Geopolitics

Highlights If the EU27 pours cold water on Theresa May's much-hyped Brexit proposals, the immediate uncertainty around Brexit would increase. But a longer-term outcome that keeps the U.K. either in a protracted transition to exit, or attached to the EEA or EFTA would be benign for the U.K. economy. For U.K. gilts relative to other government bonds, it means bullish near-term, but bearish long-term. For the pound, it is the opposite: caution near-term, but scope for long-term appreciation, especially versus the dollar. Neutral FTSE100 in a European or global equity portfolio, given its large overweight to the technically extended oil and gas sector. The global 6-month credit impulse is still in a mini-downswing, which corroborates our successful underweight stance to the classical cyclical sectors. The dollar's recent rally is technically extended to a point which usually signals a tradeable reversal in the DXY. Feature Last week, we highlighted a surprising fact: wages in Europe and the U.S. are now growing at exactly the same pace, 2.7%. We also pointed out that wage growth in the euro area is running slightly lower than the EU28 average - which necessarily means that in a major European economy outside the euro area, wage growth is running considerably higher. That major European economy is the U.K. Chart of the WeekThe Pound Is A Function Of Relative Monetary Policy The Pound Is A Function Of Relative Monetary Policy The Pound Is A Function Of Relative Monetary Policy Absent Brexit, U.K. Interest Rates Would Be Much Higher U.K. wages are growing at 3.7% (Chart I-2). Total labour costs, which include other compensation such as employer pension contributions, are rising even faster, at 4.4%, a sharp acceleration from a year ago.1 Meanwhile, the unemployment rate is at a forty year low of 4.2% (Chart I-3). To put all of this into context, the U.K. metrics are broadly equal to, or more extreme than those in the U.S. where the Federal Reserve has already hiked the policy interest rate seven times! Chart I-2U.K. Wages Are Growing ##br##Faster Than In The U.S. U.K. Wages Are Growing Faster Than In The U.S. U.K. Wages Are Growing Faster Than In The U.S. Chart I-3The U.K. Unemployment Rate##br## Is As Low As In The U.S. The U.K. Unemployment Rate Is As Low As In The U.S. The U.K. Unemployment Rate Is As Low As In The U.S. You might think that the Bank of England would be emulating the Fed. Acknowledging "a tight labour market and gradually mounting pay pressure" Monetary Policy Committee member Andy Haldane did change his vote to a hike at the June 21 meeting. Yet the votes to remove ultra-accommodation remain in a minority of three to six. The BoE policy interest rate is still at 0.5%, only a fraction above its effective lower bound. And the tightening expected in the next couple of years remains very modest (Chart I-4). Why? Chart I-4Expectations For U.K. Rate ##br##Hikes Remain Subdued Expectations For U.K. Rate Hikes Remain Subdued Expectations For U.K. Rate Hikes Remain Subdued The BoE explains: "The main challenge continues to be to assess the economic implications of the United Kingdom withdrawing from the European Union and to identify the appropriate response to that changing outlook... ...those economic implications would be influenced significantly by the expectations of households, firms and financial markets about the United Kingdom's eventual relationships with the European Union and other countries, and the transition to them." The U.K./EU Relationship Has Only Three Possible Shapes Two years have passed since the U.K. voted to leave the EU, and the tomes that have been written on Brexit could have filled the British Library several times over. Yet on the crucial issue of what the U.K./EU relationship will look like, what we know today is little different to what we knew on the morning of June 24 2016. Just as then, we can say that the EU27 sees only three options for the long-term relationship between the U.K. and the EU. Stay in the EU. Plug into an off-the-shelf association, either the European Economic Area (EEA) or European Free Trade Association (EFTA), which already establishes the EU relationship with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Switzerland. Become a 'third country' to the EU like, for example, Ukraine and Turkey. The first option, to stay in the EU, is politically impossible for the U.K. unless and until a second referendum overturned the result of the first referendum - a not inconceivable, but distant possibility. The second option, to join the EEA or EFTA, is impossible until the U.K. government exorcises the hard Brexiters within its ranks who regard this endpoint as 'Brino' (Brexit in name only). Nevertheless, this - or something equivalent - is the most likely ultimate outcome once it becomes clear that what is on offer in the third option is a considerably worse deal for the U.K., both politically and economically. Becoming a third country necessarily involves a hard border. For the U.K. this creates an insoluble trilemma: the U.K./EU land border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic; the Good Friday peace agreement requiring the absence of any physical border within Ireland; and the Northern Ireland unionists' refusal to countenance a U.K./EU border at the Irish Sea (which would require a border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the U.K.). The U.K. government might suggest a solution: leave the EU single market for services and free movement of people, but commit to stay in the single market for goods by aligning U.K. tariffs and regulations with the EU. The U.K. government would argue that this would abrogate the need for customs checks and a hard border within Ireland. The problem with this is that the distinction between goods and services has become increasingly blurred. For example, the sale of a car is no longer the sale of just a good. As car companies often structure the financing of the car purchase, a car purchase can be a hybrid of a good - the car itself, and a service - the financing package. Therefore, a single market for cars requires a single market for both goods and services. It follows that the EU27 will almost instantaneously reject such a division between goods and services as 'cherry-picking' from its indivisible four freedoms - goods, services, capital, and people. The rejection will be based not just on the EU's founding principles, but also on the practical realities of a modern economy. Hence, the U.K. government's much hyped and lofty Brexit proposals risk getting a cold shower. The Irish border trilemma will remain unsolved, leaving a 'backstop' option of Northern Ireland indefinitely remaining in the EU single market - an outcome that will be politically unpalatable. Meanwhile, the many U.K. firms which depend directly or indirectly on borderless EU supply chains for their livelihoods will fear a substantial disruption to their trade - an outcome that will be economically unpalatable. To mitigate these political and economic risks of becoming a third country to the EU, the U.K. would almost certainly need the safety net of a protracted transition period, which might become a never-ending 'rolling contract'. Throughout which, the U.K. would have to adhere almost fully to EU laws and regulations, an arrangement which a clear majority of the U.K. parliament supports (Figure I-1). Figure I-1Survey Of U.K. Members Of Parliament: ##br##Which Of These Would You Consider To Be Acceptable As Part Of A Transition Agreement? Crunch Time For Britain Crunch Time For Britain Then the reality might dawn: is it really worth going through a long transition to become a third country? Why not just attach to the EEA or EFTA instead? Although bereft of a seat at the EU top table, the carrot of EEA membership is that its Treaty Articles 112-114 enable a 'temporary brake' on the freedom of movement in particular economic sectors, satisfying a key demand