Elections

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

As 2019 draws to a close, we thank you for your ongoing readership and support. We wish you and your loved ones a happy holiday season and all the best for a healthy and prosperous 2020. Highlights We explore the principal risks to our optimistic 2020 outlook. Trade and the 2020 US Presidential election remain potential landmines. A stronger dollar would tighten global financial conditions and be deflationary. Credit market tremors would end buybacks. Stronger-than-expected inflation would force a cycle-ending Federal Reserve tightening. Weaker-than-expected inflation would first allow for larger bubbles to form at the expense of a more painful recession and deeper a bear market down the road. Hedging against those risks warrants overweighting cash, TIPs and gold. Feature Chart I-1Timing is Ripe For A Recovery As always, this year’s visit from Ms. and Mr. X was thought-provoking and generated diverse investment ideas.1 While we did not share Mr. X’s fears, his caution may be justified because an aging business cycle, elevated equity multiples and extremely expensive government bonds do not mesh with pro-risk portfolio positioning. With this in mind, we will explore the greatest risks to our positive market outlook, which include politics, the US dollar, problems in the credit market, a quicker resumption of inflation and lower inflation. The Central Scenario To understand how these five risks affect our central thesis, let’s review the key views and themes that underpin our bullish outlook. BCA expects global economic activity to recover in 2020. First, the global inventory contraction is advanced, which increases the chance that the manufacturing cycle will track its usual pattern of an 18-month decline followed by an 18-month acceleration (Chart I-1). Secondly, Chinese policymakers are putting a floor under domestic economic activity and the stabilization in credit growth and the climbing fiscal impulse already augur well for global growth (Chart I-2). Thirdly, global liquidity is in a major upswing, thanks to easing by central banks around the world (Chart I-3). Finally, the trade détente between the US and China agreed last week reduces the odds of a destructive trade war. Chart I-2China's Policy Turnaround Chart I-3Easing Abound!   US monetary policy will remain accommodative next year. US inflation will remain subdued in the first half of 2020 in response to both the global growth slowdown underway since mid-2018 and the lagged effect of a stronger dollar. Moreover, Fed policy will remain sensitive to inflation expectations. According to BCA’s US Bond Strategy’s model, it could take an extended overshoot in realized inflation before inflation expectations move back to the 2.3% to 2.5% range consistent with achieving a 2% inflation target (Chart I-4). Thus, the Fed will remain on pause for all of 2020. BCA’s positive outlook depends on both China and the US respecting their trade truce. In this context, the dollar will depreciate. The USD is a countercyclical currency and typically suffers when global economic activity rebounds, especially if inflation remains tame (Chart I-5). This behavior is due to the low share of the US economy dedicated to manufacturing and exports, which makes the US less sensitive to global trade and industrial activity. Moreover, when the world economy strengthens, safe-haven flows that boost the dollar in times of duress reverse, which accentuates the selling pressure on the USD. Chart I-4Realized Inflation Will Guide Expectations Chart I-5The Dollar Won't Respond Well To Stronger Global Growth   Global bond prices will be another victim of an improving economic outlook. Global safe-haven securities are extremely expensive and investors are too bullish toward this asset class (Chart I-6). This puts government bonds at risk in the face of positive economic surprises. However, the upside in Treasury yields will be capped between 2.25 and 2.5% because the Fed will be cautious about lifting rates. This move will likely be led by inflation expectations. As a result, we favor TIPs over nominal Treasurys. Chart I-6Safe-Haven Yields Have Upside Chart I-7Investors Aren't Feeling Exuberant About Earnings Growth   Equities will outperform bonds. The S&P 500 is trading at 18-times forward earnings and 2.3-times sales. However, those elevated multiples are due to depressed risk-free rates. Long-term growth expectations embedded in stock prices are only 1%, toward the bottom of this series’ historical distribution (Chart I-7). Therefore, investors are not particularly optimistic on the long-term prospects of per-share earnings. This lack of euphoria implies that stocks are not as expensive as bonds, and that if yields climb because of improving global economic activity, then equities will outperform bonds. Moreover, with a backdrop of easy money and no recession forecast until 2022, the timing still favors positive returns for equities in the coming 12 to 18 months (Table I-1).   Table I-1The End Game Can Be Rewarding Finally, we favor European equities over US stocks. This regional slant is as much a reflection of the better value offered by European stocks as it is of their sector composition. European stocks are trading at a forward PE of 14, implying an equity risk premium of 846 basis points versus 546 basis points in the US. Moreover, our preference for industrials, energy and financials favors European equities (Table I-2). Additionally, European banks are our favorite equity bet worldwide because they trade at a price-to-book ratio of only 0.6 and the drivers of their return on tangible equity are perking up (Chart I-8). Table I-2Europe: Overweight In The Right Sectors Chart I-8Brightening Prospects For Euro Area Banks     Risk 1: Politics BCA’s positive outlook depends on both China and the US respecting their trade truce. However, the two countries are long-term rivals and the rising geopolitical power of China relative to the US will cause tensions to escalate in the coming decades (Chart I-9). This also suggests that China and the US are highly unlikely to ever have an agreement that fully covers intellectual property transfers. Chart I-9China/US Tensions Are Structural The US could still renege on the “Phase One” deal. President Trump faces an election in 2020 and the majority of Democratic hopefuls are also hawkish on China. If Trump’s low approval rating does not improve soon (Chart I-10), he could become a more war-like president, in the hope that electors will rally around the flag. A renewed trade war would hurt business sentiment and undermine consumer spending (Chart I-11). A bellicose approach to international relations, especially on trade, would spark another spike in global policy uncertainty that will hurt global capex intentions. Meanwhile, companies could cut employment, which would weigh on household incomes. A rising unemployment rate could also hurt household confidence, reinforcing the slowdown in consumer spending. This would guarantee an earlier recession. Stocks would decline along with global government bond yields. Chart I-10President Trump Can Still Make It Chart I-11Households On The Edge   The US election creates an additional political risk. Democratic candidates are touting higher corporate taxes, a wealth tax, a greater regulatory burden, antitrust actions, and so on. These policies are worrisome to corporate leaders and business owners. For the time being, our Geopolitical Strategy team favors a Trump victory in 2020 (Chart I-12).2 However, if his odds deteriorate significantly, then business executives would likely curtail capex and hiring. This could also result in a US recession that would invalidate our central scenario for 2020. Chart I-12Our Model Still Favors President Trump Risk 2: A Strong Dollar A strong US dollar would hurt growth. A continued dollar rally would counteract a large proportion of the easing in liquidity conditions created by accommodative central banks around the world. The dollar affects the global cost of capital. Both advanced economies and emerging markets have USD-denominated foreign currency debt totaling around $6 trillion each. A strong USD raises the cost of servicing this large debt load, which could force borrowers to curtail their spending. A continued dollar rally would counteract a large proportion of the easing in liquidity conditions created by accommodative central banks around the world. Despite our conviction that the US dollar will depreciate in 2020, the following factors may invalidate our thesis: The USD still possesses the highest carry in the G10. When the dollar is supported by some of the highest interest rates in the G10, it often continues to rally (Chart I-13). Chart I-13The Dollar Offers An Elevated Carry The global growth rebound may be led by the US. If the US leads the rest of the world higher, then rates of return in the US would climb quicker than in the rest of the world. The resulting capital inflows would bid up the dollar. The shortage of USDs in offshore markets may flare up again. The September seize-up in the repo market was a reminder that because of the Basel III rules, global banks have a strong appetite for high-quality collateral and reserves. This generates substantial demand for the USD, which could put upward pressure on its exchange rate. The US dollar is a momentum currency. Among the G10 currencies, the USD responds most strongly to the momentum factor (Chart I-14).3 The dollar’s strength in the past 18 months could initiate another wave of appreciation. The dollar may not be as expensive as suggested by purchasing power parity (PPP) models. According to PPP estimates, the trade-weighted dollar is 24.2% overvalued. However, according to behavioral effective exchange rate models (BEER), the dollar may be trading closer to its fair value (Chart I-15). Chart I-14The Dollar Is A Momentum Currency Chart I-15Is The Dollar Expensive?   Why are the five items listed above risks for the dollar, but not our central scenario? Regarding the dollar’s carry, in 1985, 1999, and 2006, the US still offered some of the highest short-term interest rates among advanced economies, nevertheless the dollar began to depreciate. In those three instances, an acceleration in foreign economic activity relative to the US was the key culprit behind the USD’s weakness. In 2020, we expect foreign economies to lead the US higher. Since mid-2018, the manufacturing sector has been at the center of the global slowdown. But now, inventory and monetary dynamics point towards a re-acceleration in manufacturing activity. The US was the last nation to be hit by the growth slowdown; it will also be the last to reap a dividend from the recovery. The marginal buyers of US equities have been US firms. On the danger created by the dollar and the collateral shortage, the Fed is tackling the lack of excess reserves head-on by injecting $60 billion per month of reserves via its asset purchases. Moreover, the US fiscal deficit, which is tabulated to reach $1.1 trillion in 2020, will add a similar amount of dollars to the pool of high-quality collateral around the world, especially as the US current account deficit is widening anew. On the momentum tendency of the USD, the dollar’s momentum seems to be petering off. A move in the Dollar Index below 96 would indicate a major change in the trend for the DXY. Finally, estimates of a currency’s fair value based on BEER fluctuate much more than those based on PPP. If the global growth pick-up allows foreign neutral rates to increase relative to the US over the coming 12 to 24 months, then the dollar’s BEER equilibrium will likely converge toward PPP, putting downward pressure on the USD. Risk 3: Credit Market Tremors A credit market selloff is not our base case, but it would be damaging to risk assets. A deterioration in credit quality would be the main culprit behind a widening in credit spreads. Our Corporate Health Monitor already shows that the credit quality of US firms is worsening (Chart I-16). Moreover, the return on capital of the US corporate sector is rapidly deteriorating. Accentuating these risks, US profit margins have begun to decline because a tight labor market is exerting an upward pull on real unit labor costs (Chart I-17). Furthermore, the near-total disappearance of covenants in new corporate bond issuance increases the risks to lenders and will likely depress recovery rates when a default wave emerges. Chart I-16Deteriorating Fundamentals For US Corporates Chart I-17A Tight Labor Market Is Biting Into Margins     Widening credit spreads would signal a darkening economic outlook. Historically, wider spreads have been an excellent leading indicator of recessions (Chart I-18). Wider spreads have a reflexive relationship with the economy: they reflect anticipation of rising defaults by investors, but they also represent a price-based measure of lenders’ willingness to extend credit. Therefore, wider spreads force open the underlying cracks in the economy by depriving funds to weak borrowers. The resulting deterioration in capex and hiring would prompt a decline in consumer confidence and spending, ultimately leading to a recession. Chart I-18Widening Spreads Foreshadow Recessions Chart I-19Who Is Buying Stocks? Businesses! US equities may prove to be even more sensitive to the health of the credit market than in previous cycles. The marginal buyers of US equities have been US firms, which have engaged in equity retirements totaling $16.5 trillion since 2010. Since that date, pension plans, foreigners and households have sold a total of $7.7 trillion in US equities (Chart I-19). Both internally generated cash flows and borrowings have allowed for a decline in the equity portion of funding among US firms. Therefore, a weak credit market would hurt equities because a recession would depress firms’ free cash flows and hamper the capacity of firms to buy back their shares. Finally, the tendency of US firms to borrow to buy back their shares means that newly issued debt has not been matched by as much asset growth as in previous cycles. Therefore, borrowing is not backed by the same degree of collateral as in past cycles. If the credit market seizes up, then default and recovery rates will suffer even more than suggested by our corporate health monitor. The VIX will blow up and equities could suffer. Higher US inflation is potentially the most important downside risk for next year. While a widening in credit spreads would have a profound impact on stocks, it is unlikely to materialize when the Fed conducts a very accommodative monetary policy and global growth recovers. Risk 4: Higher Inflation Chart I-20The US Labor Market Is Tight Higher US inflation is potentially the most important downside risk for next year as it would catalyze the aforementioned dangers. Inflation could surprise to the upside because the labor market is tight. At 3.5%, the unemployment rate is well below equilibrium estimates that range between 4.1% and 4.6%. Small firms are increasingly citing their inability to find qualified labor as the biggest constraint to expand production. In the Conference Board Consumer Confidence survey, the number of households reporting that jobs are easily procured is near a record high relative to those preoccupied by poor job prospects. Finally, the voluntary quit rate is at 2.3%, a near record high (Chart I-20). Core PCE remains at only 1.6% year-on-year, but investors should recall the experience of the late 1960s. Through the 1960s, the labor market was tight, yet core inflation remained between 1% and 2%. However, in 1966, inflation suddenly accelerated to 4% before peaking near 7% in 1970. Some inflation dynamics warrant close monitoring. The three-month annualized rate of service inflation excluding rent of shelter has already surged to 4.5% and the same metric for medical care inflation stands at 5.9%. A continued tightening in the labor market could solidify a broadening of these trends because a rising employment-to-population ratio for prime-age workers points toward stronger salaries and ultimately higher domestic demand (Chart I-21). A very weak dollar would also allow this scenario to develop. Chart I-21Household Income Growth Will Accelerate A sudden flare in inflation would prompt an abrupt tightening in liquidity conditions that would be lethal for the economy. An out of the blue surge in CPI would likely cause a swift reassessment of inflation expectations by households and investors. Under these circumstances, the Fed could tighten monetary policy much faster than we currently envision. If interest rate markets are forced to price in a prompt removal of monetary accommodation, Treasury yields could easily spike above 3.5% by year end, which would hurt both the economy and the expensive equity market. If realized inflation turns out weaker than we expect in 2020, then central banks will maintain accommodative policies beyond next year. For now, this scenario remains a tail risk because the recent economic slowdown will probably continue to act as a dampener on US inflation in the first half of the year. Additionally, we do not expect the USD to collapse by 40% and fan inflation and inflation expectations, as occurred from 1985 to 1987. Instead, inflation expectations are much better anchored than they were in either the 1960s or 1980s, decreasing the risk that the Fed will suddenly have to tighten policy. Risk 5: Weaker-Than-Expected Inflation Chart I-22An Aggressive BoJ Did Not Achieve Inflation The last risk is paradoxical, but it is the one with the highest probability. It is paradoxical because it involves greater upside for stocks next year than we currently anticipate, but at the expense of a much deeper bear market in the future. The labor market may be tight, but Japan’s experience cautions us against extrapolating that inflation is necessarily around the corner. In Japan, the unemployment rate has been below 3.5% since 2014 and minimal domestically generated inflation has emerged. Inflation excluding food and energy remains