins despite the progressive candidates amassing a majority of overall delegates, which is possible judging by the combined progressive vote share in current polling (Chart II-20). He would arrive in Milwaukee without clearing the 1990 delegate count required to win on the first ballot. On the second ballot, his presidency would then receive a boost from “superdelegates” and those progressives who are unwilling to “rock the boat,” i.e. unify against an establishment candidate with the largest share of votes. This is also how Mayor Michael Bloomberg could pull off a surprise win. Chart II-20Progressives Come Closest To Victory Such a “brokered” – or contested – convention has not occurred since 1952. However, several Democratic Party conventions came close, including 1968, 1972, and 1984. The 1968 one in Chicago was notable for considerable violence and unrest. Even if the Milwaukee Democratic Party convention does not produce unrest, it could sow the seeds for unrest later in the year. First, a breakout Biden performance in the primaries is unlikely. As such, he will likely need to pledge a shift to the left at the convention, including by accepting a progressive vice-presidential candidate. Second, an actual progressive may win the primary. Chart II-21Zealots In Both Parties Perceive Each Other As A National Threat It is likely that either of the two options would be seen as an existential threat to many of Trump’s loyal supporters across the United States. President Trump’s rhetoric often paints the scenario of a Democratic takeover of the White House in apocalyptic terms. And data suggests that the zealots in both parties perceive each other as a “threat to the nation’s wellbeing” (Chart II-21). The American Civil War in the nineteenth century began with the election of a president. This is not just because Abraham Lincoln was a particularly reviled figure in the South, but because the states that ultimately formed the Confederacy saw in his election the demographic writing-on-the-wall. The election was an expression of a general will that, from that point onwards, was irreversible. Given demographic trends in the US today, it is possible that many would see in Trump’s loss a similar fait accompli. If one perceives progressive Democrats as an existential threat to the US constitution, rebellion is the obvious and rational response. Bottom Line: Year 2020 may be a particularly violent one for the US. First, left wing activists may be shocked and angered to learn that Joe Biden (or Bloomberg) is the nominee of the Democratic Party come July. With so much hype behind the progressive candidates throughout the campaign, Biden’s nomination could be seen as an affront to what was supposed to be “the big year” for left-wing candidates. Second, investors have to start thinking about what happens if Biden – or a progressive candidate – goes on to defeat President Trump in the general election. While liberal America took Trump’s election badly, it has demographics – and thus time – on its side. Trump’s most ardent supporters may conclude that his defeat means the end of America as they know it. Black Swan 4: Europe’s Migration Crisis Restarts It is a testament to Europe’s resilience that we do not have a Black Swan scenario based on an election or a political crisis set on the continent in 2020. Support for the common currency and the EU as a whole has rebounded to its highest since 2013. Even early elections in Germany and Italy are unlikely to produce geopolitical risk. The populists in the former are in no danger of outperforming whereas the populists in the latter barely deserve the designation. But what if one of the reasons for the surge in populism – unchecked illegal immigration – were to return in 2020? Chart II-22Decline In Illegal Immigration Dampened European Populism The data suggests that the risk of migrant flows has massively subsided. From its peak of over a million arrivals in 2015, the data shows that only 125,472 migrants crossed into Europe via land and sea routes in the Mediterranean last year (Chart II-22). Why? There are five reasons that we believe have checked the flow of migrants: Supply: The civil wars in Syria, Iraq, and Libya have largely subsided. Heterogenous regions, cities, and neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed and internal boundaries have largely ossified. It is unlikely that any future conflict will produce massive outflows of refugees as the displacement has already taken place. These countries are now largely divided into armed, ethnically homogenous, camps. Enforcement: The EU has stepped up border enforcement since 2015, pouring resources into the land border with Turkey and naval patrols across the Mediterranean. Individual member states – particularly Italy and Hungary – have also stepped up border enforcement policy. While most EU member states have publicly chided both for “draconian” policies, there is no impetus to force Rome and Budapest to change policy. Libyan Imbroglio: Conflict in Libya has flared up in 2019 with military warlord Khalifa Haftar looking to wrest control from the UN-backed Government of National Accord led by Fayez al-Serraj. The Islamic State has regrouped in the country as well. Ironically, the conflict is helping stem the flow of migrants as African migrants from sub-Saharan countries dare not cross into Libya as they did in 2015 when there was a brief lull in fighting. Turkish benevolence: Ankara is quick to point out that it is the only thing standing between Europe and a massive deluge of migrants. Turkey is said to host somewhere between two and four million refugees from various conflicts in the Middle East. Fear of the crossing: If crossing the Mediterranean was easy, Europe would have experienced a massive influx of migrants throughout the twentieth century. Not only is it not easy, it is costly and quite deadly, with thousands lost each year. Furthermore, most migrants are not welcomed when they arrive to Europe, many are held in terrible conditions in holding camps in Italy and Greece. Over time, migrants who made it into Europe have reported these dangers and conditions, reducing the overall demand for illegal migration. We do not foresee these five factors changing, at least not all at once. However, there are several reasons to worry about the flow of migrants in 2020. US-Iran tensions have sparked outright military action, while unrest is flaring up across Iran’s sphere of influence. Going forward, Iran could destabilize Iraq or fuel Shia unrest against US-backed regimes. Second, Afghanistan has been the source of most migrants to Europe via sea and land Mediterranean routes – 19.2%. The conflict in the country continues and may flare up with President Trump’s decision to formally withdraw most US troops from the country in 2020. Third, a break in fighting in Libya may encourage sub-Saharan migrants to revisit routes to Europe. Migrants from Guinea, Cote d’Ivoire, and the Democratic Republic of Congo make up over 10% of migrants to Europe. Finally, Turkish relationship with the West could break up further in 2020, causing Ankara to ship migrants northward. We highly doubt that President Erdogan will risk such a break, given that 50% of Turkish exports go to Europe. A European embargo on Turkish exports – which would be a highly likely response to such an act – would crush the already decimated Turkish economy. Bottom Line: While we do not see a return to the 2015 level of migration in 2020, we flag this risk because it would fundamentally undermine political stability in Europe. Black Swan 5: Russia Faces A “Peasant Revolt” Our fifth and final black swan risk for the year stems from Russia. This risk may seem obvious, since the US election creates a dynamic that revives the inherent conflict in US-Russian relations. Russia could seek to accomplish foreign policy objectives – interfering in US elections, punishing regional adversaries. The Trump administration may be friendly toward Russia but Trump is unlikely to veto any sanctions passed by the House and Senate in an election year, should an occasion for new sanctions arise. Conversely Russia could anticipate greater US pressure if the Democrats win in November. Yet it is Russia’s domestic affairs that represent the real underrated risk. Putin’s fourth term as president has been characterized by increased focus on domestic political control and stability as opposed to foreign adventurism. The creation of a special National Guard in 2016, reporting directly to Putin and responsible for quelling domestic unrest, symbolizes the shift in focus. So too does Russia’s adherence to the OPEC 2.0 regime of production control to keep oil prices above their budget breakeven level. Meanwhile Putin’s courting of Europe for the Nordstream II pipeline, and his slight peacemaking efforts with Ukraine, has suggested a slightly more restrained international posture. Strategically it makes little sense for Russia to court negative attention at a time when the US and Europe are at odds over trade and the Middle East, the US is preoccupied with China and Iran, and Russia itself faces mounting domestic problems. The domestic problems are long in coming. The central bank has maintained a stringent monetary policy for the better part of the decade. Despite cutting interest rates recently, monetary and credit conditions are still tight, hurting domestic demand. Moscow has also imposed fiscal austerity, namely by cutting back on state pensions and hiking the value added tax. Real wage growth is weak (Chart II-23), retail sales are falling, and domestic demand looks to weaken further, as Andrija Vesic of BCA Emerging Markets Strategy observes in a recent Special Report. The effect of Russia’s policy austerity has been a drop in public approval of the administration (Chart II-24). Protests erupted in 2019 but were largely drowned out by the larger and more globally significant protests in Hong Kong. These were met by police suppression that has not removed their underlying cause. Putin’s first major decision of the new year was to reshuffle the government, entailing Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev’s transfer to a new post and the appointment of a new cabinet. This move reveals the need to show some accountability to reduce popular pressure. While Moscow now has room to cut interest rates and ease fiscal policy, it is behind the curve and the weak economy will add fuel to domestic unrest. Chart II-23Sluggish Wage Growth Threatens Russian Stability Chart II-24Austerity Weighed On The Administration's Popularity In Russia   Meanwhile Putin’s efforts to alter the Russian constitution so he can stay in power beyond current term limits, effectively becoming emperor for life, like Xi Jinping, should not be dismissed merely because they are expected. They reflect a need to take advantage of Putin’s popular standing to consolidate domestic political power at a time when the ruling United Russia party and the federal government face discontent. They also ensure that strategic conflict with the United States will take on an ideological dimension. Russia's recent cabinet shakeup is positive from the point of view of economic reform. And the country's monetary and fiscal room provide a basis for remaining overweight equities within EM, as our Emerging Markets Strategy recommends. However, Russian equities have rallied hard and the political risk is understated. Chart II-25Russian Political Risk Is Unsustainably Low Bottom Line: It is never easy predicting Putin’s next international move. Our market-based indicators of Russian political risk have hit multi-year lows, but both the domestic and international context suggest that these lows will not be sustained (Chart II-25). A new bout of risk can emanate from Putin, or from changes in Washington, or from the Russian people themselves. What would take the world by surprise would be domestic unrest on a larger scale than Russia can easily suppress through the police force. Housekeeping We are closing our long European Union / short Chinese equities strategic trade with a 1.61% loss since inception on May 10, 2019. Dhaval Joshi of BCA’s European Investment Strategy downgraded the Eurostoxx 50 to underweight versus the S&P 500 and the Nikkei 225 this