of Brexit voters. The Investment Implications: Distinguish Near-Term From Long-Term If the EU27 pours cold water on Theresa May's much-hyped Brexit proposals, the immediate uncertainty around Brexit would increase. However, in the longer term any outcome that keeps the U.K. either in a protracted transition to exit or eventually attach to the EEA or EFTA would be benign for the U.K. economy and comfort the BoE. Hence, it is important to distinguish the near-term and long-term outlooks for U.K. investments. For U.K. gilts relative to other government bonds, it means bullish near-term, but bearish long-term (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Brexit Risks Have Constrained The BoE ##br##And Held Down U.K. Bond Yields Brexit Risks Have Constrained The BoE And Held Down U.K. Bond Yields Brexit Risks Have Constrained The BoE And Held Down U.K. Bond Yields For the pound, it is the opposite: caution near-term, but scope for long-term appreciation, especially versus the dollar (Chart of the Week). For the FTSE100 relative to other major equity indexes, there is another consideration: the FTSE100 is very overweight the oil and gas sector, whose outperformance appears technically extended. Hence, within a European or global equity portfolio, we recently downgraded the FTSE100 from overweight to neutral (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The FTSE100's Overweight To Oil And Gas##br## Drives Its Relative Performance The FTSE100's Overweight To Oil And Gas Drives Its Relative Performance The FTSE100's Overweight To Oil And Gas Drives Its Relative Performance We finish with two important charts outside the U.K.: The global 6-month credit impulse is still in a mini-downswing, which corroborates our successful on-going underweight stance to the classical cyclical sectors (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Underweight Cyclicals Whenever The Global 6-Month Credit Impulse Is In A Mini-Downswing Underweight Cyclicals Whenever The Global 6-Month Credit Impulse Is In A Mini-Downswing Underweight Cyclicals Whenever The Global 6-Month Credit Impulse Is In A Mini-Downswing Finally, the dollar's recent rally is technically extended to a point which usually signals a tradeable reversal in the DXY (Chart I-8). Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 As measured by Eurostat on a harmonized basis. Fractal Trading Model* As just discussed, this week's recommended trade is to position for a tradeable reversal in the trade-weighted dollar. Set a 2% profit target with a symmetrical stop-loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-8 Short Trade-Weighted Dollar Short Trade-Weighted Dollar The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: 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 Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights The not-so-veiled threat to Gulf Arab oil shipments through the critically important Strait of Hormuz by Iran's President Rouhani earlier this week was a response to the ramping up of maximum pressure by the Trump administration, which is demanding importers of Iranian crude reduce volumes to zero. This was a predictable first step toward what could become a chaotic oil pricing environment (Map 1).1 Map 1Iran Threatens Gulf Shipments Again Brinkmanship Fuels Chaos In Oil Markets, And Raises The Odds Of Conflict In The Gulf Brinkmanship Fuels Chaos In Oil Markets, And Raises The Odds Of Conflict In The Gulf Oil prices surged on reports of the Iranian threat Tuesday morning, sold off, and recovered later in the day. Pledges from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) to lift production to as much as 11mm b/d this month - a record high - were all but ignored by the market. The threat to safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz - where ~ 20% of global supply transits daily - raises the spectre of military confrontation between the U.S. and Iran, and their respective allies. The growing risks from tighter supply - markets could lose as much as 2mm b/d of Iranian and Venezuelan exports as things stand now - now must be augmented by the likelihood of a Gulf conflict. Energy: Overweight. We remain long call spreads along the Brent forward curve and the S&P GSCI, as we expect volatility, prices and backwardation to move higher. These recommendations are up 34.6% since they were recommended five months ago. Base Metals: Neutral. Treatment and refining charges are higher following smelter closings. Metal Bulletin's TC/RC index was ~ $80/MT at end-June, up ~ $3 vs end-May. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold traded below $1,240/oz over the past week, but recovered above $1,250/oz as geopolitical tensions rise. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA expects U.S. farm exports in 2018 will come in at $142.5 billion, the second-highest level on record, according to agriculture.com. Feature Oil pricing could become chaotic, as U.S. policy measures aimed at Iran are countered by responses that are not altogether unexpected. In addition to limited spare capacity, and increased unplanned production outages, markets now must discount the likelihood of renewed armed conflict (short of all-out war) in the Gulf between the U.S. and Iran, and their respective allies. To appreciate the significance of President Rouhani's not-so-veiled threat to deny safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz to oil tankers carrying Gulf Arab states' exports, one need only consider that some 20% of the world's oil supply flows through this narrow passage on any given day.2 The response of the president of Iran to U.S. policy - nominally directed at denying Iran the capacity to develop nuclear weapons, but arguably meant to force the existing regime from power - is a predictable next step in the brinkmanship now being played out between these long-standing rivals.3 Following the lifting of nuclear-related sanctions in 2015, Iran's production rose ~ 1mm b/d from 2.8mm b/d to 3.8mm b/d. We expect 500k b/d of Iran's exports will be lost to the market by the end of 1H19, as a result of sanctions being re-imposed November 4. Other estimates run as high as 1mm b/d being lost if the U.S. succeeds in getting importers to drastically reduce purchases. The ire of the U.S. also is directed at Venezuela, where the loss of that country's ~ 1mm b/d of exports would become all but certain, if, as U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo pressed for last month, U.S. trade sanctions against the failing state are imposed.4 We estimate Venezuela's production is down close to 1mm b/d since end-2016, and will average ~ 1.07mm b/d in 2H18 (Table 1). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (mm b/d) Brinkmanship Fuels Chaos In Oil Markets, And Raises The Odds Of Conflict In The Gulf Brinkmanship Fuels Chaos In Oil Markets, And Raises The Odds Of Conflict In The Gulf BCA's Ensemble Forecast Includes Extreme Events In our updated balances modeling, our base case front-loaded the OPEC 2.0 production increase announced by the coalition at its end-June meeting in Vienna. Core OPEC 2.0's 1.1mm b/d increase (1H19 vs 1H18) is offset by losses in the rest of OPEC 2.0 amounting to ~ 530k b/d in 2H18, and ~ 640k b/d in 1H19. This leaves OPEC 2.0's net output up ~ 275k b/d in 2H18, and down ~ 430k b/d in 1H19 vs. 1H18 levels. We assume Iran's exports fall 200k b/d by the end of this year, and another 300k b/d by the end of 1H19, resulting in a total loss of 500k b/d by 2H19. Global supply rises ~ 2mm b/d this year and next, averaging 99.9mm b/d and 101.7mm b/d, respectively, in our estimates. The bulk of this growth is provided by U.S. shale-oil output, which we estimate will rise by 1.28mm b/d this year, and 1.33mm b/d next year. On the demand side, we expect global growth to remain strong, powered as always by stout EM consumption. That said, rising trade frictions, signs the synchronized global growth that powered EM oil demand