at a paltry 0.7% year-on-year, even as the Bank of Japan has kept the policy rate at -0.1% and expanded its balance sheet from 20% of GDP in 2008 to 102% today (Chart I-22). If realized inflation turns out weaker than we expect in 2020, then central banks will maintain accommodative policies beyond next year. Central banks are currently toying with their inflation targets, discussing allowing inflation overshoots and displaying deep paranoia in the face of deflation. By weighing on inflation expectations, low realized inflation would nail policy rates around the world at currently depressed levels or even lower. Chart I-23Bubbles Destroy Long-Term Return On Capital In this context, bond yields would have even more limited upside than we envision and risk assets could experience higher multiples than today. In other words, we would have a perfect scenario for another stock market bubble. Vulnerability would escalate as valuations balloon and the perceived risk of monetary tightening dissipates from both investors’ and economic agents’ minds. Elevated asset valuations portend lower long-term expected returns (Chart I-23) and a larger share of the capital stock would become misallocated. Ultimately, the stimulative impact of such a bubble would create its own inflationary pressures. Consumers and companies would accumulate more debt and cyclical spending would rise (Chart I-24). In the end, the Fed would raise rates more aggressively, but the economy would be more vulnerable to those higher rates. Chart I-24Higher Cyclical Spending Creates Vulnerabilities Therefore, we would see a larger recession and, because assets are more expensive, a greater decline in prices. This would be extremely destabilizing for the global economy, potentially much more so than if a recession were to emerge today. Moreover, since the resulting slump would be yet another balance-sheet recession, it would likely entail a lack of capacity by central banks to reflate their economies. Conclusion The scenarios above are all risks to our benign view for 2020. The first four represent downside threats for assets next year, but the last one (weaker-than-expected inflation) entails upside potential to our forecast next year with significantly more painful results down the line. These risks are important to consider when protecting our portfolio, which has a pro-cyclical bias. It is overweight stocks, underweight bonds, and favors cyclical equities as well as foreign bourses at the expense of the US. BCA’s Global Asset Allocation service recently published an article on safe havens, which studied the profile of risk assets under various circumstances.4 Treasurys normally are the best safe haven, however, at current levels of yields, this benefit will be small compared with previous cycles. Instead, we favor an overweight position in cash, TIPs and gold. The best defense against short-term gyrations is to think about long-term strategic asset allocation. In this regard, this month’s Special Report – co-authored with BCA’s Equity, Geopolitical and Foreign Exchange Strategists, and Marko Papic, Chief Strategist at Clocktower Group – discusses our top sector calls for the upcoming decade. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst December 20, 2019 Next Report: January 30, 2020   II. Top US Sector Investment Ideas For The Next Decade Every decade a dominant theme captures investors’ imaginations and morphs into a bubble. Massive speculation typically propels the relevant asset class into the stratosphere as investors extrapolate the good times far into the future and go on a buying frenzy. Chart II-1 shows previous manic markets starting with the Nifty Fifty, gold bullion, the Nikkei 225, the NASDAQ 100, crude oil and most recently the FAANGs. Chart II-1Manias: An Historical Roadmap What will be the dominant themes of the next decade? How should investors capitalize on some of these big trends? The purpose of this Special Report is to identify and provoke a healthy debate on the prevailing investment themes for the 2020s and to speculate on what the key US sector beneficiaries and likely losers may be. Theme #1: De-Globalization Picks Up Steam The first investment theme for the upcoming decade is the “apex of globalization” or “de-globalization”. We have written about this theme extensively at BCA Research and it is the mega-theme of our sister Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) service. Odds are high that countries will continue looking inward as the US adopts a more aggressive trade policy, China’s trend growth slows, and US-China strategic tensions intensify. The small cap preference is a secular view with a time horizon that spans the next decade. Chart II-2 shows that we are at the conclusion of a period of tranquility. Pax Americana underpinned globalization as much as Pax Britannica before it. The US is in a relative decline after decades of geopolitical stability allowed countries like China to rise to “great power” status and rivals like Russia to recover from the chaos of the 1990s. Chart II-2De-globalization Has Commenced De-globalization has become the consensus since the election of Donald Trump. But Trump is not the prophet of de-globalization; he is its acolyte. Globalization is ending because of structural factors, not cyclical ones. Three factors stand at the center of this assessment, outlined in our 2014 Special Report, “The Apex Of Globalization – All Downhill From Here”: multipolarity, populism and protectionism. Events have since confirmed this view. One final long-term playable investment idea from the apex of globalization is a structural bull market in defense stocks. The three pillars of globalization are the free movement of goods, capital, and people across national borders. We expect to see marginally less of each in the future. Investment Implication #1: Profit Margin Peak The most profound and provocative investment implication from de-globalization is that SPX profit margins have peaked and will likely come under intense pressure, especially for US conglomerates that – on a relative basis to international peers – most enthusiastically embraced globalization. Chart II-3 shows reconstructed S&P 500 profits and sales data back to the late-1920s. Historically, corporate profit margins and globalization (depicted as global trade as a percentage of GDP) have been positively correlated. Chart II-3Profit Margin Trouble As countries are more outward looking, trade flourishes and openness to trade allows the free flow of capital to take advantage of profit-maximizing projects. Following the Great Recession and similar to the Great Depression, trade has suffered and trade barriers have risen. The Sino-American trade war has accelerated the inward movement of countries, including Korea and Japan, and has had negative knock-on effects on trade as evidenced by the now two-year old global growth deceleration. China’s response to President Trump’s election was to redouble its pursuit of economic self-sufficiency, which meant a crackdown on corporate debt and a fiscal boost to household consumption. Trump’s tariffs then damaged sentiment and trade between the two countries. Any deal reached prior to the 2020 US election will remain in doubt among global investors. The longer the trade war remains unresolved, the deeper the cracks will be in the foundations of the global trading system. We are especially worried for the S&P interactive media & services index that includes GOOGL and FB. Such a backdrop is negative for profit margins, as inward looking countries prevent capital from being allocated most efficiently. Moreover, the uprooting of supply chains due to the trade war hurts margins and the redeployment of equipment in different jurisdictions will do the same at a time when final demand is suffering a setback. In addition, rising profit margins are synonymous with wealth accruing to the top 1% of US families and vice versa. This relationship dates back to the late-1920s, as far back as our dataset goes. Using Piketty and Saez data, which exclude capital gains, it is clear that profit margin expansion exacerbates income inequality (top panel, Chart II-4). Chart II-4Heightened Risk Of Wealth Re-distribution Expanding margins lead to higher profits. Because families at the top of the income distribution are often business owners, income disparities are the widest when margins are in overshoot territory. Eventually this income chasm comes to a head and generates political discontent. Populism has emerged on both the right and left wings of the US political spectrum – and since the rise of Trump, even Republicans complain about inequality and the excesses of “corporate welfare” and laissez-faire capitalism. Because inequality is extreme – relative to America’s developed peers – and political forces are mobilizing against it, the probability of wealth re-distribution is rising in the coming decades (middle panel, Chart II-4). Labor’s share of national income has nowhere to go but higher in coming years and that is negative for profit margins, ceteris paribus (bottom panel, Chart II-4). Buy or add software stock exposure on any weakness with a 10-year investment time horizon. Drilling beneath the surface, the three secular US equity sector/factor implications of the apex of globalization paradigm shift are: prefer small caps over large caps prefer value over growth overweight the pure-play BCA Defense Index Investment Implication #2: Small Is Beautiful Chart II-5It's A Small World After All While a small cap bias is contrary to the cyclical US Equity Strategy view of preferring large caps to small caps, the issue is timing: the small cap preference is a secular view with a time horizon that spans the next decade. The small versus large cap share price ratio’s ebbs and flows persist over long cycles. Small caps outshined large caps uninterruptedly from 1999 to 2010. Since then large caps have had the upper hand (Chart II-5). Were the apex of globalization theme to gain traction in the 2020s, small caps should reclaim the lead from large caps, especially in the wake of the next US recession. Similar to the death of the global banking model, companies with global footprints will suffer the most, especially compared with domestically focused outfits. One way to explore this theme is via domestic versus global sector preference. But a more investable way to position for this sea change, is to buy small caps (or microcaps) at the expense of large caps (or mega caps). Small caps are traditionally domestically geared compared with large caps that have significantly more foreign sales exposure. The closest ETF ticker symbols resembling this trade is long IWM:US/short SPY:US. Investment Implication #3: Buy Value At The Expense Of Growth Similar to the size bias, the style bias also moves in secular ways. Value outperformed growth from the dot com bust until the GFC. Since then growth has crushed value, even temporarily breaking below the year 2000 relative trough. This breakneck pace of appreciation for growth stocks is clearly unsustainable and offers long-term oriented investors a compelling entry point near two standard deviations below the historical mean (Chart II-6). Chart II-6Value Has The Upper Hand Versus Growth Financials populate value indexes, a similarity with small cap outfits. Traditionally, financials are a domestically focused sector with export exposure registering at half of the S&P’s average 40% level of internationally sourced revenues. On the flip side, tech stocks sit atop the growth table and they garner 60% of their revenue from abroad. This value over growth style preference will pay handsome dividends if the de-globalization theme becomes more mainstream as countries become more hawkish on trade and the Sino-American war continues to erect barriers to trade that took decades to lift. We have created a basket of ten stocks that we think will be driven over the long term by the demographic rise of the Millennial. The caveat? President Trump's recent short-term deal with China could set back the de-globalization theme. But our geopolitical strategists do not anticipate it to be a durable deal, and they also expect the trade war to resume in some way, shape or form in 2021-22, regardless of the outcome of the US election. The closest ETF ticker symbols resembling this trade is long IVE:US/short IVW:US. Investment Implication #4: Defense Fortress Chart II-7Stick With Pure-play Defense Stocks One final long-term playable investment idea from the apex of globalization is a structural bull market in defense stocks (Chart II-7). The US Equity Sector service's October 2016 “Brothers In Arms” Special Report drew parallels with the late nineteenth century period of European rearmament, and the American and Soviet arms race of the 1960s.5 These movements were greatly beneficial to the aerospace and defense industry. Currently, the move by several countries to adopt more independent foreign policies, i.e. to move away from collaboration and cooperation toward isolationism and self-sufficiency, entails an accompanying arms race. Table II-1 China’s challenge to the regional political status quo motivates a boost to defense spending globally. In fact, SIPRI data on global military spending by 2030 (Table II-1) increases our conviction that this trade will succeed on a five-to-ten year horizon. Beyond the global arms race, two additional forces are at work underpinning pure-play defense contractors. A global space race with China, India and the US wanting to have manned missions to the moon, and the rise of global cybersecurity breaches. Defense companies are levered to both of these secular forces and should be prime sales and profit beneficiaries of rising space budgets and increasing cybersecurity combat budgets. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the pure-play BCA defense index are: LMT, RTN, NOC, GD, HII, AJRD, BWXT, CW, MRCY. Theme #2: Tech Sector Regulation, US Enacts Privacy Laws The second long-term geopolitical theme that we are exploring is the regulatory or “stroke of pen” risk that is rising on FAANG stocks – Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Google. These companies were this decade’s undisputed stock market winners. The US anti-trust regulatory framework was designed to curb broad anti-competitive actions of trusts. As Lina Khan discusses in her seminal article, these actions “include not only cost but also product quality, variety, and innovation.” However, through subsequent regulatory evolution, the Chicago School has focused the US anti-trust process on consumer welfare and prices. If President Reagan and the courts could change how anti-trust laws were administered in the 1980s, so too can future administrations and courts. Today the US Congress, on both sides of the aisle, is looking into regulatory tightening, while the judicial system will take longer to change its approach. Moreover, the impetus for tougher anti-trust policy is here. It comes from a long period of slow growth, income inequality, and economic volatility – such as in the 1870s-80s. This was certainly the case for Standard Oil in 1911, which became a nation-wide boogeyman despite most of its transgressions occurring in the farm belt states. Today, income inequality is a prominent political theme and source of consumer discontent. A narrative is emerging – which will be super-charged during the next recession – that growth has been unequally distributed between the old economy and the twenty-first century technology leaders. While there are a few ESG related ETFs, we would rather explore this theme’s investment implications of sectors to avoid in the coming decade. With regard to privacy, the news is equally grim for large tech outfits. The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into force on May 2018, imposes compliance burdens on any company handling user data. In the US, California has signed its own version of the law – the Consumer Privacy Act – which will go into effect in January 2020. These laws give consumers the right to know what information companies are collecting about them and who that data is shared with. They also allow consumers to ask technology companies to delete their data or not to sell it. While tech companies are likely to fight the new California law, and the US court system is a source of uncertainty, we believe the writing is on the wall. The EU is by some measures the largest consumer market on the planet. California is certainly the largest US market. It is unlikely that the momentum behind consumer protection will change, especially with the EU and California taking the lead. The odds of a federal privacy law, following in the footsteps of the Consumer Privacy Act, are also rising. Investment Implication #5: Shun Interactive Media & Services Stocks These risks introduce a severe overhang for FAANG stocks. We are especially worried for the S&P interactive media & services index that includes GOOGL and FB. Chart II-8Regulation Will Squeeze Tech Margins Tack on the threat of federal regulation and this represents another major headwind for profits and margins that are extremely elevated for these near monopolies. Given that advertising revenue is crucial to the business model of social media companies (GOOGL and FB included), a significant uptick in privacy regulation will likely hurt their bottom line. With regard to profit margins, tech stocks in general command a profit margin twice as high as the SPX. Specifically, FB and GOOGL enjoy margins that are 500 basis points higher than the broad tech sector (Chart II-8)! This is unsustainable and they will likely serve as easy prey for policymakers. Our view does not necessarily call for breaking up these monopolies. The US will have to weigh the economic consequences of anti-trust policy in a context of multipolarity in which China’s national tech champions are emerging to compete with American companies for global market share. Nevertheless, increased regulation is inevitable and some forced sales of crown jewel assets may take place. Moreover, the threat