week. He makes the point that the Euro Area bond yield 6-month impulse hit 100 bps – a critical technical level – and will be a strong headwind to growth. We will look to reopen this trade at a later date when the euphoria over the “phase one” trade deal subsides, as we still favor European equities and DM bourses over EM. We will reinstitute our long Brent crude H2 2020 versus H2 2021 tactical position, which was stopped out on January 9, 2020. We remain bullish on oil fundamentals and expect Middle East instability to add a political risk premium. China's stimulus and the oil view also give reason for us to reinitiate our long Malaysian equities relative to EM as a tactical position. The Malaysian ringgit will benefit as oil prices move higher, helping Malaysian companies make payments on their large pile of dollar-denominated debt and improving household purchasing power. Higher oil prices also correlate with higher equity prices, while China's stimulus and the US trade ceasefire will push the US dollar lower and help trade revive in the region. Marko Papic Chief Strategist, Clocktower Group Matt Gertken Geopolitical Strategist   III. Indicators And Reference Charts The S&P 500 rally looks increasingly vulnerable from a tactical perspective. The US benchmark is overbought, and the percentage of NYSE stocks above their 30-week and 10-week moving averages is rolling over at elevated levels. Additionally, the number of NYSE new highs minus new lows has moved in a parabolic fashion and has hit levels that in previous years have warned of an imminent correction. The spread of nCoV-2019 is likely to be the catalyst to a pullback that could cause the S&P 500 to retest its October 2019 breakout. An improving outlook for global growth, limited inflationary pressures and global central banks who maintain an accommodative monetary stance bode well for stocks. Therefore, the anticipated equity correction will not morph into a bear market. For now, our Monetary Indicator remains at extremely elevated levels. Furthermore, our Composite Technical Indicator has strengthened. Additionally, our BCA Composite Valuation index suggests that stocks are expensive, but not so much as to cancel out the supportive monetary and technical backdrop. Finally, our Speculation Indicator is elevated, but is not so high as to warn of an imminent market top. This somewhat muted level of speculation is congruent with the expectation of low long-term growth rates for profits embedded in equity prices. In contrast to our Revealed Preference Indicator, our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) is moving in accordance with our constructive cyclical stance for stocks. Indeed, the WTP for the US, Japan and Europe continues to improve. The WTP indicator tracks flows, and thus provides information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. This broad-based improvement therefore bodes well for equities. Meanwhile, net earnings revisions appear to be forming a trough. 10-year Treasury yields remain extremely expensive. Moreover, according to our Composite Technical Indicator, T-Note prices are losing momentum. The fear surrounding the spread of the new coronavirus has cause bonds to rally again, but this is likely to be the last hurrah for the Treasury markets before a major reversal takes hold. The rising risk premia linked to the coronavirus is also helping the dollar right now, but signs that global growth is bottoming, such as the stabilization in the global PMIs, the pick-up in the German ZEW and Belgium’s Business Confidence surveys, or the improvement in Asia’s export growth, point to a worsening outlook for the counter-cyclical US dollar. Moreover, the dollar trades at a large premium of 24.5% relative to its purchasing-power parity equilibrium. Additionally, the negative divergence between the dollar and our Composite Momentum Indicator suggests that the dollar is technically vulnerable. In fact, the very modest pick-up in the dollar in response to the severe fears created by the spreading illness in China argues that dollar buying might have become exhausted. Finally, commodity prices have corrected meaningfully in response to the stronger dollar and the growth fears created by the spread of the coronavirus. However, they have not pulled back below the levels where they traded when they broke out in late 2019. Moreover, the advance/decline line of the Continuous Commodity Index remains at an elevated level, indicating underlying strength in the commodity complex. Natural resources prices will likely become the key beneficiaries of both the eventual pullback in virus-related fears and the weaker dollar.   EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1 Please see US Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Three EPS Scenarios," dated January 13, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com; US Equity Strategy Insight Report "Bombed Out Energy," dated January 8, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com; US Equity Strategy Special Report "Industrials: Start Your Engines," dated January 21, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 2  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report "January 2020," dated December 20, 2019 available at bca.bcaresearch.com; The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report "OUTLOOK 2020: Heading Into The End Game," dated November 22, 2019 available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy "A Reprieve Amid The Bull Market In Iran Tensions," dated January 8, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 Observe how little attention the public paid to US-China saber-rattling around China’s announcement of an Air Defense Identification Zone in the East China Sea that year.

Special Report

Highlights The US election cycle is an understated risk to US equities – and the risk of a left-wing populist outperforming in the Democratic primary election is frontloaded in February. The US-Iran conflict is unresolved and remains market-relevant. Iraq is at the center of the conflict and oil supply disruption there or elsewhere in the region is a substantial risk. Even if war does not erupt, Iran has the potential to give President Trump’s foreign policy a black eye and thus could marginally impact the election dynamic. Feature Stocks have rallied mightily since our August report on Trump’s “tactical trade retreat,” but new headwinds face the market. In this report we call attention to four hurdles arising from US election uncertainty. Then we focus on the status of Iran and Iraq in the wake of this month’s hostilities, which brought the US and Iran to the brink of outright war. We maintain that the Iran risk is unresolved and will remain market-relevant in advance of the US election. Primarily due to the US Democratic primary election, we urge caution on US equities in the near term, along with our Global Investment Strategy, despite our cyclically bullish House View. Four Hurdles In The US Election Cycle The US election cycle is the chief political risk to the bull market this year – and geopolitical risks largely radiate from it. There are four immediate hurdles that financial markets are underestimating: Risks to Trump's re-election: Global investors have come around to our view since 2018 that Trump is slightly favored to win re-election (Chart 1). Bets on the related question of which party will hold the White House have flipped from Democratic to Republican (Chart 2). Everyone now recognizes that Trump will not be removed from office through impeachment. Chart 1Trump Re-election Odds Add To Risk-On Chart 2Republicans Now Favored For White House Yet, anecdotally, investors may be becoming complacent about Trump’s chances. He is not a shoo-in. Subjectively we have argued that his odds of victory are 55%. Our quantitative election model shows that Wisconsin has shifted to the Republican camp since November, but it places the odds of winning that state (and Pennsylvania) at less than 52% (Chart 3). This gives Trump 289 electoral votes, only 19 more than necessary. If both of these states tipped in the opposite direction then investors would be facing a major policy reversal in the United States. Chart 3Our US 2020 Election Model Shows Trump Win With 289 Electoral College Votes Chart 4The US Economy Is Still A Risk To Trump Trump’s low approval rating remains a liability – and in this sense impeachment is still relevant, in that it can either help or hurt his approval, or prompt him to seek distractions abroad that could deliver negative surprises. Moreover the US manufacturing sector and labor market are not out of the woods yet (Chart 4). In short, the election is still ten months away and a lot can happen between now and then. We see Trump as only slightly favored. Moreover other hurdles are more immediate than the benefits of policy continuity upon a Trump win. 2. Risks to Biden's nomination: Throughout last year we maintained that former Vice President Joe Biden was the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, albeit with very low conviction. In particular, after Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders’s poor showing in the third debate and subsequent heart attack, we expected Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren to consolidate the progressive vote and trigger a policy-induced selloff in US equities. This never occurred because Biden held firm, Sanders recovered, and Warren fell. The risk to equities from a left-wing populist Democratic nominee is frontloaded in February and March. Now, however, the risk to equities is back. The Democratic Party faces a last-ditch effort from its left or “progressive” wing and anti-establishment voters to oppose Biden. With the primary election now upon us – the Iowa Caucus is February 3 – national opinion polls show that Sanders is pushing up against Biden (Chart 5). It is less clear if Sanders is breaking through in the primary polling state-by-state, where multiple candidates remain competitive (Chart 6). But online gamblers are reasserting Biden over Sanders at just the moment when progressives are set to launch their biggest push (Chart 7). Meanwhile New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is finally gaining some traction – and he eats away at Biden’s support from centrist voters. Everything is in flux, which warrants caution. Chart 5Biden Is The Frontrunner, But Sanders Is Challenger Chart 6Biden Not A Shoo-In For Early Democratic Primary States Biden is still favored to win the nomination, but he has not clinched it. The market faces volatility during the period when Democrats get “cold feet” about nominating another establishment candidate. Moreover the fundamental knock against Sanders – that he is not as “electable” as Biden – is debatable, judging by head-to-head polls against Trump (Chart 8). This means that a shift in momentum – for instance, if Biden lurches from disappointments in early states to underperformance in his bulwark of South Carolina – would have legs. Ultimately a “contested convention” is not impossible. This would be a negative surprise to market participants currently assuming that the world faces the relatively benign choice of two known quantities: an establishment Democrat or a continuation of Trump policies. Chart 7Betting Markets Overlooking Party 'Cold Feet' Over Biden Chart 8Electability Fears May Not Stop Sanders Rally Risks to the Republican Senate: Assuming Biden clinches the nomination, he has a 45% chance of winning the election – and in that case, his chance of bringing the Senate over to the Democrats is higher than investors realize. This is another risk that the market will awaken to later this year. Chart 9Democrats Underestimated In Senate The consensus holds that Republicans will hold the Senate, particularly with Republican senators in Maine and Iowa leading their Democratic challengers in polling. The problem is that for Democrats to unseat an incumbent president they will necessarily have generated strong turnout from key demographic groups: young people, suburbanites, women, and minorities. If that is the case, then the election will not be as tight as expected and Republicans will be less likely to hold the Senate. This would require rising unemployment or some other