could move out of synch, and divergent monetary policies at systematically important central banks could take some of the wind out of our consumption-forecast sails (Chart of the Week). That said, if a supply-side event results in a sharp upward price move, we would expect demand growth to adjust lower in fairly short order. This is because many EM states removed or reduced oil-price subsidies in the wake of the prices collapse following OPEC's declaration of a market-share war in late 2014, which leaves consumers in these state more directly exposed to higher prices than in previous cycles. Our base case is augmented with three scenarios. In our simulations, the Venezuela collapse is met by OPEC 2.0's core producers lifting production another 200k b/d, which takes its total output hike to 1.2mm b/d in 2019. OPEC 2.0 does not respond to the lower-than-expected U.S. shale growth contingency we're modeling, which is brought on by pipeline bottlenecks in the Permian Basin. Our scenarios are: A reduction in our forecasted U.S. shale production increase arising from pipeline bottlenecks (Scenario 2, Chart 2); Venezuela production collapses to 250k b/d from current levels of ~ 1.07mm b/d, which allows it to support domestic refined product demand and nothing more (Scenario 3, Chart 2); Both of these occurring simultaneously in the Oct/18 - Sep/19 interval (Scenario 4, Chart 2). Chart of the WeekTight Supply, Strong Demand##BR##Remain Supportive of Prices Tight Supply, Strong Demand Remain Supportive of Prices Tight Supply, Strong Demand Remain Supportive of Prices Chart 2BCA's Scenarios Include##BR##Production Losses In Venezuela, Iran BCA's Scenarios Include Production Losses in Venezuela, Iran BCA's Scenarios Include Production Losses in Venezuela, Iran The Stark Reality Of Low Spare Capacity Chart 3Global Spare Capacity Stretched Thin Global Spare Capacity Stretched Thin Global Spare Capacity Stretched Thin Our scenario analyses - particularly Scenarios 3 and 4 - illustrate the stark reality confronting oil markets: Spare capacity will not be sufficient to keep prices below $80/bbl in the event Venezuela collapses, or if Iranian export losses are greater than the 500k b/d we currently are modeling. The U.S. EIA estimates there is only 1.8mm b/d of spare capacity available worldwide this year. This will fall to just over 1mm b/d next year (Chart 3).5 As things stand now, idle and spare capacity of KSA, Russia and core OPEC 2.0 states that actually can increase production would be taxed to the extreme to cover losses of Iranian exports, if some of the higher levels projected by analysts - i.e., up to 1mm b/d - are realized (Chart 4). KSA's maximum sustainable capacity is believed to be ~ 12mm b/d; officials have indicated production will be raised to close to 11mm b/d in July, then likely held there. This record level of production will test KSA's production infrastructure, and would leave the Kingdom with 1mm b/d of spare capacity. Russia is believed to have ~ 400k b/d of spare capacity; it likely will restore ~ 200k b/d of production to the market over the near future, leaving 200k b/d as spare capacity. If just the two high-loss events described above are realized - i.e., Iran export losses come in at 1mm b/d instead of the 500k b/d we expect, and Venezuela's 1mm b/d of exports are lost because the state collapses - global inventory draws will accelerate until enough demand is destroyed via higher prices to clear the market at whatever level of supply can be maintained (Chart 5). Approaching that point, we would expect OECD strategic petroleum reserves (SPRs) to be released.6 Chart 4OPEC 2.0's Core Producers Would Be##BR##Taxed to Replace Lost Exports OPEC 2.0's Core Producers Would Be Taxed to Replace Lost Exports OPEC 2.0's Core Producers Would Be Taxed to Replace Lost Exports Chart 5A Supply Shock Would Draw##BR##Crude Inventories Sharply A Supply Shock Would Draw Crude Inventories Sharply A Supply Shock Would Draw Crude Inventories Sharply Chart 6Falling Net Imports Implies##BR##Current SPR Could Be Too Large Falling Net Imports Implies Current SPR Could Be Too Large Falling Net Imports Implies Current SPR Could Be Too Large It is difficult to forecast the price at which markets would clear if we get to the state described above. However, it is worthwhile noting that OPEC spare capacity in 2008 stood at 1.4mm b/d, or 2.4% of global consumption. The 1.8mm b/d of OPEC spare capacity EIA estimates is now available to the market represents 1.8% of daily consumption globally. By next year, the EIA's estimated 1mm b/d of OPEC spare capacity will represent a little over 1% of global daily consumption. It was in this economic setting that WTI and Brent breached $150/bbl in mid-2008, just before the Global Financial Crisis tanked the world economy.7 Bottom Line: Into the mix of tightening global supply and limited spare capacity, oil markets now confront higher odds of armed conflict in the Gulf once again. Oil pricing will remain volatile, and could become chaotic as brinkmanship raises the level of uncertainty in markets. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Rouhani says U.S. pressure to stop Iranian oil may affect regional exports," published by uk.reuters.com July 3, 2018. We explore the Trump administration's maximum pressure in a Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report published June 7, 2018, entitled "Iraq is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict." It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. We are using the term chaotic in the sense of "... sensitive dependence on initial conditions or 'the butterfly effect'" described in "Weak Emergence" by Mark A. Bedau (1997), which appears in Philosophical Perspectives: Mind, Causation, And World, Vol. 11, J. Tomberlin, ed., Blackwell, Malden MA. 2 The U.S. EIA calls the Strait of Hormuz "the world's most important oil chokepoint" in its "World Oil Transit Chokepoints," published by the U.S. EIA July 25, 2017. By the EIA's estimates, 80% of the crude oil transiting the strait is bound for Asian markets, with China, Japan, India, South Korea and Singapore being the largest markets. 3 Please see "Mattis's Last Stand Is Iran," published by Foreign Policy June 28, 2018, on foreignpolicy.com. The essay describes the state of play within the Trump administration vis-à-vis Iran. President Trump's third national security advisor, John Bolton, has stated the goal of the administration's policy is not regime change, but denial of the capacity to develop nuclear weapons. However, Bolton repeatedly called for regime change in Iran prior to being tapped as the national security advisor, and has advocated going to war with Iran to prevent it from developing a nuclear weapons capability, in a New York Times op-ed published March 26, 2015, entitled "To Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran." 4 Please see "Pompeo calls on OAS to oust Venezuela," published by CNN Politics June 4, 2018. 5 OPEC 2.0 is the coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia. On June 22, 2018, the coalition agreed to raise production 1mm b/d beginning in July. The core consists of KSA, Russia, Iraq, UAE, Kuwait, Oman, and Qatar. The other core members of OPEC 2.0 are believed to have close to 300k b/d of spare capacity. Other estimates put the spare capacity as high as 3.4mm b/d. The ex-KSA estimates are pieced together by using the International Energy Agency's estimates for core OPEC and Citicorp's estimates for Russia. Please see "Russia's OPEC Deal Dilemma Worsens as Idled Crude Capacity Grows," published by bloomberg.com May 16, 2018. 6 In just-completed research, our colleague Matt Conlan writes the U.S. SPR, at ~ 660mm barrels, can cover more than 100 days of net U.S. crude imports (Chart 6). This coverage will rise to 140 days of net crude imports by the end of 2019. Please see "American Energy Independence And SPR Ramifications," published by BCA Research's Energy Sector Strategy July 4, 2018. 7 Please see the discussion of demand beginning on p. 228 of Hamilton, James D. (2009), "Causes And Consequences Of The Oil Shock Of 2007 - 08," published by the Brookings Institute. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Brinkmanship Fuels Chaos In Oil Markets, And Raises The Odds Of Conflict In The Gulf Brinkmanship Fuels Chaos In Oil Markets, And Raises The Odds Of Conflict In The Gulf Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017 Brinkmanship Fuels Chaos In Oil Markets, And Raises The Odds Of Conflict In The Gulf Brinkmanship Fuels Chaos In Oil Markets, And Raises The Odds Of Conflict In The Gulf