of a breakup will lurk in the background, creating uncertainty until key legislative and judicial battles have already been fought. That will take years. Finally, we doubt the tech sector will be left alone to “self-regulate” its incumbents and negotiate a price on consumers’ privacy. More likely, a new privacy law will loom, serving as a negative catalyst for profit growth. Uncertainty will weigh on the S&P interactive media & services relative performance. The ticker symbols to short/underweight the S&P interactive media & services index are an equally weighted basket of GOOGL and FB (they command a 98% market cap weight in the index). Theme #3: SaaS, Artificial Intelligence, Augmented Reality And Autonomous Driving Are Not Fads The third big theme that will even outlive the upcoming decade is the proliferation of software as a service (SaaS). The move to cloud computing and SaaS, the wider adoption of artificial intelligence, machine learning, autonomous driving and augmented reality are not fads, but enjoy a secular growth profile. In the grander scheme of things today’s world is surrounded by software. Millions of lines of code go even into gasoline powered automobiles, let alone electric vehicles. Autonomous driving is synonymous with software, the Internet of Things (IoT) needs software, the space race depends on software, modern manufacturing and software are closely intertwined, phone calls for quite some time have been a software solution, and the list goes on and on. This tidal effect is hard to reverse and is already embedded in workflows across industries. Opportunities to penetrate health care and financial services more deeply remain unexplored and it is difficult to envision another competing industry unseating “king software”. These secular trends are not only productivity enhancing, but will also most likely prove recession-proof. When growth is scarce investors flock to any source of growth they can come by and we are foreseeing that when the next recession arrives, investors will likely seek shelter in pure play SaaS firms. Investment Implication #6: Software Is Eating The World Chart II-9Software Is Eating The World Buying software stocks for the long haul seems like a bulletproof investment idea. But the recent stellar performance of software stocks has moved valuations to overshoot territory. Our recommended strategy is to buy or add software stock exposure on any weakness with a 10-year investment time horizon. All of these secular trends have pushed capital outlays on software into a structural uptrend. Software related capex is not only garnering a larger slice of the tech spending budgets but also of the overall capex pie. If it were not for software capex, the contraction in non-residential investment in recent quarters would have been more severe (Chart II-9). Private sector software capex is near all-time highs as a share of total outlays. Government investment in software is also reaccelerating at the fastest pace since the tech bubble. When productivity gains are anemic, both the business and government sectors resort to software upgrades in order to boost productivity. Cyber security is another more recent source of software related demand as governments around the globe are taking such risks extremely seriously (bottom panel, Chart II-9). Given this upbeat demand backdrop and ongoing equity retirement, software stocks are primed to grow into their pricey valuations. Finally, this long-term trade will also serve as a hedge to the short/underweight position we recommend in the S&P interactive media & services index. The closest ETF ticker symbol resembling the S&P software index is IGV:US. Theme #4: Millennials Already Are The Largest Cohort And Will Dominate Spending The fourth long-term theme we anticipate to gain traction in the 2020s is the demographic rise of the Millennial generation. Much has been made of preparing for the arrival of the Millennial generation, accompanied by well-worn stereotypes of general "failure to launch" as they reach adulthood. However, "arrival" is a misnomer as this age cohort is already the largest and "failure" is simply untrue. According to the US Census Bureau, Millennials are the US’s largest living generation. Millennials (or Echo Boomers) defined as people aged 18 to 37 (born 1982 to 2000), now number more than 80mn and represent more than one quarter of the US’s population. Baby Boomers (born 1946 to 1964) number about 75mn. Stealthily becoming the largest age group in the US over the last few years, Millennials per-year-birth-rate peaked at 4.3mn in 1990. Surprisingly, the pace matched that of the post-war Baby Boom peak-per-year-birth-rate in 1957 - the per-year average over the period was higher for the Baby Boomers (Chart II-10). Chart II-10Millennials Are The Largest Cohort This gap is now set to grow rapidly as the death rate of Baby Boomers accelerates. What is more, the largest one-year age cohort is only 25 years old, thus, Millennials will be the dominant generation for many years. It is unclear how these “kids” will impact the market as they become the most important consumers, borrowers and investors, but make no mistake: this is a seismic shift in economic power and it is here to stay. The Echo Boom is a big, generational demographic wave. A difficult and painful delay has not tempered its looming importance. Finally, this wave of echo-boomers is educated, relatively unburdened by debt (please see BOX in the June 11, 2018 Special Report on demystifying the student debt load as it pertains to Millennials), and as they inevitably “grow up”, form new households and have kids. They will borrow, spend, earn, but not necessarily save and invest to the same extent as the Boomers. And this will be an important long-term theme going forward. Near term, we might already be seeing signs of their arrival and firms have begun to pivot accordingly. Investment Implication #7: Buy The BCA Millennials Equity Basket Millennials will boost consumption spending in a number of different ways. The relatively unburdened Millennial cohort will be entering prime home acquisition age soon and this should underpin the long-term prospects of the US housing market and related industries. Furthermore, Millennials consume differently from their parents; social media, online shopping and smart phones are not the consumption categories of the Baby Boomers. With this in mind, we have created a basket of ten stocks that we think will be driven over the long term by the demographic rise of the Millennial. We note that these stocks are heavily weighted to the technology and consumer discretionary sectors, which is logical as Millennial consumption habits tend to be discretionary focused and technology-based. Beginning with consumer discretionary, we are highlighting AMZN, NFLX and SPOT as core holdings in our Millennials basket. AMZN’s heft dwarfs consumer discretionary indexes but it could fall in several categories; the acquisition of Whole Foods makes it a Millennials-focused consumer staples retailer and its cloud computing web services segment is a tech leader. NFLX and SPOT represent the means by which Millennials consume media, by streaming movies and music over the internet. The idea of owning physical media is rapidly becoming an anachronism. The home ownership theme noted in this report leads us to add HD and LEN to the basket. Millennials are “doers” and are set to be the dominant DIYers in the next few years, making HD a logical choice. LEN, as the nation’s largest home builder, should benefit from the Millennials coming of age into home buyers. We are also adding TSLA to our basket as a lone clean tech-oriented equity. TSLA capitalizes on the increasing shift to clean energy of Millennials (the key reason why no traditional energy companies have a spot in our basket). Chart II-11Buy BCA's Millennial Equity Basket The technology stocks in our Millennials basket are AAPL, UBER (which replaces FB as of today) and MSFT, together representing more than 9% of the total value of the S&P 500. AAPL’s inclusion in the list is predictable as the leading domestic purveyor of devices on which Millennials consume media content. FB is a predictable holding, with more than half of all Americans being monthly active users, dominated by the Millennial cohort. It has served our basket well since inception, but today we are compelled to remove it and replace it with UBER. UBER is a Millennial favorite and the epitome of the sharing economy. In reality UBER is a logistics company and while it is losing money, it is eerily reminiscent of AMZN in its early days. Maybe UBER will dominate all means of transportation and its ease of use will propel it to a mega cap in the coming decade. Our inclusion of MSFT is based on its leadership in cloud computing, a rapidly growing industry. We expect the connectivity and mobile computing demands of Millennials will accelerate. The last stock we are adding to our basket is also the only financial services equity. Though avid consumers, Millennials have shown an aversion to cash, preferring card payment systems, including both debit and credit-based. Accordingly, we are adding the leader in both of these, V, to our Millennials basket (Chart II-11). Investors seeking long-term exposure to stocks lifted by the supremacy of the Millennial generation should own our Millennial basket (AAPL, AMZN, UBER, HD, LEN, MSFT, NFLX, SPOT, TSLA, V). We would not hesitate to add other sharing economy stocks, including Airbnb, to this basket should they become investable in the near future. Theme #5: ESG Becomes Mainstream Investors are increasingly looking at allocating assets based on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) considerations, and this mini-theme has the potential to become a big trend in the 2020s. There are a number of factors that underpin ESG investing. First, Millennials are climate conscious and given that they already are the largest cohort in the US they will not only dominate spending, but also influence election results. Moreover, via social media Millennials can sway public opinion and participate in the ESG conversation. Second, ECB President Christine Lagarde recent speech to the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee of the European Parliament is a must read.6 If the ECB were to explicitly focus on climate change policy as part of its monetary policy operations then this is a game changer. Green investment financing including “green bonds” could become mainstream. Keep in mind that as reported in the FT, “the European Parliament has declared a climate emergency; the new European Commission (EC) has taken office on a promise of an imminent “green new deal”, and Commission president Ursula von der Leyen has vowed to accelerate emissions cuts.” Last week, the EC released “The European Green Deal” with a pretty aggressive time table. The EC president said “The green deal is Europe’s man on the moon moment” and presented 50 policies slated to get rolled by 2022 to meet revamped climate goals. The implication is that once ESG takes center stage at a number of these institutions, it will be easier to become mainstream and propagate the world over. Third, large institutional investors are starting to adopt an ESG mindset, especially pension plans. These investors with trillions of dollars at their disposal can not only disfavor fossil fuel investment, but also undertake investments in “green projects” via private and public equity markets. Banks are also moving in the “greening of finance” direction and given that they are the pipelines of the global plumbing system, swift adoption will go a long way in taking ESG mainstream. Finally, the electric vehicle (EV) proliferation is another key driver on how the ESG theme will play out in the 2020s. As a reminder, in the US 50% of all energy consumption is gasoline related linked to automobiles. While battery technology still has limitations, EV is no longer a fad as the German and Japanese automakers are starting to make inroads on TSLA. These car manufacturers do not want to be left out, especially if this shift toward EV becomes mainstream in the 2020s. The Chinese are not far behind on the EV manufacturing front, however government policy can really become a game changer. If a number of countries and/or California mandate a large share of all new vehicles sold be EV, then the investment implications will be massive. Investment Implication #8: Avoid Fossil Fuels, Gambling, Alcohol And Tobacco… While there are a few ESG related ETFs, we would rather explore this theme’s investment implications of sectors to avoid in the coming decade. We are believers that ESG criteria will continue to gain in importance in institutional investment management decisions. Accordingly, we would tend to avoid ‘sin stocks’, including gambling, tobacco and alcohol; demand for their services is unlikely to decline but investment weightings should mean that share prices will underperform. Further, we think a clean energy shift will mean energy stocks will likely continue to be long-term underperformers (Chart II-12). Final Thoughts On The US Dollar In this report, we tried to focus on the upcoming decade’s big themes that we expect to play out, and centered our recommendations on US equities/sectors. We do not want to neglect some macroeconomic variables that tend to mean revert over time. Specifically, the US dollar, interest rates and most importantly US indebtedness, will also be key drivers of investment theses in the 2020s. Currently, debt is rising faster than nominal GDP growth with the government and non-financial business debt-to-GDP profiles on an unsustainable path (second panel, Chart II-13). Chart II-12Areas To Avoid As ESG Becomes Mainstream Chart II-13Unsustainable Debt Profiles   Granted, the saving grace has been generationally low interest rates as the debt service ratios have fallen (top panel, Chart II-13). However, if the four decade bull market in Treasurys is over, or may end definitively with the next US recession sometime in the early 2020s, then rising interest rates are the only mechanism to concentrate CEOs’ and politicians’ minds. On the dollar front, Chart II-14 highlights the ebbs and flows of the trade-weighted US dollar since it floated in the early-1970s. The DXY index has moved in six-to-ten year bull and bear markets. The most recent trough was during the depths of the Great Recession, while the (tentative?) peak was in late-2016. If history repeats, eventually the dollar will mean revert lower in the 2020s, especially given the fiscal profligacy of the current administration that may continue into 2024, assuming President Trump gets re-elected next November. Chart II-14Greenback's Historical Ebbs And Flows The US dollar remains the reserve currency of the world today, but that exorbitant privilege is clearly fraying on the edges as the balance-of-payments dynamics are heading in the wrong direction. Over the next five years, the US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the US budget deficit will swell to 4.8% of GDP. Assuming the current account deficit widens a bit then stabilizes (usually happens when global growth improves), this will pin the twin deficits at 8% of GDP. This assumes no recession, which would have the potential to swell the deficit even further. The US saw its twin deficits swell to almost 13% of GDP following the financial crisis, but the difference then was that in the wake of the commodity boom the dollar was cheap (and commodity currencies overvalued). The subsequent shale revolution also greatly cushioned the US trade deficit. Shale productivity remains robust and US output will continue to rise, but the low-hanging fruit has already been plucked. Chart II-15Twin Deficits Will Weigh On The US Dollar For one reason or another, foreign central banks are diversifying out of dollars. If due to the changing landscape in trade, this is set to continue. If it is an excuse to shy away from the rapidly rising US twin deficits, this will continue as well. In a nutshell, there has been hardly a time in recent history when the twin deficits in the US were rising and the dollar was in a secular uptrend (Chart II-15). Another dollar-negative force is its expensiveness. By rising 35% since its trough, the USD has sapped the competitiveness of the US manufacturing sector, which is accentuating the American trade deficit outside of the commodity sector. If the ESG trend ends up hurting oil prices, the US current account will follow the widening deficit in manufactured products. Moreover, the US is lagging Europe on the green revolution. Either the US will have to import green technologies, or the US government will have to provide more subsidies to the private sector. Either way, both of these dynamics will hurt the US current account deficit further. Historically, the currency market is the main vehicle to correct such imbalances. The apex of globalization will also hurt the greenback. In a world where all the markets are integrated, borrowers in EM nations often use the reserve currency to issue liabilities at a lower cost. This boosts the demand by EM central banks for US dollar reserves to protect domestic banking systems funded in USD. Moreover, some countries like China implement pegs (both official and unofficial) to the US dollar in order to maintain their competitiveness and export their production surpluses to the US. To do so they buy US assets. If the global economy becomes more fragmented and the Sino-US relationship continues to deteriorate structurally as we expect, then these sources of demand for the dollar will recede. Overlay the widening US current account deficit, and you have the perfect recipe for a depreciating trade-weighted US dollar. Finally, the US is likely to experience more inflation than the rest of the world following the next recession. The US economy has a smaller capital stock as a share of GDP than Europe or Japan, and American demographics are much more robust. This means that the neutral rate of interest is higher in the US than in other advanced economies. As a result, the Fed will have an easier time generating inflation by cutting real rates than both the ECB and the BoJ. Higher inflation will ultimately erode the purchasing power of the dollar and prove to be a structurally negative force for the USD.   Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist Matt Gertken Geopolitical Strategist Marko Papic Chief Strategist, Clocktower Group Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   III. Indicators And Reference Charts With a breakthrough in trade talks and Fed officials changing their language to suggest that policy will remain accommodative until inflation meaningfully overshoots 2%, the S&P 500 decisively broke out. Because it eases global financial conditions and boosts the profit outlook, the recent breakdown in the dollar should fuel the equity rally. Tactically, the S&P 500 may have overshot the mark, but on a cyclical basis, stronger growth and an easy Fed will propel US and global stocks higher. Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) remains cautious towards equities. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. However, our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator for the US and Japan continues to improve. In Europe, this indicator has finally hooked up. 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. Moreover, the pickup in Europe suggests that European stocks are increasingly ripe to outperform their US counterparts. Global yields have turned higher but they remain at exceptionally stimulating levels. Moreover, money and liquidity growth remains very strong as global central banks have adopted strongly dovish slants. Additionally, a Fed that will allow inflation to overshoot before tightening policy is adding to this supportive monetary backdrop. As a result, our Monetary Indicator remains at extremely elevated levels. Furthermore, our Composite Technical Indicator is still flashing a buy signal. Finally, our BCA Composite Valuation index is suggesting that stocks are expensive, but not so much as to cancel out the supportive monetary and technical backdrop. As a result, our Speculation Indicator remains in the neutral zone. 10-year Treasurys yields are becoming slightly less expensive, however, they are no bargain. Moreover, our Composite Technical Indicator is quickly moving away from overbought territory but has yet to flash oversold conditions, indicating that yields are roughly half way through their move. The strengthening of the Commodity Index Advance/Decline line and higher natural resource prices further confirm the upside for yields. Therefore, the current setup argues for a below-benchmark duration in fixed-income portfolios. Small signs that global growth is bottoming, such as the stabilization in the global PMIs, the pick-up in the German ZEW and IFO surveys, or the acceleration in Singapore’s container throughput growth, point to a worsening outlook for the counter-cyclical US dollar. Moreover, the dollar trades at a large premium of 24% relative to its purchasing-power parity equilibrium. Additionally, our Composite Technical Indicator is quickly deteriorating after having formed a negative divergence with the Greenback’s level. Since the dollar is a momentum currency, this represents a dark omen for the USD. In fact, we continue to believe that a breakdown in the dollar will be the clearest signal that global growth is rebounding for good. 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 II-16US Dollar And PPP Chart II-17US Dollar And Indicator Chart II-18US Dollar Fundamentals Chart II-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart II-20Euro Technicals Chart II-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart II-22Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart II-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart II-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 The Bank Credit Analyst "OUTLOOK 2020: Heading Into The End Game," dated November 22, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "US Election 2020: Civil War Lite," dated November 22, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report "Riding The Wave: Momentum Strategies In Foreign Exchange Markets," dated December 8, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report "Safe Haven Review: A Guide To Portfolio Protection In The 2020s," dated October 29, 2019, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see US Equity Strategy Special Report "Brothers In Arms," dated October 31, 2016, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 6 https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2019/09/04/sp090419-Opening-Statement-by-Christine-Lagarde-to-ECON-Committee-of-European-Parliament

Highlights 2019 was a good year for our constraint-based method of political analysis. Trump was impeached, the trade war escalated, and China (modestly) stimulated – all as predicted. Nevertheless Trump caught us by surprise in Q2, with sanctions on Iran and tariffs on China. Our best trades were long defense stocks, gold, and Swiss bonds. Our worst trade was long rare earth miners. Feature Jean Buridan’s donkey starved to death because, faced with equal bundles of grain on both sides, it could not decide which to eat. So the legend goes. Investors face indecision all the time. This is especially the case when a geopolitical sea change is disrupting the global economy. Two or more political outcomes may seem equally plausible, heightening uncertainty. What is needed is a method for eliminating the options that require the farthest stretch. That’s what we offer in these pages, but we obviously make mistakes. The purpose of our annual report card is to identify our biggest hits and misses so we can hone our ability to combine fundamental macro and market analysis with the “art of the possible,” delivering better research and greater returns for clients. This is our last report for 2019. Next week we will publish a joint report with Anastasios Avgeriou of BCA Research’s US Equity Strategy. We will resume publication in early January. We wish all our clients a merry Christmas, happy holidays, and a happy new year! American Politics: Unsurprising Surprises Chart 1Our 2019 Forecast Held Up On the whole our 2019 forecast held up very well. We argued that the global growth divergence that began in 2018 would extend into 2019 with the Fed hiking rates, a lack of massive stimulus from China, and an escalation in the US-China trade war. The biggest miss was that the Fed actually cut rates three times – addressed at length in our BCA Research annual outlook. But the bulk of the geopolitical story panned out: the US dollar, US equities, and developed market equities all outperformed as we expected (Chart 1). Geopolitical risk in the Trump era is centered on Trump himself. Beginning in 2017, we argued that the Democrats would take the House of Representatives in the midterm elections and impeach the president. Congress would not be totally gridlocked: while we argued for a government shutdown in late 2018, we expected a large bipartisan budget agreement in late 2019 and always favored the passage of the USMCA trade deal. Still, Congress would encourage Trump to go abroad in pursuit of policy victories, increasing geopolitical risks. We also argued that, barring “smoking gun” evidence of high crimes, the Republican-held Senate would acquit Trump – assuming his popularity held up among Republican voters themselves (Chart 2). These views either transpired or remain on track. The implication is that Trump-related risk continues and yet that Trump’s policies are ultimately constrained by the guardrails of the election. The latter factor helped propel the equity rally in the second half of the year. We largely sat out that rally, however. We overestimated the chances that Senator Bernie Sanders would falter and Senator Elizabeth Warren would swallow his votes, challenging former Vice President Joe Biden for the leading position in the early Democratic Party primary. We expected a significant bout of equity volatility via fears of a sharp progressive-populist turn in US policy (Chart 3). Instead, Sanders staged a recovery, Warren fell back, Biden maintained his lead, and markets rallied on other news. Chart 2Trump Will Be Acquitted Chart 3Fears Of A Progressive Turn Did Not Derail The H2 Rally Warren could still recover and win the nomination next year. But the Democratic Primary was not a reason to remain neutral toward equities, as we did in September and October. China’s Tepid Stimulus In recent years China first over-tightened and then under-stimulated the economy – as we predicted. But we misread the credit surge in the first quarter as a sign that policymakers had given up on containing leverage. In total this year’s credit surge amounts to 3.4% of GDP, about 1.2% short of what we expected (based on half of the 9.2% surge in 2015-16) (Chart 4). China’s credit surge was about 1.2% short of what we expected, but the direction was correct. While the government maintained easy monetary policy as expected, its actions combined with negative sentiment to snuff out the resurgence in shadow banking by mid-year (Chart 5). Chart 4China's Credit Surge Was Underwhelming Still, China’s policy direction is clear – and fiscal policy is indeed carrying a greater load. The authorities are extremely unlikely to reverse course next year, so global activity should turn upward (Chart 6). Our “China Play Index” – iron ore prices, Swedish industrials, Brazilian stocks, and EM junk bonds, all in USD terms – has appreciated steadily (Chart 7). Chart 5China's Shadow Banking Remained Under Pressure   Chart 6Global Activity Should Turn Upward In 2020 Chart 7Our 'China Play Index' Performed Well US-China: Underestimating Trump’s Risk Appetite We have held a pessimistic assessment of US-China relations since 2012. We rejected the trade truces agreed at the G20 summits in December 2018 and June 2019 as unsustainable. Our subjective probabilities of Trump achieving a bilateral trade agreement with China have never risen above 50%. Since September we have expected a ceasefire but not a full-fledged deal. Nevertheless we struggled with the timing of the trade war ups and downs (Chart 8). In particular we accepted China's new investment law as a sufficient concession and were surprised on May 5 when talks collapsed and Trump increased the tariffs. The lack of constraints on tariffs prevailed in 2019 but in 2020 the electoral constraint will prevail as long as Trump still has a chance of winning. Our worst trade recommendation of the year emerged from our correct view that the June G20 summit would lead to trade war escalation. We went long rare earth miners based outside of China. We expected China to follow through on threats to impose a rare earth embargo on the US in retaliation for sanctions against Chinese telecom giant Huawei. Not only did the US grant Huawei a reprieve, but China’s rare earth companies outperformed their overseas rivals. The trade went deeply into the red as global sentiment and growth fell (Chart 9). Only with global growth turning a corner have these high-beta stocks begun to turn around. Chart 8Expect A Ceasefire, Not A Full-Fledged Trade Agreement Chart 9Our Worst Call: Long Rare Earth Miners Chart 10North Korean Diplomacy Has Not Collapsed (Yet) Our sanguine view on North Korea was largely offside this year. Setbacks in US negotiations with North Korea have often preceded setbacks in US-China talks. This was the case with the failed Hanoi summit in February and the inconsequential summit at the demilitarized zone in June. This could also be the case in 2020, as Washington and Pyongyang are now on the verge of breaking off talks with the latter threatening a “Christmas surprise” such as a nuclear or missile test. It is not too late to return to talks. Beijing is the critical player and is still enforcing crippling sanctions on North Korea (Chart 10). Beijing would benefit if North Korea submitted to nuclear and missile controls while the US reduced its military presence on the peninsula. We view this year as a hiccup in North Korean diplomacy but if talks utterly collapse and military tensions break out then it would undermine our view on US-China talks, Trump’s reelection odds, and US Treasuries in 2020. Hong Kong, rather than Taiwan, became the site of the geopolitical “Black Swan” that we expected surrounding Xi Jinping’s aggressive approach to domestic dissent. We have never downplayed Hong Kong. The loss of faith in the governing arrangement with the mainland began with the Great Recession and shows no sign of abating (Chart 11). We shorted the Hang Seng after the protests began, but closed at the appropriate time (Chart 12). The problem is not resolved. Also, Taiwan can test its autonomy much farther than Hong Kong and we still expect Taiwan to become ground zero of Greater China political risk and the US-China conflict. Chart 11Hong Kong Discontent Is Structural Chart 12Our Hang Seng Short Is Done Chart 13Trump Needs A Trade Ceasefire Trump is unlikely to seek another trade war escalation given the negative impact it would have on sentiment and the economy (Chart 13). He could engage in another round of “fire and fury” saber-rattling against North Korea, as the economic impact is small, but he will prefer a diplomatic track. Taiwan, however, cannot be contained so easily if tempers flare. As we go to press it is not clear if Trump will hike the tariff on China on December 15. Some investors would point to his tendency to take aggressive action when the market gives him ammunition (Chart 14). We doubt he will, as this would be a policy mistake – possibly quickly reversed or possibly fatal for Trump. Trump’s electoral constraint is more powerful in 2020 than it was in 2019. Chart 14Trump Ceasefire Will Last As Long As Economy Is At Risk Chart 15Our 'Doomsday Basket' Captured Trump's First Three Years Our best tactical trade of the year stemmed from the geopolitical risk in Asia (and the Fed’s pause): we recommended a long gold position this summer that gained 16%. We also closed out our “Doomsday Basket” of gold and Swiss bonds, initiated in Trump’s first year, for a gain of 14% (Chart 15). Now that the market has digested Trump’s tactical retreat, we have reinitiated the gold trade as a long-term strategic hedge against both short-term geopolitical crises and the long-term theme of populism. Iran: Fool Me Once, Shame On You … This is the second year in a row that we are forced to explain our analysis of Iran – we were only half-right. Our long-held view is that grand strategy will push the US to pivot to Asia to counter China while scaling back its military activity in the Middle East. Two American administrations have confirmed this trend. That said, there is still a risk that President Trump will get entangled in Iran and that risk is growing. Global oil volatility – which spiked during the market share wars of 2014 – declined through the beginning of 2018, until the Trump administration took clearer steps toward a policy of “maximum pressure” on Iran. The constraints on Trump are obvious: the US economy is still affected by oil prices, which are set globally, and Iran can damage supply and push up prices. Therefore Trump should back down prior to the 2020 election. Yet Trump imposed sanctions, waivered on them, and then re-imposed them in May 2019 – catching us by surprise each time (Chart 16). Chart 16Trump Flip-Flopped On Iran Policy Chart 17Iran Tensions Backwardated Oil Markets This saga is not resolved – we are witnessing what could become a secular bull market in Iran tensions. True, a Democratic victory in 2020 could lead to an eventual restoration of the 2015 nuclear deal. True, the Trump administration could strike a deal with the Iranians (especially after reelection). But no, it cannot be assumed that the US will restore the historic 2015 détente with Iran. Within Iran the regime hardliners are likely to regain control in advance of the extremely uncertain succession from Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and this will militate against reform and opening up. We went long Brent crude Q1 2020 futures relative to Q1 2021 to show that tensions were not resolved (Chart 17) – the attack on Saudi Arabia in September confirmed this view. And yet the oil price shock was fleeting as global supply was adequate and demand was weak. Our current long Brent spot trade is not only about Iran. Global growth is holding up and likely to rebound thanks to monetary stimulus and trade ceasefire, OPEC 2.0 has strong incentives to maintain production discipline (driven by both Saudi Arabian and Russian interests), and the Iranian conflict has led to instability in Iraq, as we expected. The UK: Not Dead In A Ditch British Prime Minister Boris Johnson proclaimed this year that he would "rather be dead in a ditch” than extend the deadline for the UK to leave the EU. The relevant constraint was that a disorderly “no deal” exit would have meant a recession, which we used as our visual illustration of why Johnson would not actually die in a ditch (Chart 18). The test was whether parliament could overcome its coordination problems when it reconvened in September, which it immediately did, prompting us to go long GBP-USD on September 6 (Chart 19). This trade was successful and we remain long GBP-JPY. Chart 18The Reason We Rejected Chart 19UK Parliament Voted Down No-Deal Brexit Populism faltered in Europe, as expected. As we go to press, the UK Christmas election is reported to have produced a whopping Conservative majority. This year Johnson mounted the most credible threat of a no-deal Brexit that we are ever likely to see and yet ultimately delayed Brexit. The Conservative victory will produce an orderly Brexit. The trade deal that needs to be negotiated next year will bring volatility but it does not have a firm deadline and is not harder to negotiate than Brexit itself. The UK has passed through the murkiest parts of Brexit uncertainty. Moreover, our high-conviction view that more dovish fiscal