blow that fundamentally damages the Trump administration’s popular support in key swing states. At least until it becomes clear that the manufacturing sector is out of the woods, the Democrats should be seen as far more likely to take the Senate than the Republicans are to retake the House of Representatives – yet this goes against the consensus (Chart 9). Rising odds of a Senate victory would mean that even a “centrist” Democrat like Biden would have fewer political constraints in office – he would pose a greater threat of increasing taxes, minimum wages, and passing legislative regulation than the market currently expects. In short, Biden would be pulled to the left of the political spectrum by his party and expectations of an establishment Democrat posing a minimal threat to corporate profits would be greatly disappointed. Risks of Trump's second term: Finally, assuming the manufacturing sector rebounds and that Trump’s odds of re-election rise above 55%, market complacency becomes an even bigger concern for a long-term investor. For in his second term Trump would become virtually unshackled with regard to economic and financial constraints, since he cannot run for office again. He would still face the senate, the Supreme Court, and other constraints, but these would certainly not preclude a doubling down on trade war (or confrontations with nuclear-aspirants like Iran or North Korea). We have argued that Trump will not instigate a trade war with Europe, at least until the economy has clearly rebounded, and most likely not until his second term. But we fully expect chapter two of the trade war to begin in 2021 – and this could mean China, Europe, or even a two-front war. Re-election could go to Trump’s head and prompt him to overreach on the global stage. Hence we expect the relief rally on Trump’s re-election to be short-lived and would be looking to sell the news. But the S&P 500 faces more immediate hurdles anyway, and that is why we urge caution in the very near term. Iran is still a major geopolitical risk this year. Bottom Line: None of these hurdles are insurmountable, but the US election cycle is now an understated risk to the equity bull market. We agree with our Global Investment Strategy that it is prudent to shift to a neutral position tactically on US equities, especially for the February and March period when uncertainty rises over the Democratic Party primary. This does not change our view that the underlying global economy is improving, largely on China’s rebound, and that the cyclical outlook is positive. Don’t Bet On Regime Collapse In Iran (Yet) The January 8 Iranian attack on US bases in Iraq was intended to serve as a breather for Iranian leaders. It was meant to put on pause the rapid escalation in US-Iran tensions – allowing Iranian leaders to recover from the assassination of top military commander Qassem Suleimani – all the while appeasing the public through a public show of revenge. As fate would have it, however, the Iranian regime was granted no such respite. Days later, domestic unrest descended on the Islamic Republic as protesters returned to the streets across the country, criticizing the regime’s downing of a civilian airliner and re-stating their long-running complaints against the regime. Civil strife is not uncommon in Iran (Table 1). Economic inefficiencies, corruption, and discriminatory policies which serve to reward regime loyalists while suppressing the private sector are only some of the grievances faced by Iranians.1 Table 1Civil Strife Ongoing Problem In Iran Today’s strife is relevant, however, because it is fueled by US-imposed “maximum pressure” sanctions that have created an even bleaker economic reality. Iranian exports were down 37% in 2019 following an 18% decline the previous year. Oil exports fell to 129 thousand barrels per day in December 2019, down from an average 2.1 million barrels per day in 2017 (Chart 10). Households are facing the brunt, experiencing a 17% unemployment rate and a whopping 36% inflation rate (Chart 11). Chart 10US 'Maximum Pressure' Sanctions On Iranian Oil Exports Chart 11Iranian Households Bear Brunt Of Economic Shock The 2020-21 budget, released in December and described as a weapon of “resistance against US sanctions,” intends to plug the deficit using state bonds and state property sales (Chart 12). However Iran’s fiscal condition is shaky. The International Monetary Fund estimates a fiscal breakeven oil price of $194.6 per barrel for Iran, more than 3 times higher than current oil prices. Chart 12Iran’s Fiscal Condition Is Shaky Chart 13Iran Avoiding Devaluation Under Trump Chart 14Iranians Also Blame Their Government For Malaise The solution of former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the populist hawk who led the government during the US’s previous round of sanctions, was to devalue the official exchange rate. The weaker rial raised local currency revenues for each barrel of exported oil and encouraged import substitution in other industries. However devaluation came at a steep political cost and sparked riots and protests. So far President Hassan Rouhani has eschewed this strategy, instead maintaining a stable official exchange rate, used as the reference for subsidized basic goods and medicine (Chart 13). Nevertheless, the unofficial market rate has weakened 68% since the beginning of 2018. It is no surprise then that Iranians all over the country are taking to the streets. The latest bout of unrest is significant in size, geographic reach, and in that protesters are calling on Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to step down as supreme leader. Despite US sanctions, Iranian protesters are partially blaming Khamenei and the government for the country’s malaise (Chart 14). Even prior to the US withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal, Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA), Iranians were angry about economic mismanagement. Nevertheless, according to our checklist for an Iranian revolution, the regime is not yet at risk of collapse (Table 2). Although the street movement is picking up pace, it is not organized or unified. There is no alternative being offered against the all-powerful supreme leader, and the political elite are mostly united in preserving the current system. Table 2Iran Regime Stability Checklist The regime has two main options going forward: seek immediate economic relief through negotiations with the United States, or hunker down and wait to see whether President Trump is reelected and able to sustain his campaign of maximum pressure, and go from there. We fully expect the latter. Domestic dissent can still be suppressed for the time being. The parliamentary – or Majlis – elections scheduled for February 21 could in theory offer Iranians an opportunity to voice their discontent through the ballot box. However this democratic exercise conceals the known political reality that the supreme leader holds supreme authority, even in the selection of parliament or the president (Diagram 1). Thus the election result will not drive major policy change. Diagram 1Supreme Leader Controls Iran A case in point was the regime’s 2016 strategy in the parliamentary election. At that time, the conservative-dominated Guardian Council, responsible for screening potential candidates, rejected well-known reformist applicants (Chart 15). As a result, the reformists who were able to win seats were either lesser-known figures or unaligned with liberals in the reformist movement. Thus while the reformist presence in parliament nominally surged, these lawmakers were ineffective, reneging on campaign promises or collaborating with the conservative faction. The 2016 election serves as a blueprint for what to expect in the upcoming elections in February. The Guardian Council ruled that out of around 15,000 candidates, only 60 (relatively unknown) reformist candidates were qualified to run for the election.2 The elections will not change anything, but this means the grievances of the population will fester in the coming years, especially if the US does not change policies. This is where the medium-term risk to regime stability – namely through elite divisions – becomes apparent. The impending leadership succession is a major source of uncertainty. Supreme Leader Khamenei is the main barrier to political change. At 80 years old and reportedly suffering from poor health, a change in leadership is imminent. However, no one has been officially endorsed as his successor. This is an immense source of uncertainty in the coming years. There are several possibilities for the succession.3 A successor is appointed by the Assembly of Experts. Because we exclude Rouhani as a candidate for supreme leader, the potential candidates for Iran’s top position listed below ascribe to Khamanei’s hardline ideology: Hojjat ol-Eslam Ebrahim Raisi, head of judiciary and of the Imam Reza shrine since March 2019. Raisi is reportedly Khamenei’s favorite for succession. He is a hardliner who lost the May 2017 presidential election to Rouhani.4 Ayatollah Sadeq Larijani, the conservative former head of the judiciary and current chairman of the Expediency Discernment Council, which is responsible for resolving disputes among government branches. Larijani is also a member of the Guardian Council.5 Ayatollah Ahmad Khatemi, hardline Tehran Friday prayer leader and senior member of the Assembly of Experts. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) – a military force with immense influence in the regime – may choose to rule itself. We assign a low likelihood of this occurring. The IRGC is more likely to ensure that Khamenei’s successor is someone who supports its hardline ideology and vision for Iran. Some moderate clerics are advocating a change in structure, whereby the position of supreme leader is abolished. This school of thought argues that political leaders should be selected based on popular election rather than appointment.6 We do not assign high odds to this scenario. Until the Assembly of Experts selects the successor, a three-member council made up of the Iranian president, the head of judiciary, and a theologian of the Guardian Council, will assume the functions of supreme leader. Such a “triumvirate” could last longer than expected, or could even be formally decided as an alternative to a new supreme leader. In the context of such extreme uncertainty for the regime’s leadership in the coming decade, it is highly unlikely that the current political leaders will engage in negotiations with President Trump until they are sure of his staying power (Chart 16). First, the Iranians will continue to refuse talks prior to the US election. They will seek to undermine the Trump administration, yet without crossing red lines on the nuclear program (one year till nuclear breakout) or militant activities (killing American citizens). Chart 15Iran’s Guardians Vet Election Candidates Second, if Trump wins, then the shift to negotiations may or may not come, but the subsequent diplomatic process will be prolonged. Trump will have to gain the full cooperation of Europe, Russia, and China – and any new US-Iran deal is an open question and will involve tensions flaring up more than once. Chart 16Iranians Opposed To Talks With Trump Third, even if the Democrats win, the regime will play “hard to get” and will not immediately return to status quo ante Trump, although eventually there could be a restoration of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or something like it. This process could also involve saber-rattling despite the Democrats’ more dovish disposition toward Iran. Bottom Line: The US maximum pressure campaign is not aimed at regime change in Iran, but if it brings any political change it will be a shift in a more hawkish direction as the regime faces immense internal and external pressures and an uncertain succession in the coming years. Iran’s leaders will continue to suppress unrest and can probably succeed in the near term. The confrontation with the US discredits any political actors who advocate negotiations. The path toward reform and improved relations with the West is closed until after the US election at minimum. Since Iran will seek to undermine both President Trump and the US presence