Highlights Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) will most likely win the upcoming presidential election; His rising popularity has increased the likelihood that his left-wing party MORENA wins the lower Chamber of Congress; That said, his agenda is more "nationalist" than outright socialist; Moreover, there is no evidence that the Mexican median voter has abandoned their long-held centrist outlook; While the election and NAFTA renegotiations represent serious headwinds to Mexican assets, dedicated EM investors should stay overweight across all asset classes. Feature "I believe it is time to say that neither Chavismo... nor Trump... yes Mexicanism." Andrés Manuel López Obrador, March 2018 Mexican voters go to the polls on July 1 to elect a new president and Congress. The leading candidate for President, Andrés Manuel López Obrador (also known as AMLO), is likely to win. Our aggregate poll-of-polls shows that AMLO now has a 25% lead against his two challengers, Ricardo Anaya of the center-right National Action Party (PAN) and José Antonio Meade Kuribreña of the centrist (formerly center-left, now also center-right) Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI). At this point, it is safe to call the presidential election for AMLO (Chart 1). A win for López Obrador will be an unprecedented political event in modern Mexican history. Although the roots of the PRI - Mexico's long-time ruling party - lie in labor, anti-Catholic, and socialist politics, no outwardly left-wing leader has won a national election since Plutarco Elías Calles in 1924. Over the past two decades, the main line of political competition in Mexico has been between the centrist PRI and center-right PAN, which ruled Mexico from 2000 to 2012 under the presidencies of Vicente Fox and Felipe Calderón. The outgoing President Enrique Peña Nieto shifted PRI towards the center-right to compete with PAN. In some way, this makes sense given that the median Mexican voter has traditionally been center, if not center-right, on economic policies (Chart 2). However, by shifting PRI so far to the right, Nieto has left space on the left for AMLO and his new party, the National Regeneration Movement (MORENA). Chart 1AMLO Is The Next President Of Mexico... A Mexican Standoff - Markets Vs. AMLO A Mexican Standoff - Markets Vs. AMLO Chart 2...But Mexicans Are Not Left-Wing A Mexican Standoff - Markets Vs. AMLO A Mexican Standoff - Markets Vs. AMLO Chart 3MORENA Can Win A Majority... A Mexican Standoff - Markets Vs. AMLO A Mexican Standoff - Markets Vs. AMLO What should investors expect from AMLO and MORENA? First, much will depend on whether MORENA will be able to garner a majority in Congress - both the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies. Polls are starting to show that the left-wing MORENA is surging and that there is a chance that it captures a majority (Chart 3). Second, there is a major question regarding what MORENA actually stands for, politically and economically. We argue that AMLO and MORENA's rise has more to do with the ongoing drug war and corruption problems and less with the economy. As such, the Mexican median voter will remain a constraint against overly left-leaning policy. Meanwhile, the judicial branch and the market itself will retain an important role in disciplining AMLO's most left-leaning tendencies. We do not expect AMLO to veer towards socialism, but rather to remain pragmatic in his decision making. We believe him when he says that he will neither emulate Hugo Chavez of Venezuela nor Donald Trump of the U.S. Can AMLO Dominate Mexico? The short answer to the critical question is that yes, AMLO can dominate Mexican politics. Given current polling, political constraints to the AMLO presidency may be weak. For the first time in twenty years, a Mexican president may not face pluralism in Congress. BCA's geopolitical methodology focuses on constraints over preferences. Investors often focus on policymaker preferences - largely because the media reports on them enthusiastically - but what generates geopolitical alpha are constraints. This is because preferences are ephemeral, optional, and subject to constraints. Constraints, on the other hand, are real, material, not optional, and definitely not subject to preferences. For most of his career, AMLO has campaigned on a policy platform that harkens to traditional left-wing Latin American politics. Before we examine his commitment to those policies, we would have to ask whether constitutional and legislative constraints will allow AMLO and MORENA to dominate Mexican politics. The Mexican constitution designates Congress as the primary legislative body. This includes power to promulgate laws, levy taxes, declare war, and regulate trade.1 The Mexican president can veto legislation, but the veto can be overturned by a two-thirds majority. In 2011, President Felipe Calderon ended the practice of a "pocket veto," which allowed presidents to kill legislation by simply refusing to sign them. Were AMLO to face an opposition-led Congress, he would have two strategies. First would be to veto - or threaten to veto - legislation and force Congress to work with him. Given current polling, it is unlikely that Congress would have a two-thirds majority to overturn AMLO's vetoes. However, this strategy would ensure that the constitutional reforms passed under Nieto remain in place, as the president would struggle to pass his own agenda. Second would be to try to bring one of the opposition parties on board with his legislative agenda, which would ensure its passage but also ensure that the resultant legislation was modified. Lower House - The Chamber Of Deputies What are the chances that AMLO can operate with a MORENA majority? There has not been a governing majority in the Mexican Chamber of Deputies since 1994 (Chart 4), with the share of votes by the largest party normally coming in under 40% (Chart 5). According to our calculations, based on previous elections, a party would need to get at least 42% of the vote share to achieve a majority (Chart 6). Chart 4...Breaking With Recent Tradition Of Pluralism A Mexican Standoff - Markets Vs. AMLO A Mexican Standoff - Markets Vs. AMLO Chart 5Can MORENA Be First To 40% In Two Decades? A Mexican Standoff - Markets Vs. AMLO A Mexican Standoff - Markets Vs. AMLO Chart 642%: The Magic Number For The Chamber Of Deputies A Mexican Standoff - Markets Vs. AMLO A Mexican Standoff - Markets Vs. AMLO Chart 7AMLO Can Lift MORENA Fortunes A Mexican Standoff - Markets Vs. AMLO A Mexican Standoff - Markets Vs. AMLO Can AMLO lift the fortunes of MORENA? Yes. According to our calculations, the relationship between the vote share for the presidential candidate and his party is strong (Chart 7). The coefficient is around 1, so 1% vote share for the presidential candidate means 1% vote share for his respective party (or parties, if they are in a coalition). Given that AMLO is currently polling at 47% in the latest polls, it is conceivable that MORENA - along with its coalition partners the left-wing Labor Party and socially conservative Social Encounter Party - could win a majority in the Chamber of Deputies. We would assign this scenario, given current polling, a 70% probability (Table 1). Especially given that, in Mexico, polls tend