policy would be the end-result of the Brexit saga is now becoming consensus. Europe: Not The Crisis You Were Looking For The European Union was a geopolitical “red herring” in 2019 as we expected. Anti-establishment feeling remained contained. Italy remains the weakest link in the Euro Area, but the political “turmoil” of 2018-19 is the populist exception that mostly proves the rule: Europeans are not as a whole rebelling against the EU or the euro. On France, Italy, and Spain our views were fundamentally correct. Even in the European parliament, where anti-establishment players have a better chance of taking seats than in their home governments, the true Euroskeptics who want to exit the union only make up about 16% of the seats (Chart 20). This is up from 11% prior to the elections in May this year. Chart 20Euroskepticism Was Overstated Yet the European political establishment is losing precious time to prepare for the next wave of serious agitation, likely when a full-fledged recession comes. Chart 21Trump Did Not Pile Tariffs Onto Auto Sector Germany is experiencing a slow transition from the long reign of Angela Merkel, whose successor has plummeted in opinion polls. The shock of the global slowdown – particularly heavy in the auto sector (Chart 21) – hastened Germany’s succession crisis. Chart 22Overstated EU Political Risk, Understated Chinese Risk There is a silver lining: this shock is forcing the Germans to reckon with de-globalization. Attitudes across the country are shifting on the critical question of fiscal policy. Even the conservative Christian Democrats are loosening their belts in the face of the success of the Green Party and a simultaneous change in leadership among the Social Democrats to embrace bigger spending. The Trump administration refrained from piling car tariffs onto Europe amidst this slowdown in the automobile sector and overall economy. We expected this delay, as there is little support in the US for a trade war with Europe, contra China, and it is bad strategy to fight a two-front war. But if the US economy recovers robustly and Trump is emboldened by a China deal then this risk could reignite in future. With European political risk overstated, and Chinese mainland risk understated, we initiated a long European equities relative to Chinese equities trade (Chart 22), as recommended by our colleagues at BCA Research European Investment Strategy. And now we are initiating the strategic long EUR/USD recommendation that we flagged in September with a stop at 1.18. Japan: Shinzo Abe Has Peaked Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is still in power and still very popular, whether judged by the average prime minister in modern memory or his popular predecessor Junichiro Koizumi. But he is at his peak and 2019 did indeed mark the turning point – it is all downhill from here. First, he lost his historic double super-majority in the Diet by falling to a mere majority in the upper house (Chart 23). He is still capable of revising the constitution, but now it is now harder – and the high water mark of his legislative power has been registered. Chart 23Abe Lost His Double Super Majority Chart 24Consumption Tax Hike Shows Limits Of Abenomics Second, he proceeded with a consumption tax from 8% to 10% that predictably sent the economy into a tailspin given the global slowdown (Chart 24). We thought the tax hike would be delayed, but Abe opted to hike the tax and then pass a stimulus package to compensate. This decision further supports the view that Abe’s power will decline going forward. It is now incontrovertible that the Liberal Democrats are eschewing a radical plan of debt monetization in which they coordinate ultra-dovish fiscal policy with ultra-dovish monetary policy. “Abenomics” has not necessarily failed but it is a fully known quantity. Abe will next preside over the 2020 summer Olympics and prepare to step down as Liberal Democratic party leader in September 2021. It is conceivable he will stay longer, but the likeliest successors have been put into cabinet positions, including Shinjiro Koizumi, son of the aforementioned, whom we would not rule out as a future prime minister. Constitutional revision or a Russian peace deal could mark the high point of his premiership, but the peak macro consequences have been felt. Japan suffered a literal and figurative earthquake in 2011. Over the long run Tokyo will resort to more unorthodox economic policies and redouble its efforts at reflation. But not until the external environment demands it. This suggests that the JPY-USD is a good hedge against risks to the cyclically bullish House View in 2020 and supports an overweight stance on Japanese government bonds. Emerging Markets: Notable Mentions India: We were correct that Narendra Modi would be reelected as prime minister, but we did not expect that he would win a single-party majority for a second time (Chart 25). The risk is that this result leads to hubris – particularly in foreign policy and domestic social policy – rather than accelerating structural reform. But for now we remain optimistic about reform. Chart 25 East Asia: We are optimistic on Southeast Asia in the context of US-China competition. But we proved overly optimistic on Malaysia and Indonesia this year, while we missed a chance to close our long Thai equity trade when it would have been very profitable to do so. Turkey: Domestic political challenges to President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan have led to a doubling down on unorthodox monetary policy and profligate fiscal policy, as expected. Early in the year we advised clients that Erdoğan would delay deployment of the Russian S-400 air defense system in deference to the US but it quickly became clear that this was not the case. Thus we correctly anticipated the sharp drop in the lira over the autumn (Chart 26). The US-Turkey relationship continues to fray and additional American sanctions are likely. Russia: President Vladimir Putin focused on maintaining domestic stability amid tight fiscal and monetary policy in 2019. This solidified our positive relative view of Russian currency and equities (Chart 27). But it also highlighted longer-term political risks. We expect this trend to continue, but by the same token Russia is a potential “Black Swan” risk in 2020. Chart 26The Lira's Autumn Relapse Chart 27Russia's Eerie Quiet In 2019 Venezuela: Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro eked out another year of regime survival in 2019 despite our high-conviction view since 2017 that he would be finished. However, the economy is still collapsing and Russian and Chinese assistance is still limited (Chart 28). Before long the military will need to renovate the regime, even if our global growth and oil outlook for next year is positive for the regime on the margin. Chart 28Maduro Clung To Power Chart 29Our 2019 Winner: Global Defense Stocks Brazil: We were late to the Brazilian equity rally. While we have given the Jair Bolsonaro administration the benefit of the doubt, a halt to structural reforms in 2020 would prove us wrong. Our worst trade of the year was long rare earth miners, mentioned above. Our best trade was long global defense stocks (Chart 29), a structural theme stemming from the struggle of multiple powerful nations in the twenty-first century. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com Jingnan Liu Research Associate jingnan@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic Consulting Editor marko@bcaresearch.com

The 2019 UK General Election result offers four possible medium-term outcomes for UK exposed investments: Conservatives win 340 seats or more: This comfortable majority for the Conservatives is medium-term positive for UK exposed investments, as prime minister Johnson would not be dependent on the 20 or so hard Brexit extremists to pass any free trade deal (FTA) through parliament. Albeit the markets are already pricing the Conservatives to win 337-343 seats. Conservatives win 320-340 seats: This marginal majority for the Conservatives is medium-term risky for UK exposed investments, because the hard Brexit extremists would have disproportionate influence and leverage, keeping open the possibility of a hard Brexit on WTO terms after the standstill transition period ends on December 31 2020.         Conservatives win 310-320 seats: This ‘marginally hung’ parliament is medium-term risky for UK exposed investments, as it is essentially no change from the current gridlocked parliament. Conservatives win less than 310 seats: This ‘comfortably hung’ parliament is medium-term positive for UK exposed investments, as it creates the possibility of the softest (or no) Brexit under a Labour-led minority government. At the same time, a minority government would be unable to pass its most contentious and supposedly ‘market unfriendly’ policies. If the result is 2. the marginal majority, and the market does not appreciate the risk, then it presents a sell opportunity. Conversely, if the result is 4. the comfortably hung parliament, and the market does not appreciate the upside, then it presents a buy opportunity. Fourth Time Lucky For The UK Pollsters? The 2019 UK General Election is the fourth major UK vote since 2015 in which the UK/EU relationship has featured front and centre. The first was the 2015 General Election, in which then prime minister David Cameron promised a referendum on EU membership, subject to the Conservative party winning an outright parliamentary majority, which it duly did. The second was the subsequent 2016 in/out EU referendum in which the UK voted to leave the EU. The third was the 2017 General Election called by prime minister May to bolster her Brexit negotiating position. But May’s plan backfired. She managed to lose the Conservative majority, her party’s Brexit negotiating position, and ultimately her job. So here we are at the fourth major UK vote in little over four years. Significantly, the pollsters got the 2015, 2016, and 2017 UK votes very wrong. In 2015, they predicted a hung parliament; but the actual outcome was a comfortable majority for the Conservatives, forcing Cameron to deliver his promise of an EU referendum. In the ensuing 2016 referendum, the pollsters predicted a narrow win for remain; the actual outcome was a narrow win for leave. Then in 2017, the pollsters predicted a very healthy vote share win for the Conservatives – and the spread betting markets priced the party to win 364-370 seats in the 650 seat UK parliament; but the actual outcome was 317 seats and a hung parliament – because the pollsters had underestimated the Labour vote by five percentage points. Today, just as in 2017, the pollsters are predicting a healthy vote share win and comfortable parliamentary majority for the Conservatives. At the time of writing (election eve) the spread betting markets are pricing the Conservative party to win 337-343 seats. When the election day exit poll comes out at 10pm UK time, we will get a good idea whether it is fourth time lucky for the pollsters. But irrespective of whether they are right or wrong, the immediate market reaction might still offer some medium-term investment opportunities. The Key Numbers… And Where The Immediate Market Reaction Could Be Wrong The Conservatives need a working majority – because having burnt their bridges with the DUP (Northern Ireland unionists), no other party is likely to support prime minister Johnson’s EU withdrawal agreement. Given that the speaker, deputy speakers, and Sinn Fein (Northern Ireland republicans) do not vote in the UK parliament, and depending on the number of seats that Sinn Fein win, the threshold for a working majority will be around 320 seats. This creates four potential outcomes for the markets: Conservatives win 340 seats or more: This comfortable majority for the Conservatives is medium-term positive for UK exposed investments, as Johnson would not be dependent on the 20 or so hard Brexit extremists to pass any free trade deal (FTA) through parliament. But as noted above, the markets are already pricing the Conservatives to win 337-343 seats. Conservatives win 320-340 seats: This marginal majority for the Conservatives is medium-term risky for UK exposed investments, because the hard Brexit extremists would have disproportionate influence and leverage, keeping open the possibility of a hard Brexit on WTO terms after the standstill transition period ends on December 31 2020. Conservatives win 310-320 seats: This ‘marginally hung’ parliament is medium-term risky for UK exposed investments, as it is essentially no change from the current gridlocked parliament. Conservatives win less than 310 seats: This ‘comfortably hung’ parliament is medium-term benign for UK exposed investments, as it creates the possibility of the softest (or no) Brexit under a Labour-led minority government. At the same time, a minority government would be unable to pass its most contentious and supposedly ‘market unfriendly’ policies. Of these four possibilities, if the immediate market reactions to 2. the marginal majority, or 4. the comfortably hung parliament do not appreciate the risk and upside respectively, then they will create sell and buy opportunities for UK exposed investments. What Are The UK Exposed Investments? The most obvious UK exposed investment is the pound, which is still trading at a near 10 percent discount versus the euro and the dollar, based on the pre-referendum relationship with real interest rate differentials (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). However, the extent to which that discount can narrow depends on how much worse off (if at all) the UK economy finds itself in its new trading relationships with the EU and the rest of the world compared with full membership of the EU. Chart I-1The Pound Is Cheap Versus The Euro Chart I-2The Pound Is Cheap Versus The Dollar In this regard, the best outcomes are a rapidly negotiated and maximally-aligned FTA with the EU, or the softest (or no) Brexit. Meaning that the aforementioned possibilities 1. or 4. – a comfortable Conservative win or a comfortably hung parliament – are the best outcomes for the UK economy, and therefore for the pound. To the extent that the Bank of England policymakers recognise this, the same conclusion applies to the direction of UK gilt yields, and therefore inversely to UK gilt prices. Turning to the stock market, the FTSE100 is categorically not a UK exposed investment – because it comprises multinationals with minimal exposure to the UK economy. If anything, the FTSE100 is an anti-UK exposed investment. This is because sales and profits are denominated in international currencies, and if these non-pound currencies weaken versus the pound (meaning the pound strengthens) it weighs down the pound-denominated FTSE100 versus other markets (Chart I-3). In fact, the ‘real’ UK stock market is the more UK focussed FTSE250 (Chart I-4), or the FTSE Small Cap index (Chart I-5). Chart I-3When The Pound Strengthens, The FTSE 100 Underperforms Chart I-4The 'Real' UK Stock Market Is The FTSE 250, Not The FTSE 100 Chart I-5Small Caps Are Exposed To The UK Economy In terms of equity sectors, the least exposed to the UK economy are the multinationals with international currency earnings. As well as the obvious oil and gas, resources, and healthcare sectors, it includes the global banks and clothing and apparel (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Clothing Is Not Exposed To The UK Economy The sectors most exposed to the UK economy are the homebuilders (Chart 7), real estate (Chart 8), and general retailers (Chart 9). All of these, plus the FTSE250 and FTSE Small Cap, and of course the pound, can outperform in the medium term in the aforementioned possibilities 1. and 4. – a comfortable win for the Conservatives or a comfortably hung parliament. But they will face pressure in possibilities 2. and 3. – a marginal win for the Conservatives or a marginally hung parliament. Chart I-7Homebuilders Are Exposed To The UK Economy Chart I-8Real Estate Is Exposed To The UK Economy Chart I-9General Retailers Are Exposed To The UK Economy Fractal Trading System* This week's recommended trade is long nickel / short gold, the reverse of the successful trade we recommended on October 3. Back then the nickel price had become technically extended due to scares about an Indonesian export ban. And as predicted, the price subsequently collapsed (by 30 percent) to the point where the price has now become technically depressed. Accordingly, this week's recommendation is long nickel / short gold setting a profit target of 10 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. The rolling 1-year win ratio stands at 64 percent. When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Our sister BCA Geopolitical Strategy Service has introduced a Presidential Election Model that uses political and economic variables to predict the Electoral College vote on the state-by-state level. The model would have predicted the past five elections correctly on an out-of-sample basis, and even the controversial win of George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000. As of the latest available data, the model predicts that the Republicans will lose Michigan and Wisconsin (critical victories in 2016). Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire become borderline or “toss-up” states: the probability of a Republican win in these states is 48.77%, 50.17%, and 46.90%, respectively. Even the smallest change in our model inputs can shift these states to either party. According to the model, President Trump is also at the lowest level of approval and weakest state-by-state economy that he can afford. If one of these factors stabilizes below today’s level, Trump will lose his reelection bid. Bottom Line: Quantitative modeling, entirely independent of our qualitative assessment, suggests that Trump is favored to win the 2020 election. However, he is skating on very thin ice with regard to key cyclical variables such as state-level economic performance and popular approval rating.