in the Middle East in the meantime, US-Iran tensions remain a market-relevant source of risk in 2020. Iraq Still Poses An Oil Supply Risk Chart 17Iraqis Suffering From Poor Governance Iraq is ground zero for the US-Iran showdown, since the two powers have eschewed direct military confrontation. Iraqis have also been suffering the consequences of an ill-functioning political system (Chart 17). Corruption has prevented the trickle down of oil revenues, resulting in endemic poverty and inequality (Chart 18). Yet unlike its neighbor, Iraq is not ruled by a supreme leader who controls a powerful armed forces to which anger can be directed. Instead, protesters have been blaming the deep seated influence of the Iranian regime, which often results in what Iraqis’ argue to be a prioritization of foreign – i.e. Iranian – objectives over national ones. The demonstrations were successful in forcing the resignation of Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi and the passing of a new electoral law. However Iraq remains in a state of chaos as Iraqis have vowed to remain on the street until all their conditions are met, including the appointment of an acceptable prime minister and early elections. Chart 18Poverty, Inequality, Corruption Plague Iraq This batch of reforms has been challenging for politicians to execute. For one, there is a lack of clarity as to which political group holds the majority of seats in Iraq’s Council of Representatives. Both the Iran-backed al-Binaa bloc as well as the al-Islah coalition led by Muqtada al-Sadr claim this position (Chart 19). A list of candidates for the temporary position of prime minister until early elections are held, proposed by Binaa in December, was rejected by President Barham Salih on grounds that it did not include anyone who would possess the support of the demonstrators. Chart 19Iraqi Parliamentary Control Up For Grabs Iraqi protesters have consistently reiterated their desire for a sovereign state, free from both American and Iranian interference. However, this nationalistic call has been disrupted and overshadowed by the US-Iran conflict. Importantly, the protest movement has now lost its most influential backer within the Iraqi political system: Sadr of the Islah bloc. This year’s Iran tensions and the parliamentary resolution to eject US troops from Iraq have unified the warring Shia political blocs. Sadr has called on the Mahdi army – a notoriously anti-American force also known as the Peace Brigades – to re-assemble. On January 13, in what can only be interpreted as a rapprochement among the main Shia political factions, Sadr met with paramilitary leaders making up the Popular Mobilization Forces in the Iranian city of Qom. They discussed the creation of a “united resistance” and the need jointly to expel foreign troops. Sadr also called for a “million-man march” against US troops in Iraq.7 Sadr’s pivot to Iran has not gone down well in Iraq’s streets, where protesters are accusing him of putting aside national goals for his own personal aspirations. While the protest movement will keep going, it is now largely headless and competing with the unified priorities of the Shia parties. This state of affairs weakens the odds of a sovereign Iraq that curbs Iranian regional influence. The political class is more likely to turn a blind eye to the repression of protesters, which is likely to increase as the system notches up its crackdown on dissent. A return to the status quo ante in Iraq is also now more likely. A new government may be elected. It may include more technocratic politicians in a nod to the protestors, but the pro-Iranian faction has fortified its position as kingmaker. Meanwhile, Sadr has decided that reform should be postponed for a later day. Iraqis who have been camping out on the streets for nearly four months, risking their lives, are unlikely to be easily put down. Instead their frustrations will manifest in more aggressive forms, such as through violence and the sabotage of infrastructure. Saudi Arabia may or may not seek to interfere in Iraq to maintain the pressure on Iranian interests. If it does so, it risks escalating the situation and provoking retaliation from Iran. Iraqi efforts to force a US troop withdrawal will clash with US interests. President Trump wants to reduce commitments but does not want to risk anything remotely resembling a Saigon-style evacuation during an election year. As such, some form of sanctions against Iraq is possible. The US administration may pass up imposing sanctions on oil sales and instead target USD flows to Iraq’s central bank. Blocking or reducing access to Iraqi accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank in New York – to which all revenues from Iraqi oil sales are directed – would debilitate the economy and amplify the risk to stability and hence oil flows. Washington’s decision whether to renew waivers allowing Iraq to import Iranian gas – set to expire mid-February – will signal whether the events earlier this year changed the US’s calculus. Iraq is extremely dependent on Iranian gas to generate power. A decision not to extend the waivers would cause greater friction between the Iraqi street and the ruling elite.8 Bottom Line: Baghdad is getting dragged deeper into chaos. Alignment with Iran, and delays in government formation and economic reform, will aggravate tensions between the street and the political class. Dissent may take on more violent forms going forward. Middle Eastern oil supply will remain vulnerable to instability and sabotage in Iraq and the broader Persian Gulf. Investment Conclusions In the very near term we expect US equities to encounter headwinds due to the over extension of the rally and immediate risks from the US election cycle. We also see global risk appetite suffering due to US uncertainty, as well as to fears about the new coronavirus. These may reach a crescendo in the wake of Chinese New Year travel season. However, China’s stimulative policy trajectory will ultimately be reinforced due to the economic threat from the outbreak. And China’s economy is showing signs of rebounding. This reinforces our constructive view on the global business cycle overall, on commodities, and on select emerging markets that produce oil or are undertaking structural reforms. The US-Iran conflict is ongoing and we expect it to continue injecting a risk premium into oil markets. The two sides are effectively playing Russian roulette.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Roukaya Ibrahim Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The IRGC and bonyads – para-governmental organizations that provide funding for groups supporting the Islamic Republic – have access to subsidies, favorable contracts, and cheap loans. Together they run a considerable part of the economy. 2 Questions Loom In Iran As Reformist Factions Lose Hope In Elections," dated January 23, 2020, available at en.radiofarda.com. 3 In an interview with Fars news agency in June 2019, Ayatollah Mohsen Araki, a prominent member of the Assembly of Experts, mentioned that a committee of three members from the Assembly of Experts were working on a list of prospective supreme leaders, which they will present to the full AE when necessary. Please see "Is Iran’s Next Supreme Leader Already Chosen?," dated June 18, 2019, available at en.radiofarda.com. 4 Please see "Ebrahim Raisi: The Cleric Who Could End Iranian Hopes For Change," dated January 5, 2019, available at aljazeera.com. 5 Please see “A Right-Wing Loyalist, Sadeq Larijani, Gains More Power in Iran,” dated January 8, 2019, available at atlanticcouncil.org. 6 Mohsen Kadivar, an unorthodox cleric who was forced to flee Iran due to his political views, and is now an instructor at Duke University is a critic of the system of Velayet-e Faqih, or clerical rule. He claims that since the death of Khomeini, a majority of Iran’s religious scholars hold a “secretive belief” that supreme clerical rule should be abolished as it only leads to despotism. 7 In response to Sadr’s call for a “million man march”, Ayatollah al-Sistani repeated his warning against “those who seek to exploit the protests that call for reforms to achieve certain goals that will hurt the primary interests of the Iraqi people and are not in line with their true values.” 8 The last time Iran reduced electricity exports to Iraq resulted in mass protests in Iraq in July 2018. Thus if the sanction waivers are not renewed the cutoff of gas risks a greater clash between the Iraqi street and government, especially during the hot summer months.

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

Highlights Duration: Despite recent setbacks, global growth looks set to improve and policy uncertainty set to ease during the next couple of months. Both will conspire to push bond yields higher. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. US political risks could flare again around mid-year, sending yields lower. TIPS: We recommend that investors enter TIPS breakeven curve flatteners, both because short-term inflation expectations will respond more quickly than long-term expectations to stronger realized inflation data and to hedge against the risk of an oil supply shock. High-Yield: Investors should add (or increase) exposure to the high-yield energy sector, within an overweight allocation to junk bonds. Junk energy spreads are attractive, and exposure to the sector will mitigate the impact of a potential oil supply shock. Feature Only a month ago, investors were becoming more optimistic about a global growth rebound and the US/China phase 1 trade deal was pushing political risk into the background. Both of those factors caused the 10-year Treasury yield to rise throughout December, hitting an intra-day Christmas Eve peak of 1.95% (Chart 1). But since then, softer global PMI data and the US/Iranian military conflict brought global growth concerns and political risk back to the fore, breaking the uptrend in yields. Chart 1Bond Bear On Pause Global growth and political uncertainty are two of the five macro factors that we identify as important for US bond yields.1 And despite the recent setback, we think both factors will push yields higher in the coming months. Global Growth We have found that the Global Manufacturing PMI, the US ISM Manufacturing PMI and the CRB Raw Industrials index are the three global growth indicators that correlate most strongly with US bond yields. One reason for the recent pullback in yields is the disappointing December data from the Global and US Manufacturing PMIs. The ISM Manufacturing PMI moved deeper into recessionary territory. The Global Manufacturing PMI had been in a clear uptrend since mid-2019, but fell back to 50.1 in December, from 50.3 the month before (Chart 2). The US and Chinese PMIs also declined in December, though they remain well above the 50 boom/bust line (Chart 2, panels 3 & 4). The Eurozone and Japanese PMIs, meanwhile, are still in the doldrums (Chart 2, panels 2 & 5). More worrying than the small tick down in Global PMI is the US ISM Manufacturing PMI moving deeper into recessionary territory, from 48.1 to 47.2. However, we have good reason to think that stronger data are just around the corner (Chart 3). Chart 2Global PMI Ticks Down Chart 3ISM Manufacturing Index Will Rebound First, the difference between the new orders and inventories components of the ISM index often leads the overall index at turning points, 2016 being a prime example (Chart 3, top panel). Much like in 2016, a gap is opening up between new orders-less-inventories and the overall ISM. Second, the non-manufacturing ISM index remains strong despite the weakness in manufacturing (Chart 3, panel 2). With no contagion to the service sector of the economy, we’d expect manufacturing to pick back up. Third, the ISM Manufacturing index has diverged sharply from the Markit Manufacturing PMI, with the Markit index printing well above the ISM (Chart 3, panel 3).2 The ISM index has been more volatile than the Markit index in recent years, and should trend toward the Markit index over time. Fourth, regional Fed manufacturing surveys have generally been stronger than the ISM during the past few months. A simple regression model of the ISM index based on data from regional Fed surveys suggests