to underestimate the performance of the winning candidate (Chart 8). Table 1MORENA Is Set For A Majority In The Chamber Of Deputies A Mexican Standoff - Markets Vs. AMLO A Mexican Standoff - Markets Vs. AMLO Chart 8Polling Tends To Underestimate Winning Candidate A Mexican Standoff - Markets Vs. AMLO A Mexican Standoff - Markets Vs. AMLO Upper House - The Senate What about the Mexican Senate? Electoral rules make it more difficult for the dominant party to win the upper chamber because they guarantee representation for the party that comes in second in state-by-state races. MORENA is currently leading in the polls in 19 out of 32 Mexican states and trailing as second in another five. The electoral system awards two Senate seats to the outright winner of each state. The second-placed party gets one seat. The remaining thirty-two senators are distributed based on the party's national vote, irrespective of the state-specific elections. As such, MORENA is likely to capture, at minimum, around 56 seats in the Senate, were it to garner around 40% of the overall vote.2 This would be nine short of the 65-seat majority in the upper chamber. To win those extra nine seats, the hurdles are considerable. Even if we give MORENA victories in every state in which it is currently trailing and raise its national vote to 50%, it still comes one short of the 65-seat majority (Chart 9). Chart 9MORENA Will Face A Tougher Path In The Senate A Mexican Standoff - Markets Vs. AMLO A Mexican Standoff - Markets Vs. AMLO Our forecast for a MORENA-held Senate is therefore considerably lower than for the Chamber of Deputies. At this moment, the Senate is a "too-close-to-call" election. Much will depend on whether MORENA and AMLO can get more than 50% of the vote on July 1 and whether MORENA translates some specific state races into wins. The left-wing MORENA sits on the edge of a majority, but state-by-state polling in Mexico is woefully poor and thus the variability of the final result is great. Winning the Senate will require a genuine "wave" election that Mexico has not seen in years. If AMLO's party fails to win the majority in the Senate, the chamber will remain a hurdle to him throughout his six-year term as Mexico does not elect Senators in midterm elections. Judicial - Supreme Court Of Justice The final branch of government that can impose checks on the executive is the Mexican Supreme Court, officially referred to as the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. The Supreme Court has 11 judges who are appointed for 15 years. Given the current roster of judges on the Court, the new president of Mexico will have the opportunity to appoint only three new members of the Court over the next six years of his mandate. President López Obrador would have the first opportunity to do so already in late 2018, with another in 2019, and final one in 2021. And that only holds if MORENA has a majority in the Senate, as the president has to rely on a Senate vote to ultimately appoint his preferred court picks. This is important because the president of Mexico can call a referendum on his own. López Obrador and MORENA have in the past called for a referendum on energy reforms. Frequent appeals to voters on policy matters is also a fundamental thesis of the MORENA manifesto. According to the 2014 Mexican Federal Law of Popular Consultation, reforms can be called by the president, one third of either chamber plus a majority of the other, or support of at least 2% of voters through a mail-in campaign. As such, the hurdle for calling a referendum in Mexico is extremely low, giving AMLO the potential route to avoid an intransigent Congress. This is where the Supreme Court comes in. The 2014 law prohibits referenda on any issue of human rights, national security, elections, or fiscal matters. This means that the ability of the president and Congress to call referendums is limited to largely non-investment relevant issues. In 2014, for example, the Supreme Court ruled that a referendum on energy reforms was unconstitutional and therefore could not be held. Given the current composition of the Court, and limited ability of AMLO to change it, it is unlikely that the Court would do AMLO's or MORENA's bidding in the future. Bottom Line: The Mexican president is constrained by the constitution to take Congress's lead on promulgating laws. However, AMLO's surging popularity makes it possible that his left-wing MORENA wins the lower Chamber of Congress. Forecasting the Senate election is much more difficult, where the election is currently too-close-to-call. Overall, AMLO has a very good chance of winning the majority in both chambers, making him potentially the first president since Ernesto Zedillo to control Congress (Zedillo famously lost PRI's legislative majority in the 1997 midterm election). Despite possible control of both Chambers of Mexican Congress, there is no way that AMLO will be able to capture the judicial branch during his limited, six-year, term in office. As such, the fear that AMLO will rule via popular referendums is overstated. However, if his MORENA captures Congress, AMLO will be able to pass laws through the legislative chamber and will not need to rule via referendum anyway.3 How Left Is The Mexican Left? Chart 2 (on page 2) suggests that Mexicans have traditionally seen themselves as centrist on economic matters. Why would this have changed, in such a dramatic fashion, so as to give both AMLO and the upstart MORENA a potential electoral sweep on July 1? Is the economy in such dire straits that voters are willing to contemplate an economic paradigm shift in 2018? Chart 10Misery Index Is Inconclusive Misery Index Is Inconclusive Misery Index Is Inconclusive Chart 11Central Bank Induced Pain Central Bank Induced Pain Central Bank Induced Pain The short answer is no. The unemployment rate has been steadily declining under Nieto, although inflation surged over the past two years as the peso collapsed and is only now showing signs of easing (Chart 10). To fight inflation, the central bank tightened monetary policy, contracting consumer spending and capital expenditure in the process (Chart 11). Both are now showing signs of tepid recovery as hawkish monetary policy takes a backseat. However, fiscal and monetary tightening - combined with surging inflation - caused weak real wage growth for the past three years (Chart 12). Economic performance has therefore been tepid, not disastrous. The problem is that Nieto promised real change, ushering in his term with several major economic reforms that culminated in the 2013 energy reforms. These reforms, however, have been followed by disappointing economic results while the persistent ills of corruption and violence have actually gotten worse. These two ills, which have plagued Mexico for decades, are the real game changer in the coming election. After a peak in 2011, drug-related deaths dropped off. However, there has been a major increase in drug-related homicides over the past two years, with a record 29,168 in 2017 (Chart 13). Year 2018 is on track to be the deadliest year ever, on pace for 32,000 deaths. Since President Calderon launched the drug war in 2007, more than 210,000 drug-related homicides have occurred in the country. Chart 12Real Wages In A Downturn Since 2016 Real Wages In A Downturn Since 2016 Real Wages In A Downturn Since 2016 Chart 13Drug-War Deaths Are Rising Again A Mexican Standoff - Markets Vs. AMLO A Mexican Standoff - Markets Vs. AMLO In December 2017, AMLO proposed giving amnesty for drug cartel kingpins, saying he wanted dialogue. The proposal caused outrage in the international and domestic press but has clearly not dented his popularity. At the time of his comments, AMLO was up just 7% on his opponents, with the gap today at 25%! Jorge Castañeda, campaign chief of Ricardo Anaya - the torchbearer of Calderon's center-right PAN that initiated the drug war - recently suggested that his candidate would