Special Report

Highlights US politics are the chief source of global geopolitical risk over the coming year – and likely beyond. President Trump’s reelection remains our base case – the sitting president rarely loses if the economy is expanding. Yet the risk of a Democratic victory is high – Trump’s low approval rating, impending impeachment trial, and various policy troubles threaten his reelection bid. Trump’s tactics and the Democrats’ turn to the progressive left pose threats to BCA Research’s cyclically bullish house equity view. Feature If a time-traveler had accosted you in the fall of 2014 and told you that Donald Trump, the host of the reality TV show The Apprentice, would be the next American president, would you have believed him? What if the time-traveler had gone on to say that President Trump’s unconventional behavior would get him into hot water and that in 2020 he would become the first president in US history to be impeached and removed from office? Granting the premise, the second proposition is easier to imagine. And yet Trump is highly unlikely to be removed from office. He is in fact favored to be reelected. Just as his victory in 2016 proved more likely than the consensus held at the time, so his reelection in 2020 is more likely than the consensus holds today. The reason comes down to political constraints. First, the bar for removal in the Senate is very high. Second, it is easier for a sitting president to get reelected than it is for the opposition to convince voters to start over with something entirely different. Especially if the economy is in decent shape. In what follows we present our quantitative 2020 election model and our qualitative, constraints-based analysis of the election and likely market responses. Trump's fate is only one factor. But US politics is the chief source of market-relevant global political risk over the next 12-24 months. Not A Lame Duck (Yet) After a harrowing year in which global manufacturing slumped due to China’s tight credit policy and Trump’s trade war, the probability of a US recession is now – tentatively – subsiding (Chart 1). This is good news for Trump, whose presidency is hanging by a thread. Chart 1Recession Averted? Or Trump's Death Knell? Chart 2Bookies Expect A Democrat Victory Betting markets like PredictIt.org suggest that Democrats are slightly more likely than Republicans to win the White House next November (Chart 2). The narrow spread is appropriate given that the balance of evidence is fairly even. However, if there is to be a tilt, it should go the opposite way, i.e. toward Republicans as the incumbent party. The history of US elections since 1860 shows a strong tendency for the incumbent party to hold the White House when the sitting president is running at the head of the ticket. This is especially true when there has not been a recession during the president’s four-year term. It is even true when the ruling party has lost seats in preceding congressional elections, as occurred in 2018 and as is often the case (Chart 3). Other than recession, the biggest exception to the sitting president’s victory – especially in modern times – is when a major scandal has occurred, as with Gerald Ford in 1976. This is clearly relevant to today. In these rare cases the incumbent president’s and incumbent party’s historic reelection rates are both 50/50. The implication of Chart 3 is that Trump’s odds, from a historical point of view, are slightly above 50%. Of course, history does not afford an example of a first-term president being impeached, acquitted, and running for election again.1 Yet this is the most likely outcome today, as there is not an overwhelming popular demand to remove Trump from office. Despite the revelations and public hearings in the impeachment inquiry so far, support for removal stands at 47%, while opposition to removal stands at 45% (Chart 4). In other words, there is no majority in favor of removal, but only a narrow plurality. Removal – nullifying an election result – requires more. Chart 3History Says Trump More Likely To Win Than Not Chart 4No Consensus On Removal From Office The spread is conspicuously close to the 46%-to-48% popular vote spread for Trump and Hillary Clinton, respectively, in 2016. The impeachment is not a tsunami of public opposition to the administration. It is a bare-knuckle power struggle: Trump tried to have his top rival investigated and tarred with corruption allegations, the Democrats are retaliating by trying to remove Trump prior to the election. Support for removal will fluctuate, but it will take more than 47% of the population to generate a 67-vote supermajority against Trump in a Republican-held Senate. Republican senators would be taking a grave risk in voting against their base when they have the option of deferring to voters in just 11 months’ time. Both Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were in their second terms when Congress began moving articles of impeachment: the public had no other recourse in the event that they committed “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Trump is in his first term and is due for the public’s verdict shortly. Nixon resigned when it became clear that grassroots Republicans had lost faith in him and the Senate would not acquit. Trump’s political base has not yet lost faith – his approval among Republicans is still 90%, higher than the average of Republican presidents and at the high end of his term in office (Chart 5). When it comes to the final vote, some Republican senators may defect, but it would take 20 to remove Trump from office. This will require a Nixon-like hemorrhage of support. Remarkably Trump’s general approval rating has not been affected by the impeachment inquiry (Chart 6). His approval rating is still comparable to President Barack Obama’s rating at this stage in his first term (as well as Ronald Reagan’s). While Trump is highly unlikely to break above 50%, he is emphatically not a lame duck … at least not yet. Presidential approval tends to rise as the opposition nomination is settled and the election approaches. If Trump’s approval revives to the 46% of the popular vote he won in 2016, then he remains competitive in the swing states where the election will be fought and won. Chart 5Trump’s Political Base Geared Up For Battle Chart 6A Precarious Approval Rating What about the Republicans’ heavy losses in the midterm elections and special elections since 2016? Haven’t national voting trends already condemned Trump and the Republicans to a loss in 2020? Not necessarily. Democrats lost elections more dramatically in 2009-11 than Republicans lost in 2017-19 – both in voter support and turnout (Table 1) – and yet President Obama secured the victory in 2012. Presidential elections are a different beast. Table 1Democrats Suffered More Post-2008 Than Republicans Post-2016 … Yet Obama Won Reelection Chart 7GOP Governorships At Low End Of Rising Trend The same goes for Republican losses in recent gubernatorial races. In Kentucky the incumbent governor was a Republican and lost; in Louisiana the incumbent governor was a Democrat and won. The catch is that the number of Republican governors was extremely elevated prior to 2018. Recent losses have merely brought the Republicans back to the bottom of their upward channel as a share of the nation’s 50 governors (Chart 7). Thus while the interim elections are a warning sign to Trump and the GOP, they are not a death knell – as long as the economy rebounds and President Trump’s approval rises as the election approaches. Bottom Line: Trump is not a lame duck yet. His administration is embattled and the impeachment process could permanently damage his standing. But so far his general approval rating and the specific impeachment polling suggest that he will stay in office and remain competitive in the 2020 race. If the election were today he would almost surely lose, but a lot can change in 12 months. If the economy avoids recession, then investors should take reelection as their base case. Cyclical Constraints Will Prevail A recession is the surest way to render a president a lame duck. It does not have to be a technical recession. The contraction in the manufacturing sector – and corresponding cutbacks in lending in the manufacturing-heavy and electorally vital Midwest – are extremely threatening to a president who promised to revive manufacturing and trade (Chart 8). Incumbency, economic growth, failed impeachment, and partial policy victory are enough to win the key swing states. Having declared that “trade wars are good and easy to win,” President Trump will not be able to hide from a deeper slowdown in the industrial heartland. State-level wage growth is positive, but swing states, particularly Trump swing states, are seeing a sharp drop-off from the highs prior to the trade war (Chart 9). The solution is the trade ceasefire being pursued with China. Trump is now in the position of the Federal Reserve Chairman: he can no longer afford to hike (tariff) rates, and the equity market may force him to cut, as long as he can reasonably hope to improve the economy. If the economy is lost, the trade war is back on. Chart 8An Urgent Need For A Trade Ceasefire Chart 9Trump Swing States Took A Hit From The Trade War Chart 10Buttigieg And Warren More Favorable Than Others Are incumbency, economic growth, failed impeachment, and partial policy victories enough to get Trump over the line in the key swing states?2 Subjectively, we think so. The Democrats have to win all of the states they won in 2016 plus Michigan and Florida (or two other states in place of Florida, such as Wisconsin and Pennsylvania). President Trump can afford to lose Michigan and one other state (but not Florida). This assessment has little to do with the Democratic presidential nominee – as yet unknown – and everything to do with whether the incumbent president or party has been fundamentally discredited. Democratic candidates like Senator Elizabeth Warren and Mayor Pete Buttigieg are generally more competitive than consensus holds. Warren, for instance, is one of the few candidates in recent elections who has a net positive favorability rating (Chart 10). But her favorability is not enough to overturn a sitting president – that will most likely require a shock that renders the status quo intolerable. The cyclical constraints on Trump and his opponents are thus clear. What of the structural constraints? Trump’s 2016 victory is often attributed to long-running structural trends in the US such as deindustrialization, immigration, and racial attitudes. The Democrats’ “blue wall” in the Rust Belt crumbled because Trump courted the working-class voter there and/or stoked racial anxieties. The implication, however, is that Trump still has an advantage in these swing states. Older voters and especially white voters have drifted toward Republicans for several years – the trend was interrupted only by the Great Recession, which saw a surge in Democratic support that has now subsided (Chart 11). Chart 11Old And White People Drifting To GOP Over Time ... Excepting The Great Recession While the white share of the swing states is falling over time, that trend is not sufficient to prevent Trump from winning the Electoral College in the year 2020. Instead the rapidly changing racial and ethnic composition of society should be seen as motivating the attitudes that Trump exploits. Trump’s electoral strategy of maximizing white turnout and support for the Republican Party, which we dubbed “White Hype” in 2016, is still the only way for him to achieve a popular vote victory in 2020, and hence the clearest pathway for him to achieve an Electoral College victory (Chart 12). Needless to say, tensions and controversies over race and immigration will swell in the coming year. Chart 12Electoral College Scenarios Show Trump Win Still Possible Chart 13Swing State Turnout Follows Unemployment By the same token, demographic change means that the Democrats can theoretically win by performing no better than they did in 2016 in terms of voter turnout and support rates (see the “Status Quo” scenario in Chart 12). This is a low hurdle for Democrats – suggesting once again that the election will be extremely close, that Trump can win only through the Electoral College (not the popular vote), and that the election outcome will ultimately swing on the cyclical factors outlined above, particularly the state of the economy. A final word about voter turnout. The greatest electoral risk to President Trump is an increase in voter turnout among traditionally low turnout groups that heavily favor the Democratic Party, such as young people and minorities. Given the surge in turnout for the 2018 midterm elections, and the extremely controversial and heated environment surrounding Trump’s presidency, there is considerable reason to suspect that 2020 will be a high-turnout election. Other things being equal, this would likely penalize Trump’s reelection prospects. However, it is important to recognize that voter turnout in swing states is fairly well correlated with the unemployment rate (Chart 13). Depending on the state, surges in turnout occurred in 1992, in the wake of recession; 2004, in the wake of recession, terrorism and war; and 2008, in the wake of the great financial crisis. The exception is Pennsylvania, where a surge in white voter turnout helped Trump pull off a surprise win in the state. Turnout is the hardest political variable to predict, so it is not clear whether Trump’s scandals and impeachment will do the trick. But an increase in the unemployment rate would virtually destroy Trump’s bid, being negatively correlated with presidential approval and positively correlated with voter turnout. Bottom Line: Trump’s executive powers give him the potential to achieve some additional policy victories that could boost his approval rating – namely a trade ceasefire with China that simultaneously improves the economic outlook. Meanwhile structural factors such as demographics do not forbid Trump from winning the Electoral College – on the contrary, aging and the decline in the white share of the population mean that Trump’s electoral strategy could succeed again in 2020, but will be much harder to pull off after 2020. Introducing … BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy 2020 US Presidential Election Model The BCA Geopolitical Strategy Presidential Election Model is a state-by-state model that uses political and economic variables to predict the Electoral College vote. What differentiates our model from that of others is that it attempts to predict the probability of the incumbent party winning the Electoral College votes in each of the 50 states. The model would have predicted the past five elections correctly on an out-of-sample basis, even the controversial win of George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000. Why do we predict the electoral vote rather than the popular vote? First, the winner of the presidential election is determined by the Electoral College, not the popular vote. Second, in recent history, two candidates who lost the popular vote (George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016) won the election. It is possible that we will see a similar result in 2020, given President Trump’s low national popularity yet distinctive policy pitch for the Midwestern states (e.g. economic patriotism, hardline on immigration). With only minor exceptions, electoral votes are allocated based on a winner-take-all process, as opposed to proportionately to the popular vote. Hence the best way to forecast the presidential election winner is to predict the probability of winning each state, i.e. receiving all the electoral votes assigned to each state.3 Due to the data availability of our input variables, our sample size includes nine elections (1984 to 2016) across 50 states, making for a total of 450 observations. We designed the model to be as succinct as possible. It includes four explanatory variables: A weighted average of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia State Leading Index, from the beginning of the previous presidential term until September of the election year. The state leading indexes predict the 6-month growth rate of the state coincident indexes, which include nonfarm payroll employment, average hours worked in manufacturing by production workers, the unemployment rate, and wage and salary disbursements deflated by the consumer price index (U.S. city average).4 Chart 14Voters Make Up Their Minds Ahead Of Time We use a weighted average of all the monthly forecasts in the presidential term preceding an election, where later months are weighted more heavily than earlier months. Our sample includes 6-month growth rates up to and including September of the election year, which means it includes a rough forecast of the direction of the state’s economy in Q1 of the new president’s term. Since we weigh recent months more heavily, our model assigns more importance to forward-looking factors. It is sufficient to end our calculations of the average state leading indexes in September of the election year. First, the October data comes out in early November, just days before the election, which would be an insufficient lead-time for our final forecast. Second, most voters make their decision at least one month in advance of the election and last-minute changes in economic forecasts will likely not influence their decision (Chart 14). The incumbent party’s margin of victory in the previous presidential election in each state. This is measured as the incumbent party vote share minus the non-incumbent party vote share. Simply put, if the incumbent party failed to secure a solid win in a given state in the previous election, the probability of securing a solid win in the current election is much smaller. Average national approval level of the incumbent president in July of the election year. We tested the correlation between presidential approval in every month leading up to the election versus the election outcome and found that July approval levels have the second-highest correlation with the popular vote and Electoral College vote (Chart 15). Average October approval levels have slightly higher correlation with election outcomes, but not sufficiently so to sacrifice three months of lead-time. A “time for change” variable. This is a categorical variable indicating whether the incumbent party has been in the White House for one or more terms. Academic literature shows that a party that has occupied the White House for two terms or more is much less likely to win an election than a party that is running for a second term.5 Chart 15Voters Mostly Decided By July The output of our model is the probability of an incumbent win in each state. There are two ways of aggregating these probabilities to produce a national-level outcome: Allocate the number of Electoral College votes won by the incumbent proportionally to their probability of victory in each state, and then sum them up across all states. This method would smooth out potential errors in our forecast. The Republican Party is expected to win with 279 Electoral College votes in 2020. Assume a probability threshold of 50%: any state with an incumbent win that is at least 50% likely is fully assigned to the incumbent. While this method could significantly sway our forecast towards one of the parties because of small changes in probability, it is closer to the political reality. Even the smallest majority in a given state will (usually) result in the winning candidate getting all of the state’s Electoral College votes. We therefore adopt this method in our aggregation.6 Our model performs well in back tests: it correctly predicted every election in in-sample tests and every election from 2000 to 2016 in out-of-sample tests (Chart 16). Chart 16BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Election Model: Back Tests Accurate Chart 17 shows our initial 2020 prediction. Overall, the Republican Party is expected to win 279 Electoral College votes, a 25-vote decrease from its 2016 result. Chart 17Trump Narrowly Slated To Win 2020 With 279 Electoral College Votes As of the latest available data, our model predicts that the Republicans will lose Michigan and Wisconsin (critical victories in 2016). Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire become borderline or “toss-up” states: the probability of a Republican win in these states is 48.77%, 50.17%, and 46.90%, respectively. Even the smallest change in our inputs can shift these states to either party. The two inputs that can affect our forecast are the state leading index and President Trump’s approval level, since the other two inputs – the time for change variable and last election’s margin of victory – are fixed. Table 2 shows the predicted Electoral College votes for the Republican Party for various scenarios of these two variables. According to the model, President Trump is currently at the lowest level of approval and weakest state-by-state economy that he can afford. If one of these factors stabilizes below today’s level, Trump will lose his reelection bid. Table 2Small Decline In State Economies Could Ruin Trump’s 2020 Bid In the worst-case scenario for Trump – if his approval and the state leading indexes drop to the lowest levels they have touched in Trump’s presidency – the Republican Party will only manage to secure 230 Electoral College votes. The opposite, optimistic scenario would see them winning with 329 votes. An interesting takeaway from our model is that it captures the increase in American political polarization that has been widely observed by scholars. The 2020 forecast shows that many states will be won or lost by the incumbent party with extreme certainty (0% or 100%). Results of in-sample predictions show that this trend has been increasing since 1992 (Chart 18, top panel), which is also in line with our own measure of polarization (Chart 18, bottom panel). Since the results are based on in-sample estimations, the coefficients remain constant, so the differences in the results can be attributed to the underlying data. The impression of ever-intensifying polarization in the US is correct. What does this mean for Trump? He cannot be written off simply because he has a relatively low approval rating. Structural political factors that propelled him to the White House are still in place. His approval and the economy must deteriorate to change this base case. The chief risk to our model is the accuracy and interpretation of presidential approval polling. While polling data always has a margin of error, it is possible that approval polling is underestimating Trump’s support, particularly on the state level, as was witnessed in 2016 (Chart 19). Chart 18Rising Polarization – It’s Empirical Chart 19State-Level Polling Still A Risk We have a high degree of confidence in professional pollsters, who have also made improvements since 2016.   