that the ISM index should be at 49.7 today, instead of 47.2 (Chart 3, bottom panel). Finally, unlike the PMI surveys, the CRB Raw Industrials index has increased quite sharply in recent weeks (Chart 4). We should note that it is not the CRB index itself but rather the ratio between the CRB index and gold that tracks bond yields most closely, and this ratio has actually declined lately due to the strength in gold. Nonetheless, a sustained turnaround in the CRB index would mark a big change from 2019 and would send a strong bond-bearish signal. Chart 4CRB Sends A Bond-Bearish Signal Political Uncertainty The second factor that sent bond yields lower during the past few weeks was the military conflict between the US and Iran. Tensions appear to have de-escalated for now, and we would expect any flight-to-quality flows to unwind during the next few weeks.3 But while we see policy uncertainty easing in the near-term, sending bond yields higher, we reiterate our view that US political uncertainty is the number one risk factor that could derail the 2020 bear market in bonds.4 Specifically, we see two looming US political risks. The first relates to President Trump’s re-election odds. For now, Trump’s approval rating is in line with past incumbent presidents that have won re-election (Chart 5). But if his approval doesn’t keep pace in the coming months, he will try to do something to change his fortunes. That could mean re-igniting the trade war with China, or once again ramping up tensions with Iran. A Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren victory would send a flight-to-quality into bonds. The second risk is that one of the progressive candidates – Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren – secures the Democratic nomination for president. Right now, both trail Joe Biden in the polls and betting markets (Chart 6), but things could change rapidly as the primary results come in during the next few months. The stock market would certainly sell off if an Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders presidency seems likely, sending a flight to quality into bonds.5 Chart 5Trump’s Approval Rating Must Rise Chart 6Democratic Nomination Betting Odds Bottom Line: Despite recent setbacks, global growth looks set to improve and policy uncertainty set to ease during the next couple of months. Both will conspire to push bond yields higher. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. US political risks could flare again around mid-year, sending yields lower. Playing An Oil Supply Shock In US Bond Markets US/Iranian military tensions are easing for now, but could flare again in the future. For that reason, it’s worth considering how US bond markets would respond in the event of a conflict between the US and Iran that removed a significant amount of the world’s oil supply from the market, causing the oil price to spike. The first implication is that US bond yields would fall. Even though it’s tempting to say that the inflationary impact of higher oil prices would push yields up, this effect would not dominate the flight-to-quality into US bonds that would result from the increase in political uncertainty. Case in point, Chart 1 shows that, while the inflation component of yields was stable as tensions flared during the past few weeks, it didn’t come close to offsetting the drop in the 10-year real yield. Beyond the impact on Treasury yields, there are two other segments of the US bond market that would be materially impacted by an oil supply shock: the TIPS breakeven inflation curve and corporate bond spreads. Buy TIPS Breakeven Curve Flatteners Table 1CPI Swap Curve Sensitivity To Oil When considering the impact of an oil supply shock on TIPS breakeven inflation rates, we first look at how the cost of inflation protection is influenced by changes in the oil price. Table 1 shows the sensitivity of weekly changes in different CPI swap rates to a $1 increase in the price of Brent crude oil. We use CPI swap rates instead of TIPS breakeven inflation rates because data are available for a wider maturity spectrum. Our analysis applies equally to the TIPS breakeven inflation curve. Two conclusions are apparent from Table 1. First, the entire CPI swap curve is positively correlated with the oil price, a higher oil price moves CPI swap rates higher and vice-versa. Second, the sensitivity of CPI swap rates to the oil price is greater at the short-end of the curve than at the long-end. This is fairly intuitive given that higher oil prices are inflationary in the short-term but could be deflationary in the long-run if they hamper economic growth. Chart 7Coefficients Stable Over Time Chart 7 shows that our two main conclusions are not dependent on the chosen time horizon. The 2-year CPI swap rate is positively correlated with the oil price for our entire sample period, as is the 10-year rate except for a brief window in 2014. The 2-year rate’s sensitivity is also consistently higher than the 10-year’s. Based on this analysis, we can suggest two good ways to hedge against the risk of an oil supply shock that sends prices higher: Buy inflation protection, either in the CPI swaps market or by going long TIPS versus duration-equivalent nominal Treasuries. Buy CPI swap curve (or TIPS breakeven inflation curve) flatteners.6 But we can introduce one more wrinkle to our analysis. Oil prices can rise because of stronger demand or because a shock suddenly removes supply from the market. It’s possible that the cost of inflation protection behaves differently in each case. Fortunately, the New York Fed has made an attempt to distinguish between those two scenarios. In its weekly Oil Price Dynamics Report, the Fed decomposes Brent oil price changes into demand-driven changes and supply-driven changes.7 It does this by looking at how other financial assets respond to oil price changes each week. Chart 8 shows the cumulative change in the Brent oil price since 2010, along with the New York Fed’s supply and demand factors. According to the Fed, demand has pressured the oil price higher since 2010, but this has been more than offset by greater supply. Chart 8Supply & Demand Oil Price Decomposition Using the New York Fed’s supply and demand series, we look at how CPI swap rates respond to higher oil prices in three different scenarios. First, we identify 252 weeks when demand and supply both contributed to higher oil prices. Second, we identify 95 weeks when higher oil prices were driven solely by demand. Finally, and most pertinently, we identify 92 weeks when higher oil prices were driven only by supply (Table 2). Table 2Weekly Change In CPI Swap Rate When Brent Oil Price Increases Results for the ‘Demand & Supply Driven’ and ‘Demand Driven’ scenarios are consistent with our results from Table 1. CPI swap rates across the entire curve move higher more than half the time, with greater increases at the short-end of the curve. However, the scenario we are most interested in is the ‘Supply Driven’ scenario. Presumably, a military conflict with Iran that took oil supply off the market would lead to less supply and also a decrease in global demand. Results for this scenario are more mixed. The 1-year CPI swap rate still rises 60% of the time, but rates further out the curve are somewhat more likely to fall. With this in mind, CPI swap curve or TIPS breakeven curve flatteners look like the best way to hedge against an oil supply shock, better than an outright long position in inflation protection. This is good news, since we have previously argued that owning TIPS breakeven curve flatteners is a good idea even without an oil supply shock.8 Corporate bond excess returns respond positively to changes in the oil price. We recommend that investors enter TIPS breakeven curve flatteners, both because short-term inflation expectations will respond more quickly than long-term expectations to stronger realized inflation data and to hedge against the risk of an oil supply shock. Buy Energy Junk Bonds Table 3Corporate Bond Sensitivity To Oil Corporate bonds are the second segment of the US fixed income market that could be materially impacted by an oil supply shock, particularly bonds in the energy sector. To assess the potential value of corporate bonds as a hedge, we repeat the above analysis but use weekly corporate bond excess returns versus duration-matched Treasuries instead of CPI swap rates. Table 3 shows that investment grade and high-yield corporate bond returns both respond positively to changes in the oil price. Further, we see that energy bonds are more sensitive to the oil price, outperforming the overall index when the oil price rises, and vice-versa. Chart 9 shows that, while oil price sensitivities vary considerably over time, they are almost always positive. Also, energy sector sensitivity has been consistently above that of the benchmark index since 2014. Chart 9Betas Mostly Positive Going one step further, we once again use the New York Fed’s supply and demand decomposition to identify weeks when supply and/or demand was responsible for higher oil prices. Because we have more historical data for corporate bonds than for CPI swaps, this time we identify 340 weeks when both supply and demand drove the oil price higher, 123 weeks when only demand drove it higher and 142 weeks when only supply was responsible for the higher oil price (Table 4). Table 4Weekly Corporate Bond Excess Returns (BPs) When Brent Oil Price Increases Results for the ‘Demand & Supply Driven’ and ‘Demand Driven’ scenarios show that higher oil prices boost excess returns to both investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds more than half the time. Energy bonds also tend to outperform their respective benchmark indexes in the ‘Demand & Supply Driven’ scenario, but perform roughly in-line with the benchmark in the ‘Demand Driven’ scenario. But once again, it is the ‘Supply Driven’ scenario that we are most interested in. Here, we see that an oil supply disruption that leads to higher oil prices also leads to lower corporate bond excess returns. This is true for both the investment grade and high-yield indexes and for energy bonds in both rating categories. However, we also note that high-yield energy debt significantly outperforms the overall junk index during these “risk off” periods. In contrast, investment grade energy debt is not a clear outperformer. Chart 10HY Energy Spreads Are Very Attractive These results line up with our intuition. When oil prices are driven higher by demand it could simply be a sign of strong economic growth and not any specific trend related to the energy sector. As such, we’d expect all corporate bonds to perform well in those scenarios, but wouldn’t necessarily expect energy debt to outperform. However, supply disruptions in the Middle East directly benefit US shale oil players, whose debt is principally found in the high-yield energy sector. The investment grade energy sector is less exposed to the US shale space, and its documented outperformance in the ‘Supply Driven’ scenario is weaker as a result. We already recommend an overweight allocation to high-yield bonds and a neutral allocation to investment grade corporates. Within that overweight allocation to high-yield bonds, we recommend shifting some exposure toward the energy sector for two reasons. First, high-yield energy was severely beaten-down last year and is ripe for a rebound if global economic growth recovers, as we expect (Chart 10). Second, our analysis suggests that an allocation to energy will help mitigate losses in the event of a renewed flaring of US/Iranian tensions that removes oil supply from the market. Bottom Line: We recommend that investors initiate TIPS breakeven curve flatteners (or CPI swap curve flatteners) and add exposure to the high-yield energy sector. Both positions look attractive on their own terms, but will also help hedge the risk of an oil supply disruption if US/Iranian tensions flare back up in the months ahead.