ditch the "totally useless" 12-year war on drugs. This means that AMLO's initial comment has forced his opponents to similarly adjust their views on the drug war. Merely voicing tough rhetoric and doubling down on more security-oriented policies does not return political dividends anymore. It would appear that AMLO's focus on the drug war and general corruption has struck a nerve with the Mexican "median voter." Polls show that both issues are the most salient with Mexican voters (Chart 14). Corrupt leaders, drug cartel violence, and crime score higher than income inequality, immigration, employment, healthcare, and education. Rising prices do make the list of major problems but they are normally ubiquitous as a concern in emerging markets. This is not to say that Mexican voters do not want economic change. Rather, we are pointing out that AMLO's popularity is not merely a show of support for his economic policies. He and the newly launched MORENA have an incorruptible image in a country plagued by corruption and offer new solutions to the scourge of the drug war that two mainstream parties - the PRI and the PAN - have spent over a decade fighting with limited success. Chart 14Security & Corruption Dominate The Election A Mexican Standoff - Markets Vs. AMLO A Mexican Standoff - Markets Vs. AMLO In terms of actual economic policy proposals, AMLO's and MORENA's bark may be worse than their bite. There are three critical policy proposals where we expect considerable moderation following the election: Referendums: As we pointed out above, AMLO has promised a new referendum on the 2013 energy reforms. MORENA's manifesto argues that the use of referendums would prevent the continued hijacking of institutions by oligarchies. In other words, the message is that investors should prepare for a constant stream of referendums. However, this will only be possible in non-investment relevant fields, given the role of the Mexican Supreme Court in the process as discussed above. Energy reforms: The likely pick for the Energy Secretary, Rocío Nahle, has been a vociferous opponent of Nieto's energy reforms. However, he has since toned down the rhetoric and has focused on a MORENA proposal to build two state-run refineries in order to curb imports of refined petroleum products from the U.S. (Chart 15). Several of AMLO's key economic advisers - such as Alfredo Romo and Abel Hibert - have suggested that reversal of energy reforms will not be on the table. Nonetheless, AMLO's administration is likely to stall private auctions once he comes to power, given that it is a featured electoral promise. However, it is not clear that this would set the stage for a curbing of foreign investments in other areas. In fact, AMLO's opposition to domestic oligopolies could specifically benefit foreign investors by breaking up entrenched economic interests. Industrial policy: AMLO and his economic advisers - including the likely finance and economic ministers Carlos Manuel Urzúa Macias and Graciela Márquez Colín - appear to be in favor of an activist government industrial policy. This return to the "import substitution" model may appear to be a step back in Mexico's economic development. However, if it is combined with fiscal prudence, as AMLO and his advisors promise, and a pro-investor outlook, which they still have to prove, the policy may not be a major risk for financial markets. Investors should also look to the issue of NAFTA renegotiations for a lead on how AMLO intends to govern. He has been a vociferous critic of the trade deal for years. However, nearly 70% of Mexicans support the trade deal. This has forced AMLO to modify his view towards NAFTA. He has promised to renegotiate the deal with President Trump, although he has complained about the renegotiation process taking place ahead of the Mexican elections by the outgoing government. In addition, AMLO's track record as mayor of Mexico City (2000-2006) does not raise any red flags. During that period, the city saw its municipal debt decline, foreign investment surge, and good amount of infrastructure projects implemented. Granted, his term coincided with a global bull market, but he did not have an overt anti-business bias despite his perpetual left-wing rhetoric. Bottom Line: López Obrador and his left-wing MORENA could represent an economic paradigm shift in Mexico. However, his brand of economics is more "nationalist" than left-wing; more "Mexicanism" than outright socialism. Opposition to foreign investment in the energy sector is a clear red flag for investors, but it does not extend to any other sector of the economy, at least not rhetorically in the election campaign. As such, it is a vestige of Mexican history, where the capture of state energy resources was a crucial pillar of the country's independence and sovereignty movement. Meanwhile, there is no evidence that the Mexican median voter has abandoned their long-held centrist outlook. Seven out of ten Mexican voters support NAFTA, while a plurality still supports globalization - at a much higher clip than their neighbors to the north (Chart 16)! AMLO and MORENA's success in the election is therefore due to their strident anti-corruption stance and due to the failures of the previous PRI and PAN administrations to effectively deal with the ongoing drug war. This means that, were AMLO to deviate too much into left-wing economic policies, the electorate would act as a constraint. Chart 15Refined Petroleum##br## Imports Will Fall Refined Petroleum Imports Will Fall Refined Petroleum Imports Will Fall Chart 16Mexicans Are More Supportive Of ##br##Globalization Than Americans A Mexican Standoff - Markets Vs. AMLO A Mexican Standoff - Markets Vs. AMLO Investment Conclusions Tactically speaking, Mexican elections and NAFTA renegotiations represent serious headwinds to Mexican assets. There is a high probability that MORENA wins both the Chamber of Deputies (70%) and the Senate (50%, too-close-to-call). We do not think that this scenario is priced in by the market at the moment. Meanwhile, NAFTA renegotiations have stalled and could result in a failure. As we argued last year, the probability of abrogation of the deal is at 50%, higher than what the market thinks.4 This is because President Trump has no constraints - either legal or political - to withdrawing from the deal.5 Particularly if he intends to renegotiate bilateral deals with Canada and Mexico after the midterms. AMLO, however, will face three constraints in governing even if he were to gain a majority in both Chambers of Congress: Judicial branch: There is no way for AMLO to stack the Mexican supreme court with left-leaning, loyalist, judges. As such, his plan to use referendums to rule will fail. Median voter: The median voter in Mexico is certainly not thrilled with the economic performance of the country, but long-term polling suggests that Mexicans remain committed to a free market economy and even to globalization. We suspect that AMLO's and MORENA's stellar rise is therefore a product of government corruption, the dominance of oligopolies, and the ongoing drug-war, which has definitively failed. Correctly identifying the basis for AMLO's and MORENA's success is crucial as it suggests that there is a limit to how far left AMLO can take the country before imperiling his political capital. Mexican midterm elections, due in 2021, are an important constraint if he loses the faith of the median voter. The market: The Mexican peso will be the vehicle by which the market expresses its displeasure with any future government policies. A downleg in the peso could be non-trivial, especially given the current broad-based upturn in the U.S. dollar. As a result, inflation will remain elevated and real incomes depressed. Bank of Mexico will have to respond by maintaining tight monetary policy or tightening policy further with negative ramifications for growth. This is not a scenario that AMLO will want, as it would imperil his