But asking Americans whether they “approve” of the unorthodox Trump may be a different proposition than in the past, disguising voting intentions to some degree. By choosing the level of Trump’s approval in our model (see Appendix), we are guarding against overstating his support and not allowing much room for any dampening effects or self-censorship, which is thus a risk to our model. Bottom Line: Quantitative modeling, entirely independent of our qualitative assessment, suggests that Trump is favored to win the 2020 election. However, he is skating on very thin ice with regard to key cyclical variables such as state-level economic performance and popular approval rating. If his approval level suffers from a slowing economy, or scandal and impeachment, then he will lose the critical toss-up states and the White House. Investment Conclusions In this report we have outlined a case where President Trump, despite his extreme unorthodoxy in general, and acute vulnerability at this moment in time, is still the most likely winner of the 2020 election. Elections are a Bayesian process in which investors should establish a clear prior, or starting place, and update their probabilities according to reliable data streams. This report establishes our prior and our key data streams. So what? Does it matter if Trump is reelected? Is it relevant to investors? From a bird’s eye view, Trump has made a few decisions that clearly distinguish his term in office from that of previous presidents. First, Trump replaced Janet Yellen with Jerome Powell at the Federal Reserve. It is debatable whether or how this affected the normalization of monetary policy. What is clear is that Trump made a change at the helm while pushing through highly stimulative fiscal policy. Fed hikes contributed to a rise in bond yields and an increase in market volatility, and the Fed was ultimately forced to adjust. Trump has vociferously criticized the Fed and demanded ever-lower rates. Second, by embracing sweeping Republican tax reform, Trump initiated pro-cyclical fiscal stimulus that widened the US’s monetary and economic divergence from the rest of the world, while exacerbating the US’s long-term fiscal woes. Third, by adopting protectionist trade policy to confront China’s mercantilism, Trump rattled global sentiment and contributed to a manufacturing recession. As long as our view remains correct, investors will have a base case that is cyclically bullish. Of these three macro developments, the only one that the election could substantially change is trade policy – and yet the Democrats are also taking a more hawkish approach to China. On the fiscal front, the Democrats will raise taxes, but they will not impose austerity – instead they propose large expansions of entitlements that the populace increasingly demands. Populist social spending combined with geopolitical struggle with China ensures that the deficit/GDP ratio will go up regardless of the party in power. From a market point of view, the historical record suggests that presidential elections – specifically elections that lead to gridlock between the White House and Congress, since we do not expect the Democrats to lose the House of Representatives – usually see a rising US stock market beforehand and a higher degree of volatility afterwards (Chart 20). Relative to developed market equities, US stocks typically underperform, and only resume their rise in the second half of the following year (i.e. 2021). Comparing Trump to other first-term presidents, it is clear that his “pluto-populism” (populism plus tax cuts for the rich) has exerted a reflationary effect on the equity market (Chart 21). As long as the data show that he has a fair chance of reelection, investors will have a base case that is cyclically bullish, despite the volatility to come from the Democrats’ taxation and regulation proposals. Chart 20Equity Outcomes Surrounding US Presidential Votes Chart 21Trump A Reason To Be Bullish What is most striking about Trump’s presidency is the low real total return on US Treasuries. This is despite his aggressive foreign and trade policy, which has motivated safe-haven flows into Treasuries this year (Chart 22). The bottom line is that the output gap is closed, the labor market is tight, and fiscal policy is expansive, putting upward pressure on yields. Given that Trump needs to cultivate a China ceasefire and economic improvement for reelection, this trend should continue until the next recession looms. Chart 22Trump Marks End Of Bull Market In Bonds The risk, however, is that Trump’s precarious China negotiations fall through, or that his scandals cause a permanent downshift in his approval rating, rendering him a lame duck. Not only would this free him of the election constraint that currently forces him to pursue pro-market policies, but it would also make a Democratic victory more likely. The Democratic nomination, meanwhile, could easily produce a progressive populist in the figure of Elizabeth Warren, who is still a frontrunner in the Democratic nomination. A bear market could develop quite easily if a normal equity market correction, which improves the odds of a Democratic victory becomes entangled in expectations that Warren is set to win the nomination. If the opposition can summon enough votes to unseat an incumbent president, chances are that the circumstances will include a “blue wave” that also sees the Democrats take the Senate. This would institute another sweeping change to American policy, this time in a direction that is unfriendly to corporate profits. As the probability of such a scenario rises, the equity market will have to discount it. Expectations of a Trump victory will spur the market upward – but investors should be wary. If this very long bull market has continued all the way to November 3, 2020, and President Trump is confirmed in office, the positive stock market reaction will likely provide an excellent time for booking profits and reducing risk. In a second term, Trump will be unshackled from his electoral constraints – very much unlike a first-term Democrat. This would free him to pursue his trade wars with fewer inhibitions – against China but also likely against Europe. A continuation of the trade war has important impacts across the full slate of global assets, as outlined in Chart 23, which depicts the movement of assets on days in which US equities reacted negatively to trade war developments. Chart 23A Trump Second Term Means Trade War With Fewer Constraints With 11 months to go, we are a world away from the election. The party nomination process, or third-party candidates, could overturn all expectations. But if there is one certainty, it is that polarization and political risk will rise in the coming 12-24 months. The losing side of the population will have deep heartburn. A crisis of legitimacy could easily haunt the next administration. There could be hanging chads, vote recounts, faithless electors, or contested results. The outcome of the election could turn upon unprecedented developments in the Electoral College, Supreme Court, or even in cyberspace. If the Democrats win, redistribution will amplify partisanship. If Trump wins, inequality will rise. There is no easy way forward for the United States.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Ekaterina Shtrevensky Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com Appendix 1: The Approval Question: Level Or Change? Chart 24Trump’s Historically Low Approval Rating The chief risk to our model is the interpretation of the presidential approval rating and its impact on the election. President Trump’s approval rating is notoriously low compared to the average president (Chart 24). While many authors use approval rating (or popularity) in their models, some argue that it is not the approval level, but the change in approval leading up to the election that matters.7 Consider the following: if President Trump’s approval increases from today’s level of 43% by 5%, he would be at the same level of approval as the average president if their approval were to drop by 5%. A model based on approval level would place these two presidents equally, while a model based on the change in approval would favor Trump. So which one is correct? We compare the incumbent’s popular vote in post-WWII elections with four different “variations” of incumbent president approval: the average level in July of the election year (as in our model); the deviation of the average October level from the election-year average, the change during the last two years of the term; and the range throughout the entire term. Directionally, the results are as expected. Level and change in approval are positively correlated with the popular vote, while a less stable approval (higher range) is negatively correlated (Chart 25A). We also find that approval level has the best fit with the election outcome, followed by the change in approval in the two years leading up to the election. However, if we restrict the sample size to the range of elections used in our model, 1984 to 2016, we find that the change in approval has a much better fit than the level (Chart 25B). In other words, in modern elections the presidential candidate’s momentum matters more in the final outcome. Chart 25AHigh, Rising, And Stable Approval Ratings … Chart 25B… Help Presidents Win Elections We tested each variation of approval as an input in our model instead of the July approval level. Table 3 summarizes the results. Trump wins in all four versions. Table 3All Measures Of Approval Favor Trump In 2020 Our current model penalizes Trump the most, while the model based on approval range favors him. This makes sense, given that President Trump’s approval is relatively low but very stable (Chart 26). Chart 26Trump Approval Very Low … And Very Stable We will continue to use approval level in our model to generate updated predictions, given that this measure has the best long-term historical fit with the election outcome. However, given that President Trump is performing relatively well on these other measures of approval, there is upside risk to his 2020 performance. Appendix 2: A Word About The Probit Model Table 4 presents the regression coefficients of our model. Since this is a probit model, the coefficients cannot be directly interpreted as they would in an ordinary regression. The coefficients in a probit regression model measure the change in the Z-score associated to each independent variable for a one-unit change in that variable. Table 4BCA 2020 US Presidential Election Model Statistics The sign of the coefficient corresponds to the direction of change in probability. So increases in the state leading index, presidential approval, or the incumbent’s margin of victory in the last election increase the probability of the incumbent winning a state. Of course, the latter variable is fixed and will not change until the election. At the same time, having occupied the White House for two terms or more decreases the probability of an incumbent win. But this is not the case in the current election. Footnotes 1 Andrew Johnson, the first to be impeached, did not run in 1868; Ulysses Grant bowed out after two terms in 1876, amid the “Great Barbecue” scandal; Warren Harding died before the election of 1924, amid the infamous “Teapot Dome” scandal; Harry Truman stepped down amid scandal after two terms in 1952; Richard Nixon resigned before the election of 1976; Bill Clinton was impeached and hit the two-term limit before the election of 2000. For these examples, and the electoral impact of great scandals in general, please see Allan J. Lichtman, Predicting The Next Presidency: The Keys To The White House 2016 (Rowman and Littlefield, 2016). 2 Trump’s policy record contains one major legislative victory, the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017, along with a number of works in progress. The Republicans’ failed attempt to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) exacted an opportunity cost: it deprived Trump and the GOP Congress of time needed to legislate a southern border wall, while mobilizing the opposition for all subsequent elections. As for other policies, the renegotiation of NAFTA is only a partial success as the USMCA has not been ratified. The promised infrastructure package will become a campaign pledge for the second term. We expect some kind of North Korea deal. 3 To this end, we use a probit model, where the dependent variable is stated as 1 = incumbent party won all Electoral College votes in this state, or 0 = incumbent party did not win any Electoral College votes in this state. This model allows us to measure the probability that a state with certain characteristics will fall into one of these two categories. 4 “The leading index for each state predicts the six-month growth rate of the state’s coincident index. In addition to the coincident index, the models include other variables that lead the economy: state-level housing permits (1 to 4 units), state initial unemployment insurance claims, delivery times from the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) manufacturing survey, and the interest rate spread between the 10-year Treasury bond and the 3-month Treasury bill.” See the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, www.philadelphiafed.org. 5 Alan I. Abramowitz, “Forecasting the 2008 Presidential Election with the Time-for-Change Model,” Political Science and Politics, Vol. 41, No. 4 (Oct., 2008), pp. 691-695. 6 We also assume that the Democrats always win the District of Columbia. 7 Please see Michael S. Lewis-Beck, Charles Tien, “Forecasting presidential elections: When to change the model,” International Journal of Forecasting, Volume 24, Issue 2, April–June 2008, Pages 227-236, and Mark Zandi, Dan White, Bernard Yaros, “2020 Presidential Election Model,” Moody’s Analytics, September 2019.

Highlights The Fed is the usual culprit for killing business cycles — but the Fed is on hold. This makes geopolitics the likeliest candidate to kill the cycle. The key geopolitical risks are US political turmoil, China’s economic policy, and the US-Iran confrontation. Nevertheless, policymakers are adjusting to the threat of recession, which points to a continuation of this long-in-the-tooth expansion. The US-China talks will be driven by Trump’s need for an economic boost ahead of the US election. If the economy or Trump’s approval rating fails anyway, then all bets are off. Go long gold as a strategic hedge. Feature Great power struggle, or “multipolarity,” continues to be our mega-theme in 2020. The world does not operate like a normal society, with a single government that possesses a monopoly on the use of force and ensures stability. Nations are individualistic, armed, and dangerous, creating what scholar Hedley Bull once called “The Anarchical Society.” This is not pure chaos, but rather a community of nations that lacks a clear and undisputed leader. Hence, quarrels break out often. Updating our geopolitical power index shows that the rise of China remains the most disruptive trend in global politics (Chart 1). The gap between the US and China has closed until recently, with China’s downshift in growth rates, but American fear is just being awakened (Chart 2). Given that Beijing threatens the US’s military and technological dominance over the long run, Washington will continue to develop a containment policy. Chart 1China's Geopolitical Rise Is Disruptive Chart 2China-US Power Gap Is Narrowing China is too big to quarantine, especially for a relatively unpopular first-term American president who eschews international coalition-building. The European Union’s decline in relative power is more marked than that of the United States, but China does not pose as much of a security threat to Europe. This trend exacerbates the already serious divergence in the trans-Atlantic alliance – which will worsen if Trump wins on November 3, 2020. Hence, globalization faces persistent challenges, as indicated by the falling import share of global output (Chart 3). This multi-decade process has peaked, creating a headwind for trade-exposed firms over the long run. What about the next 12 months? Will geopolitics kill the bull market? Not necessarily. Just as central bankers have cut interest rates to guard against deflationary risks (Chart 4), so the key governments are adjusting policies to avoid recessionary risks, especially with the memory of 2008 still fresh. Simply put: The Fed is on pause, Trump wants to be reelected, and China cannot afford a hard landing. Chart 3Globalization Faces Challenges Chart 4Policymakers Are Reacting To Deflationary Risks Clearly the risks to this view are elevated. The chief ones: (1) President Trump becomes a lame duck, cannot run on an economic platform, and thus makes a desperate attempt to win as a “war president” (2) Xi Jinping overestimates his advantage, in domestic or foreign policy, and makes a policy mistake (3) the US-Iran conflict spirals out of control due to Iran’s economic vulnerability. Other risks, such as Brexit, pale by comparison. Fear And Loathing On The Campaign Trail It is too soon to declare that Trump’s presidency is finished. On the contrary he is slightly favored to win reelection: • The Senate is unlikely to remove him from office. Republican support for the president is well above average despite evidence that Trump tried to get Ukrainian officials to investigate his political rival (Chart 5). The implication is that a year from now Democrats will have suffered a policy failure while Trump will have been cleared of charges. Chart 5Trump Still Popular Among Republicans • The odds of recession in the coming year are low. The US voter is buffered by rising real incomes and wages and high net wealth (Chart 6). To unseat a sitting president requires a recessionary backdrop that fundamentally discredits him and his party – not just slowing growth. Chart 6Pocketbook Voter Theory To The Test • Trump’s low approval rating does not prohibit him from reelection. While historically low, it is also historically stable. Our quantitative election model – which predicts Trump will win the Electoral College with 279 votes by clinging onto Pennsylvania – shows that Trump’s victory margin would increase if we looked not at the average level of his approval but at its change, momentum, or low range (i.e. stability). Table 1 shows the results of all four variations of his approval rating, with ascending chances of winning key swing states. Table 1All Measures Of Trump’s Approval Rating Get Him 270 Electoral College Votes Trump’s odds of winning will affect the US equity market throughout the year. As long as he remains competitive, i.e. neither scandal nor the economy cause his approval rating to break down, he will have reason to temper his policies to cater to US financial markets. Foreign and trade policies are Trump’s only ways to improve the economy and voter support. Trump’s only remaining way to boost the economy and improve voter support lies in foreign policy and trade policy. Specifically, he will stop increasing tariffs on China – and maybe even roll back tariffs to August 2019 or even April 2019 levels (Chart 7) – at least as long as the manufacturing recession persists. Chart 7Some Tariff Rollback Is Possible China is unlikely to implement painful structural changes when Trump could be gone in 12 months’ time. Strategic tensions outside of trade will undermine any ceasefire. Hence economic policy uncertainty will remain elevated even though it will drop off from recent peaks. Assuming the electoral constraint prevents Trump from levying sweeping tariffs on China or Europe, he will be limited to other foreign and trade policies to try to boost his approval rating or fire up his base: • We expect a third summit with Kim Jong Un of North Korea. Trump is rumored to be considering some troop reduction in exchange for progress on denuclearization (neither of which would be irreversible). • Otherwise Trump could turn to saber-rattling, since Pyongyang is threatening to resume long-range tests and the economic consequences of another round of “fire and fury” would be limited. • Trump could also rattle the saber against Iran, Venezuela, or other rogue states. If Trump becomes uncompetitive in the election, then the market will sell off. The market will have to price not only policy discontinuity (e.g. higher taxes), but also the chance of a progressive-populist taking the White House. Moreover, if a Democrat is able to unseat an incumbent president, the Democrats will take the Senate as well. Trump is a known unknown; this scenario would be an unknown unknown. The Democratic Party’s primary election will consume the first half of the year. It culminates in the Democratic National Convention, strategically chosen to take place in Milwaukee, Wisconsin on July 13-16. Wisconsin is one of three critical swing states. Will former Vice President Joe Biden win the nomination? A high conviction is not warranted. Biden is clearly the frontrunner, but we think a progressive can pull it off. A simulation of the Democratic Convention “pledged delegates,” based on November polling in the first four primary elections, shows Biden far short of a majority (Chart 8). He needs to outperform his polls, but this will be difficult given that he is well-known, has not performed well in debates, and will have Mayors Pete Buttigieg and Michael Bloomberg nipping at his heels in the Midwest and Northeast, respectively. Chart 8Do Not Discount A Progressive Win Over time, candidates will drop out, so it is more informative to look at the “centrist” candidates as a whole compared to the “progressives.” Here the early primary polling suggests that the progressives will come closest to victory (Chart 9). Chart 9Progressives Come Closest To Victory The trend within the party is to move to the left. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are tied as voters’ second choice – even Buttigieg supporters are split between Biden and Warren (Chart 10). What is unknown is whether Warren (or Sanders) can consolidate the progressive vote faster than Biden (or Buttigieg) consolidates the centrist vote. Chart 10If Biden Falters, Progressives Are Next In Line Chart 11Structural Imbalances Give Rise To Populism Trends pointing toward a progressive victory may not at first trouble the market, but any signs that a progressive is pulling ahead decisively will force investors to sharply upgrade the probability that he or she will win the White House. This will cause equity volatility, which could become self-reinforcing. A progressive nominee would force investors to recognize that populism and political risk are here to stay – which is our expectation given that they are motivated by polarization, inequality, and other structural imbalances in the United States (Chart 11). Left-wing or progressive populism is far more negative for corporate earnings than Trump’s right-wing or “pluto-populism.” Sanders or Warren present the worst case for investors because they favor trade protectionism in addition to higher taxes and minimum wages. Most presidents achieve their chief legislative priority in their first term and there is no reason to assume a progressive presidency would be any different. The implication is higher corporate taxes as well as individual taxes to pay for a sweeping expansion of the social safety net – positive for the economy perhaps but negative for corporate earnings. Chart 12A Progressive Win Threatens Key Sectors An extensive re-regulation of the US economy would occur regardless, since it falls under executive authority. It would affect the key equity sectors in the US bourse, technology and health (Chart 12), as well as energy and financials. The choice of a centrist Democrat like Biden (or Buttigieg) would be the least negative outcome for US equities of all the Democrats. The market would probably cheer a Trump versus Biden matchup for this reason. Biden favors higher taxes and regulation but is an establishment politician and known quantity. However, even Biden will be pulled to the left by the current within his party once in office; and Buttigieg will govern to the left of Biden. Trump’s reelection would spur a relief rally in US equities, but it would be short-lived. He would solidify low taxes and deregulation and would have a real chance of passing an infrastructure package. But he would also curtail labor force growth with his border wall and double down on trade protectionism – likely against Europe as well as China this time. His unpredictable and aggressive tendencies would be turbo-charged by a new popular mandate. We expect to cut back on risk exposure upon Trump’s reelection, assuming the bull market has survived to return him to office. A Democratic victory would mark another reversal in US policy orientation. Given our view that the White House call is also the Senate call, this would be the third time since 2008 that the country has witnessed a total reversal. Domestic American political risk will not end with the election: a legitimacy crisis could follow a narrow election, and institutional erosion continues regardless. It is too soon to call peak polarization, as the election will result in either a left-wing government bent on redistributing wealth or a right-wing Trump administration that exacerbates inequality. A centrist "return to normalcy" is possible with a Biden or Buttigieg victory. This reinforces our constructive cyclical view. Bottom Line: The chief risk from US politics in 2020 is Trump becoming a lame duck and resorting to belligerent foreign policy to try to win back voters through a rally around the flag. The chief risk of the Democratic nomination, and the general election, is a left-wing populist winning the White House. Any Democratic victory would likely bring the Senate, removing a key constraint. Over time the median voter is moving to the left. The Man Who Changed China Chart 13Xi Is Purging Misallocated Capital Xi Jinping undoubtedly represents a “new era” in China – a reassertion of Communist Party rule. The party faced a crisis of legitimacy amid the Great Recession and Arab Spring and was determined to regain political, economic, and social control. Xi had previously been anointed but was all too happy to take on the role of neo-Maoist strongman. Yet Xi’s playbook is close to that of President Jiang Zemin’s: centralize the party, repress dissent, modernize the military, restructure banks and the economy, upgrade the country’s science and technology, and expand China’s global influence. The difference is that while Jiang rode the high tide of globalization, Xi is riding the receding tide. Jiang culled two-thirds of the country’s state-owned enterprises, laying off over 40 million people, confident that a surge of new growth would ensue. Xi is also cracking down – allowing bankruptcies to purge misallocated capital (Chart 13) – but with a large debt load and shrinking labor force, he needs the state sector to put a floor under growth rates. The takeaway is that Xi will act pragmatically to boost growth when China’s stability is threatened, as he did in 2015-16. The trade war has already forced him to backtrack on the 2017-18 deleveraging campaign and stimulate the economy. The combined fiscal and credit impulse amounts to 6.6% of GDP from trough to now, and it hasn’t peaked. The implication is that Chinese growth – and global growth – will pick up from here (Chart 14). Chinese authorities are still trying to contain the growth in leverage, which has kept this year’s stimulus in check. But the chief banking regulator has also stated that as long as the macro-leverage ratio is not growing faster than 10%, this goal is met (Chart 15). Chart 14Chinese Growth Will Pick Up Chart 15China Says Leverage Already Contained The economy has not yet durably bottomed, so the state will continue adding support. The coming year is the third and final year of the “Three Battles” – against poverty, pollution, and systemic risk – as well as the final year of the thirteenth five-year plan. Beijing is falling short on its targets for real urban per capita income (Chart 16) and poverty elimination (Chart 17). A last-minute rush to meet these targets is likely and will require more fiscal stimulus. Chart 16Beijing Falls Short Of Urban Income Target... Chart 17...And Poverty Target This is not an argument for a blowout credit splurge. China is saving dry powder for a further escalation in the US containment strategy and a worse economic downturn. Do not expect a blowout Chinese credit splurge. The core constraint on policy is unemployment. Stimulus efforts have created a bottom in the employment component of the manufacturing PMI as well as a notable uptick in the demand for urban labor (Chart 18). To withdraw stimulus now – or tighten policy – would be to trigger a relapse in an economy that is ultimately at risk of a debt-deflation trap. Chart 18Chinese Stimulus Shows Up In Employment Chart 19A Banking Crisis Is A Risk To The Chinese Economy Tougher controls on credit and shadow banking have seen an uptick in corporate defaults and bank failures. With the government deliberately imposing pain on bloated sectors of the economy, financial turmoil could spread. Newspaper mentions of defaults, layoffs, and bankruptcies have only slightly subsided since stimulus efforts began (Chart 19). If bank failures spiral out of control, the economy will tank. The state will have to fight fires. Tariffs have accelerated the trend of firms relocating out of China, which began because of rising wages and a darkening business environment (Chart 20). A questionable trade ceasefire will not reverse the process as American and Asian companies are seeking a lasting solution, which requires them to set up shop elsewhere. China will want to mitigate the process, first by stabilizing domestic growth, and second by accepting Trump’s tactical trade retreat. Xi is also trying to avoid diplomatic isolation by courting trade partners other than the US, since the ceasefire is unreliable and the US containment strategy is presumed to continue. This involves outreach to the rest of Asia, Russia, and Europe, and even to distrustful neighbors like Japan and India. Europe is the swing player. China’s Asian neighbors, and Australia and New Zealand, have reason to fear Beijing’s growing clout and seek the US’s security umbrella. Russia and China are informal allies. But the European public is not interested in the new cold war – China does not threaten Europe from next door, like Russia does, and the Trump administration is threatening Europe with both trade war and Middle Eastern instability. European leaders are happy to take the market share that the US is leaving, as is clear from direct investment (Chart 21). Only a concentrated US diplomatic effort can address this divergence, which is not forthcoming in 2020. Chart 20Firms Are Relocating Out Of China Chart 21Europe Exploits US-China Rift A new Democratic administration, or a change in Trump strategy in the second term, could eventually produce a multilateral western coalition demanding that China open up and liberalize parts of its economy. But Europe will need to be convinced of the underlying reality that China is doubling down on the state-led industrial policies that provoked the Americans to begin with. Beijing is after economic self-sufficiency, indigenous innovation, and leadership in high-tech production and new frontiers. Its official research and development budget is not its only means for achieving this end (Chart 22) – it also has state-backed acquisitions and cyber campaigns. Germany and Europe have begun scrutinizing Chinese investment, separately from the United States. Chart 22Beijing Is After Economic Self-Sufficiency The danger to China – and the world – is that Xi Jinping might overplay his hand. He could overtighten money, credit, or property regulations and spoil the economy when global growth is vulnerable. His anti-corruption campaign is a telling reminder of his heavy hand in domestic affairs (Chart 23). Chart 23Xi Jinping Risks Overplaying His Hand Chart 24China Needs To Calm Things Down He could also suppress protesters in Hong Kong and rattle sabers over Taiwan or the South China Sea in a way that undermines the trade ceasefire. Or he could fail to bring the North Koreans to heel. These strategic tensions are significant only insofar as they undermine the trade ceasefire or provoke US-China saber-rattling. Failing to act as an honest broker in the Iran crisis would also irk Europeans and give them an excuse to side with the US. Bottom Line: China will continue modestly stimulating the economy next year to achieve a durable stabilization in growth. The risk of debt-deflation and rising unemployment ultimately necessitates this policy. Beijing can accept Trump’s tariff rollback for the sake of stability – China’s policy uncertainty relative to the rest of the world is off the charts and Beijing has an interest in calming things down (Chart 24). Yet Beijing will double down on indigenous innovation, while courting the rest of the world so as to preempt criticism and isolate the Americans. The risk is that Xi proves too heavy-handed when it comes to domestic leverage, the tech grab, strategic disputes, or trade talks with Washington. The Strait Of Hormuz Risk Chart 25US-Iran Conflict Still Unresolved In a special report earlier this year entitled “The Polybius Solution” we argued that while the US-China conflict is the major long-term geopolitical conflict, the US-Iran showdown could supersede it in the short term. This remains a risk for 2020, as the Trump administration’s confrontation with Iran is fundamentally unresolved (Chart 25). The Trump administration is still enforcing “maximum pressure” sanctions, which have reduced Iranian oil exports from 1.8 million barrels per day at their recent peak to 100,000 barrels per day in November (Chart 26). These are crippling sanctions that have sent Iran’s economy reeling. Chart 26Iran Remains Under Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has ruled out negotiations with Trump. They would be unpopular at home without a major reversal on sanctions from Trump (Chart 27). Chart 27Major US Reversal Prerequisite For Iran Talks Trump presumably aims to avoid an oil shock ahead of the election. The US and its allies have visibly shied away from conflict in the wake of Iran’s provocations, including the spectacular attack on eastern Saudi Arabia that knocked 5.7 million barrels of oil per day offline in September. However, this does not mean the odds of war are zero. The Americans or the Iranians could miscalculate. Both sides might think they can improve their standing at home by flexing their muscles abroad. Iran is a rational actor and would not normally court American airstrikes or antagonize a potentially lame duck president. Yet it is under extreme pressure due to the sanctions. It faces significant unrest both at home and in its sphere of influence (Iraq and Lebanon). Opinion polls show that the public primarily blames the government for the collapsing economy, and yet that American sanctions are siphoning off some of this anger (Chart 28). This could tempt the leaders to continue staging provocations in the Strait of Hormuz or elsewhere in the region. Chart 28Iranians Blame Tehran, Tehran Blames America Hardline military leaders and politicians currently receive the most favor in polling, while the reformist President Rouhani – undercut by the American withdrawal from the 2015 deal – is among the least popular (Chart 29). The Majlis (parliament) elections in February will likely reverse the reformist turn in Iranian politics that began in 2012. The regime stalwarts are gearing up for the supreme leader’s succession in the coming years. While a Democratic White House could restore the 2015 deal, that ship may have sailed. Chart 29Rouhani And Reformists In Trouble A historic oil supply disruption is a fatter tail risk than investors realize. Chart 30The Iranians May Take Excessive Risk Trump, under impeachment, could seek to distract the public. This was Bill Clinton’s tactic with Operations Infinite Reach, Desert Fox, and Allied Force in 1998-99. These operations were minor and not comparable to a conflict with Iran. However, Trump may be emboldened. On paper the US strategic petroleum reserve (along with OPEC and other petroleum reserves) could cover most major oil shock scenarios. According to Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst at BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy, a supply outage the size of the Abqaiq attack in September would have to persist for four months to cause enough price pressure to harm the US economy and decrease Trump’s chances of winning reelection. The simulations in Chart 30 overstate the gasoline price impact by assuming that global oil reserves remain untapped. Thus while the Iranians may take excessive risks, the Trump administration may not refrain this time from airstrikes. Bottom Line: While the Middle East is always full of risks to oil supply, Iran’s vulnerability and Trump’s status at home make the situation unusually precarious. A historic oil supply disruption is a fatter tail risk than investors realize. Europe Is A Price Taker, Not A Price Maker Just as the US and China have a shared incentive to avoid tariff-induced recession, so the UK and EU have a shared incentive to prevent a shock reversion to basic WTO tariffs. The December 31, 2020 deadline for the UK-EU trade deal, like the various deadlines for Brexit itself, can be delayed. Even Prime Minister Boris Johnson has proved unwilling to exit without a deal and even a hung parliament has proved capable of preventing him from doing so. The negotiation of a trade deal – which is never easy and always drags on – will be a lower-order risk in the wake of the past two years’ Brexit-induced volatility. Johnson will not be held hostage by hardline Brexiters given that Brexit itself will be complete. If our view on Chinese growth is correct, then Europe’s economy can recover and European political risk will be a “red herring” in 2020, as it was in 2019. Instead the EU presents an opportunity. Chart 31Euro Area Breakup Risk Has Subsided Euro Area break-up risk has subsided after a series of challenges in the wake of the sovereign debt crisis (Chart 31). There is not a basis for a reversal of this trend, at least not until a full-blown recession afflicts the continent. The rise in anti-establishment parties coincided with a one-off surge in migration that is finished – and successful populists from Greece to Italy have moderated on euro membership once in power. Germany is entering a profound transition driven by de-globalization and tensions with the United States. It is more likely to have an early election than the consensus holds. But it is fundamentally stable and supportive of European integration. In fact the great debate about fiscal policy poses an upside risk over the long run both for European equities and the European project. We remain optimistic on French structural reforms even though President Emmanuel Macron must overcome significant public opposition. An eerie quiet hangs over Russia, making it one of our “Black Swan” risks for 2020. Oil prices are not very high, which discourages foreign adventures, and President Vladimir Putin has spent his fourth term trying to consolidate international gains and improve domestic stability. But approval of the government is weak, the job market is deteriorating, and social unrest is cropping up. There is plenty of room to ease monetary and fiscal policy, but a sharp downturn could provide the basis for an aggressive foreign policy action to shore up regime support. The US election also presents the risk of renewed US-Russian tensions, whether over election interference or a Democratic victory. Investment Conclusions Geopolitics is the likeliest candidate to derail the global bull market in 2020. Nevertheless, policymakers are adjusting to their constraints. Trump and Xi are negotiating a ceasefire and a disorderly Brexit is off the table. Even Trump’s impeachment shows that the US system of checks and balances remains intact. After all, there is nothing to prevent removal from office if Trump further antagonizes public opinion and the Republican Senate. This means that policy uncertainty will decline on the margin in 2020, even as it remains elevated due to the danger of the underlying events. The nature of US economic imbalances suggests that the policy discontinuity of a Democratic victory on November 3, 2020 would be better for the economy (via household consumption) than it would be for corporate earnings. Policy continuity with the Trump administration suggests the opposite. On a sectoral basis we recommend going long US energy large cap stocks and short info-tech and communications. Energy has limited downside even if a progressive wins whereas tech has limited upside even if Trump wins. The BCA Research House View expects the US dollar to weaken as global growth rebounds, stocks to outperform bonds and cash, and developed market equities to outperform those of the United States. But a Republican victory in November would push against these trends as it is more bullish for the greenback and for US equities relative to global. As a play on the global growth rebound we expect, we recommend going long industrial metals. Like our colleagues at BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy, we are initiating this as a tactical trade but it may become strategic. We are reinitiating a tactical long Korea / short Taiwan equity trade. Taiwanese political risk is understated ahead of January’s election and the island is the epicenter of the US-China cold war. We are restoring our long gold trade as a strategic hedge. Populism and de-globalization are potentially inflationary, but they are also linked with great power competition which will increase the frequency of geopolitical crises. In either case, gold is the right safe haven to own.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com