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The others are: the output gap, the US dollar and sentiment. For more details please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Bond Kitchen”, dated April 9, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 The Markit index is used in the construction of the Global PMI shown in Chart 2, 3 For more details on the politics behind the US/Iran conflict please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Alert, “A Reprieve Amid The Bull Market In Iran Tensions”, dated January 8, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 10, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Elizabeth Warren And The Markets”, dated September 13, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 6 In the TIPS market, an example of a breakeven curve flattener would be to buy 2-year TIPS and short the 2-year nominal Treasury note, while also buying the 10-year nominal Treasury note and shorting the 10-year TIPS. 7 https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/policy/oil_price_dynamics_report 8 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Position For Modest Curve Steepening”, dated October 29, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Receding trade tensions; diminished risks of a hard Brexit; reduced odds of a victory for Elizabeth Warren in the US presidential elections; liquidity injections by most major central banks; and improved sentiment about the state of the global economy all helped push stocks higher late last year. Some clouds have formed over the outlook since the start of the year, however. The December US ISM manufacturing index fell to the lowest level since 2009, while the PMIs in the euro area, UK, and Japan gave up some of their November gains. The conflict between the US and Iran also flared up. Although tensions have abated in recent days, BCA’s geopolitical strategists worry that the détente may not last. The US is seeking to shift its military focus towards East Asia in order to counter China’s ascendency. They argue that this could create a dangerous power vacuum in the Middle East. Stock market sentiment is quite bullish at the moment, which makes equities more vulnerable to any disappointing news. While we are maintaining our positive 12-month view on global equities and high-yield credit in anticipation that global growth will rebound convincingly later this year, we are downgrading our tactical 3-month view to neutral. Ho Ho Ho After handing investors a sack of coal last Christmas, Santa was back to his true self this past holiday season. Global equities rose 3.4% in December, finishing the year off with a stellar fourth quarter which saw the MSCI All-Country World index surge by 8.6%. Five forces helped push stocks higher: 1) Receding trade tensions; 2) Diminished risks of a hard Brexit; 3) Reduced odds of a victory for Elizabeth Warren in the US presidential elections; 4) Liquidity injections by the Fed, ECB, and the People’s Bank of China; and arguably most importantly 5) Improved sentiment about the state of the global economy. Tarrified No More Trade tensions subsided sharply after China and the US reached a “Phase One” agreement. The deal prevented tariffs from rising on December 15th on $160 billion of Chinese imports. It also rolls back the tariff rate from 15% to 7.5% on about $120 billion in imports that have been subject to levies since September (Chart 1). Chart 1The Evolution Of The US-China Trade War In addition, the Trump Administration allowed the November 13th deadline on European auto tariffs to lapse. This suggests that the US is unlikely to impose tariffs under the Section 232 investigation of auto imports. The auto sector has been at the forefront of the global manufacturing slowdown, so any good news for that industry is welcome. To top it all off, the US House of Representatives ratified the USMCA, the successor to NAFTA, on December 19th. We expect it to be signed into law in the first quarter of this year. Brexit Risks Fading... Chart 2The Majority Of British Voters Aren't Keen On Brexit Boris Johnson’s commanding victory in the UK elections has given him the votes necessary to push a withdrawal bill through parliament by the end of the month. The British government will then seek to negotiate a free trade agreement by the end of the year. A “no-deal” Brexit is unacceptable to the majority of British voters (Chart 2). As such, the Johnson government will have no choice but to strike a deal with the EU. ... While Trump Gains On the other side of the Atlantic, President Trump’s re-election prospects improved late last year despite (and perhaps because of) the ongoing impeachment process. There is an uncanny correlation between the probability that betting markets assign to a Trump victory and the value of the S&P 500 (Chart 3). Chart 3An Uncanny Correlation Chart 4Who Will Win The 2020 Democratic Nomination? It certainly has not hurt market sentiment that Elizabeth Warren’s poll numbers have been dropping recently (Chart 4). Warren’s best hope was to squeeze out Bernie Sanders as soon as possible, thereby leaving the far-left populist lane all to herself. That dream appears to have been dashed, which suggests that even if Trump loses, a centrist like Joe Biden could emerge as president. An Uneasy Truce It remains to be seen how President Trump’s decision to assassinate General Qassem Soleimani, a top Iranian commander, will affect the election outcome. A YouGov/HuffPost poll taken over the weekend revealed that 43% of Americans approved of the airstrike against Soleimani compared to 38% that disapproved.1 History suggests that the public’s patience for war will quickly wear thin if it results in American casualties or significantly higher gasoline prices. Neither side has an incentive to allow the conflict to spiral out of control. Foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted on Tuesday shortly after Iran lobbed missiles at two US military bases that Iran had “concluded” its retaliatory strike, adding that “We do not seek escalation or war.” Despite claims on Iranian public television that 80 “American terrorists” were killed in the attacks, no US troops were harmed. This suggests that the Iranians may be putting on a show for domestic consumption. The US economy is less vulnerable to spikes in oil prices than in the past. Nevertheless, plenty of things could still go wrong. BCA’s geopolitical team, led by Matt Gertken, has argued that the US is seeking to shift its military focus towards East Asia in order to counter China’s ascendency. This could create a dangerous power vacuum in the Middle East. There is also a risk that President Trump overplays his hand. Contrary to the President’s claims, Soleimani was quite popular in Iran (Chart 5). If Trump begins to mock the Iranian leadership’s feeble response, Iran will have no choice but to take more aggressive action. Chart 5Soleimani Was More Popular In Iran Than Trump Claims Chart 6US Economy Is Less Vulnerable To Spikes In Oil Prices Than In The Past One thing that could embolden Trump is that the US economy is less vulnerable to spikes in oil prices than in the past. US oil output reached as high as 12.9 mm b/d in 2019, allowing the country to become a net exporter of oil for the first time in history (Chart 6). Any increase in oil prices would incentivize further domestic production, which would help bring prices back down. The US economy has also become less energy intensive – it takes less than half as much oil to produce a unit of GDP today than it did in the early 1980s. Finally, unlike in the past, the Fed will not need to raise rates in response to higher oil prices due to the fact that inflation expectations are currently well anchored. In fact, as we discuss below, we expect the Fed and other central banks to continue to provide a tailwind for growth over the course of 2020. The Fed’s “It’s Not QE” QE Program The jump in overnight lending rates in mid-September torpedoed the Federal Reserve’s efforts to shrink its balance sheet. Thanks to a steady stream of Treasury bill purchases since then, the Fed’s asset holdings have swelled by over $400 billion, reversing more than half of the decline observed since early 2018 (Chart 7). Chart 7Fed's Asset Holdings Are Growing Anew Chart 8The Fed's Balance-Sheet Expansion Helped Fuel The Dot-Com Bubble The Fed has insisted that its latest intervention does not amount to a new QE program, stressing that it is buying short-term securities rather than long-dated bonds. In so doing, it is simply creating bank reserves, rather than seeking to suppress the term premium by altering the maturity structure of the private sector’s holdings of government debt. Nevertheless, even such straightforward interventions have proven to be powerful signaling tools. By growing its balance sheet, a central bank is implicitly promising to keep monetary policy very accommodative. It is worth remembering that the run-up in the NASDAQ in 1999 coincided with a significant balance-sheet expansion by the Fed in response to Y2K fears, which came on the heels of three “insurance cuts” in 1998 (Chart 8). Gentle Jay Paves The Way Chart 9Inflation Expectations Remain Muted In 2000, the Fed moved quickly to reverse the liquidity injection it had orchestrated the prior year. We do not expect such a reversal anytime soon. Moreover, unlike in 2000, when the Federal Reserve kept raising rates – ultimately bringing the Fed funds rate up to 6.5% in May 2000 – the Fed is likely to stay on hold this year. The Fed’s ongoing strategic policy review is poised to move the central bank even closer towards explicitly adopting an average inflation target of 2% over the course of a business cycle. Since inflation tends to fall during recessions, this implies that the Fed will seek to target an inflation rate somewhat higher than 2% during expansions. Realized core PCE inflation has averaged only 1.6% since the recession ended. Both market-based and survey-based measures of long-term inflation expectations remain downbeat (Chart 9). This suggests that the bar for raising rates this year is quite high. More Monetary Easing In The Euro Area And China Chart 10Chinese Monetary Easing Should Help Global Growth Bottom Out The ECB resumed its QE program in November after a 10-month hiatus. While the current pace of €20 billion in monthly asset purchases is well below the prior pace of €80 billion, the central bank did say it would continue buying assets for “as long as necessary” to bring inflation up to its target. The language harkens back to Mario Draghi’s 2012 “whatever it takes” pledge, this time applied to the ECB’s inflation mandate. Not to be outdone, the People’s Bank of China cut the reserve requirement ratio by 50 basis points last week, a move that will release RMB 800 billion ($US 115 billion) of fresh liquidity into the banking system. Historically, cuts in reserve requirements have led to faster credit growth and ultimately, to stronger economic growth both in China and abroad (Chart 10). The PBOC has also instructed lenders to adopt the Loan Prime Rate (LPR) as the new benchmark lending rate. The LPR currently sits 20bps below the old benchmark rate (Chart 11). Hence, the PBOC’s order amounts to a stealth rate cut. Our China strategists expect further reductions in the LPR over the next six months. In addition, the crackdown on shadow bank lending seems to be subsiding, which bodes well for overall credit growth later this year (Chart 12). Chart 11China: Stealth Monetary Easing Chart 12Crackdown On Shadow Banking In China Is Easing   Rising Economic Confidence Chart 13Recession Fears Amongst Economists Began To Gather Steam At The Start Of Last Year Chart 14The Wider Public Was Also Worried About A Downturn   At the start of 2019, nearly half of US CFOs thought the economy would be in a recession by the end of the year. Similarly, two-thirds of European CFOs and four-fifths of Canadian CFOs expected their respective economies to succumb to recession. Professional economists were equally dire (Chart 13). Households also became increasingly worried about a downturn. Google searches for “recession” spiked to near 2009-highs last summer (Chart 14). The mood has certainly improved since then. According to the latest Duke CFO survey, optimism about the economic outlook has increased. More importantly, CFO optimism about the prospects for their own firms has risen to the highest level in the 18-year history of the survey (Chart 15). Chart 15CFOs Have Become More Optimistic Of Late Show Me The Money Going forward, global growth