control of the Chamber of Deputies ahead of the 2021 midterms. Therefore, financial markets will act as a major constraint on AMLO adopting left-wing or populist policies. Given AMLO's track record as mayor of Mexico City, his mix of centrist economic advisors, and a penchant for reversing previous rhetoric (such as on NAFTA and the energy reforms), we suspect that he is well aware of the above constraints. The focus of the administration will likely be on corruption and the drug war, while energy reforms will get a token review early in his presidency. Considering the headline risks, however, investors may take time to buy into this view. As such, we do not recommend holding Mexican assets on an absolute basis. On a relative basis to other emerging market economies, Mexico does have several cyclical advantages over its peers. The Mexican economy has already been going through the natural path of adjustment - demand retrenchment - following monetary and fiscal tightening during the past couple of years. This stands in contrast to many other emerging markets economies which have avoided harsh medicine in recent years. Yet presently, with their currencies plummeting, these developing nations will have no choice but to tolerate domestic demand retrenchment themselves. While most emerging markets are leveraged to China and metals, Mexico is more exposed to U.S. domestic demand and oil. In line with our view that U.S. growth will do much better than that of China, Mexican exports to the U.S., which represents 30% of Mexican GDP, will remain strong, benefitting the nation's growth and balance of payments. Consequently, our view is that Mexican risk assets will outperform their EM peers in the next 6-12 months: Chart 17MXN Is A Positive Carry Trade Relative To EM MXN Is A Positive Carry Trade Relative To EM MXN Is A Positive Carry Trade Relative To EM Chart 18Mexican Peso Is Cheap Mexican Peso Is Cheap Mexican Peso Is Cheap First, the Mexican peso is attractive. For the first time in many years, Mexican short term interest rates are above the majority of EM economies, even among high yielding emerging markets like South Africa and Brazil (Chart 17), making the Mexican peso a positive carry trade relative to its EM counterparts. More importantly, the Mexican peso is cheap. As illustrated on Chart 18, according to the real effective exchange rate based on unit labor cost, the Mexican peso is well below its historic mean in absolute terms. Second, local currency bond yields and USD sovereign spreads are elevated and offer great value relative to their respective EM benchmarks (Chart 19). Even if AMLO favors some left-wing policies, Mexico's local bonds' and credit markets' relative pricing already reflect this and are unlikely to underperform much versus their EM peers. Third, Mexico's bourse has dramatically underperformed the EM overall index since 2016 and a lot of bad news in relative terms might already be priced in. In addition, consumer staples and telecom stocks together account for 50% of the MSCI Mexico market cap, while the same sectors make up only 11% of the overall EM market cap. EM consumer staples have massively underperformed the EM benchmark since early 2016 (Chart 20 top panel) and odds are that this sector will outperform in the next 12 months as defensives outperforms cyclicals. This will bode well for Mexico's relative performance in common currency terms versus the EM equity benchmark which seems to be forming a major bottom (Chart 20 bottom panel). Chart 19Local Currency And Dollar Bonds Offer Value Local Currency And Dollar Bonds Offer Value Local Currency And Dollar Bonds Offer Value Chart 20Mexican Equites Are A Defensive Play Mexican Equites Are A Defensive Play Mexican Equites Are A Defensive Play Bottom Line: Headline risk from NAFTA renegotiations and Mexican election could cause tactical downside to the country's FX, equity, and bond markets. However, these may present buying opportunities for longer-term investors given the combination of our political and macroeconomic views. Dedicated EM investors should overweight Mexican equities, local currency bonds as well as sovereign credit relative to their EM benchmarks. Currency traders should stay long MXN versus an equally-weighted basket of BRL and ZAR. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Senior Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Section III of the Constitution of Mexico, available at OAS.org. 2 We get this number if MORENA wins the 19 states where it is currently leading, giving it 38 assured Senate seats. In addition, Morena is trailing as second-placed in the polls in another five states, giving it an additional five seats. Finally, we assume that MORENA wins 40% of the vote, giving it an additional 12 seats (40% of 32 would be 12.8). This combines for a grand total of 56 seats, nine seats short of a 65-seat majority. 3 Modifying the constitution, however, still requires two-thirds of Congress, which MORENA has no mathematical chance of winning. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Are You 'Sick Of Winning' Yet?" dated June 20, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

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

Highlights Global Inflation has upside on a cyclical basis, but this narrative is well known and investors have already placed their bets accordingly, buying inflation protection in a wide swath of markets. However, global growth has not yet found its footing, suggesting a mini-deflation scare, at least relative to expectations, is likely this summer. The U.S. dollar will benefit in such a scenario, and NOK/SEK will depreciate. While GBP/USD has downside, the pound should rally versus the euro. Weakness in EUR/CAD has not yet fully played out; the recent bout of strength was only a countertrend move. Feature Inflation is coming back, and this will obviously have major consequences for both asset and currency markets. However, macro investing is not just about forecasting fundamentals correctly; often, just as importantly, it is about understanding how other investors have priced in these expected economic developments. Therein lies the problem. While we understand why inflation could pick up, so too have most investors, and they have positioned themselves accordingly. With global growth currently looking shaky, we believe a better entry point for long-inflation plays will emerge in the coming months. In the meanwhile, a defensive, pro-U.S. dollar posture still makes sense. Investors Are Long Inflation Bets We have long argued that inflation was likely to make a cyclical comeback, a return that would begin in the U.S. before spreading to the rest of the globe. This story is currently playing out. However, in response these developments, investors have placed their bets accordingly, and the story currently seems well baked in. Prices of assets traditionally levered to inflation have already moved to discount a significant pick-up in inflation. The most evident dynamics can be observed in the U.S. inflation breakevens. Both the 10-year breakevens as well as the 5-year/5-year forward breakevens just experienced some of their sharpest two-year changes of the past 20 years, notwithstanding the pricing out of a post-Lehman, depression-like outcome (Chart I-1). Breakevens are not alone. Other assets have displayed similar behavior. In the U.S., investors have aggressively sold their holdings of utilities stocks, which have been greatly outperformed by industrial stocks. Traditionally, investors lift the price of XLI relative to that of XLU when they anticipate global inflation to pick up (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Markets Are Positioning Themselves##br## For Higher Inflation Markets Are Positioning Themselves For Higher Inflation Markets Are Positioning Themselves For Higher Inflation Chart I-2U.S. Sectoral Performance Suggests Investors ##br##Have Already Bet On Higher Inflation... U.S. Sectoral