needs to accelerate in order to validate the improved confidence of CFOs and investors alike. We think that it will, thanks to the lagged effects from the easing in financial conditions in 2019, a turn in the global inventory cycle, a de-escalation in the trade war, easier fiscal policy in the UK and euro area, and re-upped fiscal/credit stimulus in China. For now, however, the economic data remains mixed. On the positive side, household spending is still robust across most of the world, a fact that has been reflected in the resilience of service-sector PMIs (Chart 16). Chart 16AThe Service Sector Has Remained Resilient (I) Chart 16BThe Service Sector Has Remained Resilient (II) Chart 17US Wage Growth Has Picked Up, Especially At The Bottom Of The Income Distribution Chart 18US Housing Backdrop Is Solid The US consumer, in particular, is showing little signs of fatigue. The Atlanta Fed GDPNow estimates that real personal consumption grew by 2.4% in the fourth quarter, having increased at an average annualized pace of 3% in the first three quarters of 2019. Both a strong labor market and housing market have buoyed US consumption. Payrolls have risen by an average of 200K per month for the past six months, double what is necessary to keep up with labor force growth. This week’s strong ADP release – which featured a 29K jump in jobs in goods-producing industries in December, the best since April – suggests that today’s jobs report will remain healthy. In addition, wage growth has picked up, particularly at the bottom of the income distribution (Chart 17). Residential construction has also been strong. Homebuilder sentiment reached the best level since June 1999 (Chart 18). Global Manufacturing: Too Early To Call The All-Clear The outlook for manufacturing remains the biggest question mark in the global economy. The US ISM manufacturing index dropped to 47.2 in December, its lowest level since June 2009. The composition of the report was poor, with the new orders-to-inventory ratio dropping close to recent lows. Chart 19Other US Manufacturing Gauges Are Not As Weak As The ISM We would discount the ISM report to some extent. The regional Fed manufacturing indices have not been nearly as disappointing as the ISM (Chart 19). The Markit PMI, which tracks US manufacturing activity better than the ISM, clocked in at a respectable 52.4 in December, down only slightly from November’s reading of 52.6. Nevertheless, it is hard to be excited about the near-term outlook for US manufacturing, especially in light of Boeing’s decision to suspend production of the 737 Max temporarily. Most estimates suggest that the production halt will reduce real US GDP growth by 0.3%-to-0.5% in the first quarter. The euro area manufacturing PMI gave up some of its November gains, falling to 46.3 in December. While the index is still above its September low of 45.7, it has been under 50 for 11 straight months now. The UK and Japanese PMI also retreated. Chinese manufacturing has shown clearer signs of bottoming out. Despite dipping in December, the private sector Caixin manufacturing PMI remains near its 2017 highs. The official PMI published by the National Bureau of Statistics is less upbeat, but still managed to come in slightly above 50 in December. The production subcomponent reached the highest level since August 2018. Reflecting the positive trend in the Chinese economy, Korean exports to China rose by 3.3% in December, the first positive growth rate in 14 months (Chart 20). Taiwan’s exports have also rebounded. The manufacturing PMI rose above 50 in both economies in December. In Taiwan’s case, this was the first time the PMI moved into expansionary territory since September 2018. On balance, we continue to expect global manufacturing to recover in 2020. This is in line with our observation that global manufacturing cycles typically last three years, with 18 months of weaker growth followed by 18 months of stronger growth (Chart 21). That said, the weakness in European and US manufacturing (at least judged by the ISM) is likely to give investors pause. Chart 20Some Positive Signs Emerging From Korea And Taiwan Chart 21A Fairly Regular Three-Year Manufacturing Cycle   Investment Conclusions We turned bullish on stocks in late 2018, having temporarily moved to the sidelines during the summer of that year. Global equities have gained 25% since our upgrade. We see another 10% of upside for 2020, led by European and EM bourses. Despite its recent gains, the real value of the MSCI All-Country World Index is only 3% above its prior peak in January 2018. The 12-month forward PE ratio of 16.3 is still somewhat lower than it was back then. The valuation picture is even more enticing if we compare equity earnings yields with bond yields, which is tantamount to computing a rough equity risk premium (ERP). The global ERP remains quite high by historic standards, especially outside the US where earnings yields are higher and bond yields are generally lower (Chart 22). Chart 22The Equity Risk Premium Is Fairly High, Especially Outside The US Chart 23Stock Market Sentiment Is Quite Bullish   Nevertheless, sentiment is quite positive towards stocks at the moment (Chart 23). Elevated bullish sentiment, against the backdrop of ongoing uncertainty about the outlook for global manufacturing and an uneasy truce between the US and Iran, poses a near-term headwind to risk assets. As such, while we are maintaining our positive 12-month view on global equities and high-yield credit, we are downgrading our tactical 3-month view to neutral for the time being. We do not regard this as a major realignment of our views; we will turn tactically bullish again if stocks dip about 5% from current levels.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Ariel Edwards-Levy, “Here's What Americans Think About Trump's Iran Policy,” TheHuffingtonPost.com (January 6, 2020).   MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores   Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The US and Iran are not rushing into a full-scale war for the moment – and yet the bull market in US-Iran tensions will continue for at least the next 2-3 years (Chart 1). This means that while global risk assets can take a breather from Iran geopolitical risk – if not other risks to the heady rally – the breather is not a fundamental resolution and Iran will remain market-relevant in 2020. A Reprieve … Chart 1Bull Market In US-Iran Tensions On January 8 President Donald Trump spoke at the White House in response to a barrage of missiles fired by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) at bases with US troops in al-Asad and Erbil, Iraq. Trump remarked that Iran “appears to be standing down,” judging by the fact that the missile strikes did not kill American citizens – Trump’s explicit red line – or cause any significant casualties or damage. Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif claimed that Iran’s strikes “concluded proportionate measures” in response to the US killing of Quds Force chief Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad on January 3, which itself followed unrest at the US embassy in Baghdad and American strikes on Iran-backed Iraqi militias (Map 1). Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei gave ambivalent comments, saying military operations were not in themselves sufficient but that Iran must focus on removing the US presence from the region. Map 1US And Iran Sparring Across The Region President Trump’s speech was transparently a campaign speech, not a war speech. He did not imply in any way that the US military would retaliate to the missile strikes, but said Americans should be “grateful and happy” that Iran did a “good thing” for the world by refraining from drawing American blood. Instead Trump focused on Iran’s nuclear program, denouncing the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPA). He implored the parties of that agreement – the UK, Germany, France, Russia, and China – to join him in negotiating a new deal to replace it. The goal of the new negotiations would be to prevent Iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon and to halt its sponsorship of regional militants in exchange for economic development and opening up to the outside world. He called for NATO to take a more active role in the Middle East and he highlighted the US’s shared interest with Iran in combating the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. The takeaway is that the Trump administration is not pursuing regime change but rather nuclear non-proliferation and a change in Iran’s regional behavior. The administration has often said as much, but the assassination of Soleimani escalated tensions and called into question Trump’s intentions. Financial markets will cheer the successful reestablishment of US deterrence vis-à-vis Iran, as it makes Iran less likely to retaliate to US pressure in ways that lead to a major military confrontation. The near-term risk of a massive oil supply shock will decline. Oil prices have already fallen back to where they stood before Soleimani’s death. … Amid A Bull Market In US-Iran Tensions Yet the saga does not end here. Iran’s ineffectual military strike could have been a feint, or Iran could follow up with more consequential retaliation later. Chart 2US Strategic Deleveraging From The Middle East Iran has the ability to dial up its nuclear program step by step, sponsor regional attacks with plausible deniability, and foment regional unrest in important oil-producing countries. It can do these things in ways that do not clearly cross America’s red lines but still cause market-relevant tensions or disrupt oil supply. After all, Iran is still under punitive sanctions and desirous of demoralizing the US to hasten its departure from the region. So far Iran has not irreversibly abandoned its nuclear commitments or crossed any red lines regarding levels of uranium enrichment, but we fully expect it to threaten to do so and use its nuclear program to build up negotiating leverage. We doubt any serious US-Iran negotiations will take shape until 2021 at the earliest – and any negotiations could fail and lead to another, more serious round of military exchanges. This means that today’s reprieve may be tomorrow’s negative surprise for the markets. The fundamental basis for this bull market in US-Iran tensions is that the US is seeking to withdraw its strategic commitment to the region to counter China (Chart 2), yet Iran is filling the power vacuum and could conceivably create a regional empire (Map 2). President Trump will not want to appear to have been chased out of Iraq in an election year, even if he is in favor of strategic deleveraging, but Iran may try to do exactly that. Iran will also try to solidify its influence among those left exposed by the US’s deleveraging, namely in Iraq. Map 2Iran's Strategic 'Land Bridge' To The Mediterranean Chart 3A Succession Crisis Looms Moreover President Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal sowed deep distrust between the US and Iran and discredited the reformist faction in Tehran, which faces a tough election in February. This makes it difficult for the two countries to find a new equilibrium anytime soon. The Iranian regime is at a crossroads. It has a large and restless youth population (Chart 3), an economy under crippling sanctions, and faces a leadership succession in the coming years that brings enormous uncertainties about economic policy and regime survival. At the same time, President Trump is a historically unpopular president who is being impeached and believes that showing a strong hand against terrorism – under which the US classifies Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as well as the Islamic State – is an important key to being re-elected in November. Terrorism and immigration are in fact the two clearest issues that got him elected (Chart 4). Economic growth is a necessary but not sufficient condition for his reelection. US-Iran tensions will persist at least until the US election is settled and likely beyond. The result is a cyclical increase in tensions between the two countries that will persist at least until after the US election is settled. The Iranians are loathe to reward President Trump for his tactics – it would be better for Tehran if Washington changed parties again. After November, the US and Iran will recalibrate. Ultimately, in the coming years, either President Trump will get a new deal, or a new Democratic administration will reinitiate diplomacy to update the JCPA, or “maximum pressure” tactics will persist and increase the odds of a major military conflict. There is room for many negative surprises in this time frame as the US and Iran jockey for better positioning. The writing on the wall is that the United States is deleveraging and this creates a transition period in which regional instability will rise. Even within 2020 the current de-escalation could prove short-lived. The US president has enormous leeway in foreign policy and even the economic constraint is limited. The US economy is less oil intensive and less dependent on imports for its energy, while households have ample savings and spend less of their disposable income on energy. While this may ultimately serve as a basis for withdrawing from the Middle East, it also enables the US president to take greater risks in the region. Even within 2020 the current de-escalation could prove short-lived. The Iranians would have to create and maintain an oil supply shock the size of the September attack in Saudi Arabia for four months in order to ensure that American voters would feel the negative impact at the gas station by the time of the election. Chart 5 illustrates this point by simulating a 5.7 million barrel-per-day oil outage for different time periods. The chart overstates the impact on gasoline prices because it does not take into account the inevitable release of global strategic petroleum reserves. In other words, Trump may believe he has a sufficient buffer for the economy – and he clearly believes saber-rattling is worth the risk amid impeachment and election campaigning. Chart 4Trump Benefits From Fighting Iran-Backed Militants Chart 5Gasoline Price Cushion Could Embolden Trump   Investment Conclusions Chart 6Close Long EM Oil Producer Trade The past month’s events have reached a crisis point and are tentatively de-escalating. We are booking gains on our tactical long Brent crude trade and our long emerging market energy producers trade (Chart 6). We are not changing our constructive view on China stimulus, commodities, and the global business cycle. Following BCA Research’s commodity strategists, we recommend going long Brent crude H2 2020 versus H2 2021 on the expectation that production will remain constrained, inventories will fall, and prices will backwardate further. The underlying US-Iran conflict will persist and create volatility in oil markets in 2020 and beyond. We also remain on guard for ways in which the Iran dynamic could affect Trump’s reelection odds and hence US policy and the markets over the coming year.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com  

Special Report

Feature One of BCA Research’s key geopolitical views since May 2019, outlined recently in our 2020 Outlook, is rapidly materializing: a dramatic escalation in the US-Iran conflict. On January 3 the United States successfully conducted a drone strike against a convoy carrying two high-level targets near the Baghdad International Airport. These were Iranian General Qassim Soleimani and his key Iraqi associate, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes. The former, Soleimani, was Iran’s most influential military and intelligence leader, and one of its most powerful leaders overall. He was the head of the formidable Quds Force, the overseas arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the staunchest military wing of the regime at home and abroad. The latter target, al-Muhandes, was the head of Iraq’s Kataib Hezbollah militia and the broader coalition of pro-Iran Shiite militias in Iraq known as the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF). This coalition was partly responsible for defeating the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Since then it has sought to consolidate Iranian influence in Iraq, pushing back against Iraqi Sunnis and Shia nationalists, and their allies in the US and Persian Gulf. Chart 1Bull Market In US-Iran Tensions The US assassinations follow a significant increase in Iranian and Iran-backed militant attacks against US allies in the Middle East this year. These stem from a breakdown in the US-Iran diplomatic detente that was enshrined in the 2015 nuclear agreement. President Donald Trump revoked this agreement in 2018 and in May 2019 imposed crippling sanctions on Iran’s oil exports and economy — initiating a “bull market” in US-Iran strategic tensions (Chart 1). Recent events show a clear path of strategic escalation — even in the wake of a summer of “fire and fury” and the extraordinary Iran-backed attack on Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq oil refinery in September. Widespread popular unrest has dissolved the Iraqi government, creating intense competition between Iraqi nationalists, led by Moqtada al-Sadr, and Iran’s proxies, led by al-Muhandes and the PMF. This unrest marked a significant challenge to Iran’s sphere of influence and necessitated an Iranian backlash. For instance, al-Sadr’s enemies attacked his headquarters with a drone in early December. Meanwhile Kataib Hezbollah launched a spate of rocket strikes against US and Iraqi bases that culminated in the death of an American contractor near Kirkuk on December 28 — crossing an American red line. The US retaliated with damaging air strikes against Kataib Hezbollah in Iraq and Syria on December 29, prompting a PMF blockade of the US Embassy in Baghdad on December 31. While this was a limited blockade, the US has now retaliated by assassinating Soleimani and al-Muhandes, taking the conflict to a new level. There is every reason to expect tensions to escalate further in the new year. First, the Iranian regime is under severe economic stress due to the US sanctions and broader global slowdown (Charts 2A&B). Domestic protests have erupted in recent years, while the regime struggles with economic isolation, a restless youth population, and a looming succession when Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei eventually steps down. This is an existential struggle for the regime, while President Trump may only be in office for 12 months. Public opinion polls show that the Iranian populace blames the government for economic mismanagement, and yet that the renewed conflict with the US under the Trump administration is shifting the blame to US sanctions (Chart 3). Hence the regime will continue to distract the populace by resisting Trump’s pressure tactics. Chart 2ARegime Survival ... Chart 2B... An Existential Challenge     Chart 3US Conflict Distracts From Domestic Woes This tendency will be reinforced by the death of Soleimani, which heightens the regime’s vulnerability while rallying domestic support due to Soleimani’s popularity as a leader (Chart 4). The regime is looking to its survival over the long run. It would be a remarkable shift in policy for Tehran to enter negotiations with Trump, since it would then risk vindicating his “maximum pressure” doctrine, possibly helping him secure a second term in office. Chart 4Hard-Line Soleimani Was Popular (Reformist President Rouhani Is Not) Meanwhile President Trump’s circumstances are apparently urging him to double down on his aggressive foreign policy against Iran. First, while he will not be removed from office by a Republican Senate, his impeachment trial threatens to mar his re-election chances. This is a prime motivation to pursue foreign policy objectives to distract the public and seek policy wins. Chart 5Falling Oil Import Dependency Emboldens US Second, the Trump administration may feel emboldened by the rise of US shale oil production and decline in US oil import dependency (Chart 5). Simulations we published in our December 6 Strategic Outlook show that Iran would have to sustain an oil supply cutoff as large as the Abqaiq attack for four months in order to drive gasoline prices high enough to harm the US economy as a whole. This buffer may have convinced Trump he has plenty of room for maneuver in confronting Iran. Third, Trump undoubtedly feels the need to maintain the credibility of his threats against Iran, North Korea, and other nations given his impeachment, widely known electoral and economic vulnerability, and his recent capitulation to China in the trade war. The clear threat by Iran to create a humiliating US embassy crisis in Baghdad likely struck a nerve in the White House, reviving memories of Saigon under Gerald Ford, Tehran under Jimmy Carter, and Benghazi under Barack Obama. By taking the offensive, President Trump has reinforced the red line against the death of American citizens or attacks on US assets. Nevertheless he now runs the risk of driving Iran into further escalation rather than negotiation. Iran is not yet likely to court a full-scale American attack by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz. It is more likely to retaliate via regional proxy attacks, including cutting off oil production, pipelines, and shipping — at a time of its choosing. If Trump’s pressure tactics succeed, it will advance its nuclear program rather than staging large-scale attacks. Investment Conclusions Iraqi instability will worsen as a result of the past month’s events, bringing 3.5 million barrels of daily oil production under a higher probability of disruption than when we first flagged this risk. Supply disruptions there or elsewhere in the region would hasten the drawdown in global inventories and backwardation of prices occurring due to the revival in global demand on China stimulus and OPEC 2.0 production cuts. Continued oil volatility, as in 2018-19, should be expected, but the risk for now lies to the upside as Middle East tensions could cause an overshoot. We remain long Brent crude and overweight energy sector equities. Second, the US election — and hence US domestic and foreign policy over the next five years — could hang in the balance if the Iran conflict escalates to broader and more open hostilities as we expect. President Trump is favored for re-election. Yet we have contended since 2018 that the revocation of the Iran nuclear deal was a grave geopolitical decision that could jeopardize Trump’s economy and hence re-election — and that remains the case. Chart 6Trump 'Maximum Pressure' A Gamble In 2020 Trump was elected in part because he is viewed as strong on terrorism, and the confrontation with Iran and its proxies will reinforce that reputation in the short run. Iranian attacks will also boost Trump’s approval rating, other things being equal. However, much can change by November. Jimmy Carter’s election troubles with Iran point to a serious risk to Trump, as the initial surge in patriotic support could turn sour over time if unemployment rises as a result of any oil shocks (Chart 6). Even George Bush Jr saw a dramatic fall in approval, from a much higher base than Trump, despite foreign policy conditions that were more transparently favorable to him in 2004 than any conflict with Iran will be to Trump in 2020. Trump has campaigned against Middle Eastern wars to a war-weary public, so the rally around the flag effect will not necessarily play to his favor in the final count. It is too soon to speculate about these matters — our view remains unchanged — but the Iran conflict is now much more likely to be a major factor in the US election and Iran is certainly capable of frustrating US presidents. This reinforces our base case that Trump is only slightly favored to win. Moreover his foreign policy conflicts — in Asia as well as the Middle East — ensure that global policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk will remain elevated despite dropping off from the highs reached last year amid the trade war. We remain long pure play global defense stocks on a cyclical and secular basis. We see gold as the appropriate hedge given our expectation that the trade ceasefire and China stimulus will reinforce a global growth recovery despite Middle Eastern turmoil. Higher oil prices push up inflation expectations and limit any benefit to government bonds.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com