Performance Suggests Investors Have Already Bet On Higher Inflation... U.S. Sectoral Performance Suggests Investors Have Already Bet On Higher Inflation... It is not just intra-equity market dynamics that support this assertion. The behavior of the U.S. stock market relative to Treasurys further buttresses the idea that investors have already aggressively discounted an upturn in global consumer prices (Chart I-3). Potentially, the best illustration of investors' preference for inflation protection is currently visible in EM assets. A seemingly paradoxical phenomenon has been puzzling us: How have EM equities managed to avoid the gravitational pull that has caused EM bonds to nearly flirt with the nadir of early 2016? After all, EM equities, EM currencies and EM bonds are normally closely correlated, driven by investors' wagers on the direction of global growth. A simple variable can explain this strange dichotomy: anticipated inflation. As Chart I-4 illustrates, the performance of a volatility adjusted long EM stocks / short EM bonds portfolio tends to anticipate fluctuations in global inflation. The current price action in this basket indicates that investors have made their bets, and they think inflation is going up. Chart I-3...So Does The Stock-To-Bond Ratio ...So Does The Stock-To-Bond Ratio ...So Does The Stock-To-Bond Ratio Chart I-4Inflation Bets Explain Why EM Stocks And EM Bond Prices Have Diverged Inflation Bets Explain Why EM Stocks And EM Bond Prices Have Diverged Inflation Bets Explain Why EM Stocks And EM Bond Prices Have Diverged Anecdotal evidence suggests that in recent quarters, pension plans have been aggressive buyers of commodities - a move that normally coincides with these long-term investors putting in place some inflation hedges. Moreover, positioning in the futures markets corroborates these stories: speculators are still very long commodities like copper and oil - commodities traditionally perceived as efficient protectors against inflation spikes (Chart I-5). Finally, despite the potentially deflationary risks created by Italy three weeks ago, speculators remain short U.S. Treasury futures, bond investors are underweight duration, and sentiment toward the bond market remains near its lowest levels of the past eight years (Chart I-6). Again, this behavior is consistent with investors being positioned for an inflationary environment. Chart I-5Money Has Flown Into Resources Money Has Flown Into Resources Money Has Flown Into Resources Chart I-6Bond Market Positioning Is Still Very Short Bond Market Positioning Is Still Very Short Bond Market Positioning Is Still Very Short Bottom Line: There is a well-defined case to be made that a global economy that was not so long ago defined by the presence of deflationary risks is now morphing into a world where inflation is on the upswing. However, based on inflation breakevens, sectoral relative performance, equities relative to bonds in both DM and EM as well as on the positioning of investors in commodity and bond markets, this changing state has been quickly discounted by investors. The Decks Are Stacked, But Where Does The Economic Risk Lie? The problem facing investors already long inflation protection every which way they can be is that the global economy is slowing, which normally elicits deflationary fears, not inflationary ones. This seems a recipe for disappointment, albeit one that is likely to help the dollar. Our global economic and financial A/D line, which tallies the proportion of key variables around the world moving in a growth-friendly fashion, has fallen precipitously. This normally heralds a slowdown in global economic activity (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Global Growth Is Losing Traction Global Growth Is Losing Traction Global Growth Is Losing Traction In similar vein, global leading economic indicators have also begun to roll over - a trend that could gain further vigor if the diffusion index of OECD economies experiencing rising versus contracting LEIs is to be believed (Chart I-8). The global liquidity picture has also deteriorated enough to warrant caution. Currency carry strategies - as approximated by the performance of EM carry trades funded in yen - have sagged violently. This tells us that funds are flowing out of EM economies and moving back to countries already replete with excess savings like Japan or Switzerland (Chart I-9). Historically, these kinds of negative developments for global liquidity have preceded industrial slowdowns, as EM now accounts for the lion's share of global IP growth. Finally, China doesn't yet look set to bail out the world's industrial sector. This month's money and credit numbers were weaker than anticipated, and our leading indicator for the Li-Keqiang index - our preferred gauge of industrial activity in the Middle Kingdom - points to further weakness (Chart I-10). This makes it unlikely that China's imports will rise, lifting global growth. Additionally, China has re-stocked in various commodities, suggesting it is front-running its own domestic demand, highlighting the risk that its commodities intake could become even weaker than what domestic growth implies. Chart I-8More Weakness In LEIs More Weakness In LEIs More Weakness In LEIs Chart I-9Global Liquidity Tightening Global Liquidity Tightening Global Liquidity Tightening Chart I-10China Not Yet Set To Bail Out The World China Not Yet Set To Bail Out The World China Not Yet Set To Bail Out The World With this kind of backdrop, we expect the current slowdown in global growth to run further before ebbing, probably in response to what will be a policy move out some kind from China to put a floor under growth. As a result, the current infatuation with inflation hedges among investors may wane for a bit as slower growth could shock inflation expectations downward, especially in a global context that has been defined by excess capacity since the late 1990s. An environment where global inflation expectations could be downgraded in response to slower growth is likely to be an environment where the dollar performs well, particularly as U.S. growth continues to outperform global growth (Chart I-11). This also confirms our analysis from two weeks ago that showed that when bonds rally the dollar tends to outperform most currencies, with the exception of the yen.1 Moreover, with the Federal Open Market Committee upgrading its path for interest rates by one additional hike in 2018, this reinforces the message from our previous work noting that once the fed funds rate moves in the vicinity of r-star, the dollar performs well, nearly eradicating the losses it incurred when the fed funds rate rises but is well below the neutral rate (Table I-1). This is especially true if vulnerability to higher rates rests outside - not inside - the U.S., as is currently the case.2 Chart I-11The Dollar Likes Lower Global Inflation The Dollar Likes Lower Global Inflation The Dollar Likes Lower Global Inflation Table I-1Fed And The Dollar: Where We Stand Matters As Much As The Direction Inflation Is In The Price Inflation Is In The Price Beyond the dollar, one particular currency cross has historically been a good correlate to investors betting on higher inflation: NOK/SEK. As Chart I-12 illustrates, when investors buy inflation hedges such as going long EM equities relative to EM bonds, this generates a rally in NOK/SEK. These dynamics played in our favor when we were long this cross earlier this year. However, not only are EM equities extended relative to EM bonds, the current economic environment portends a growing risk of investors curtailing these kinds of bets. The implication is bearish for NOK/SEK, and we recommend investors sell this cross at current levels. Chart I-12NOK/SEK Suffers If Inflation Bets Are Unwound NOK/SEK Suffers If Inflation Bets Are Unwound NOK/SEK Suffers If Inflation Bets Are Unwound Bottom Line: Investors have quickly and aggressively positioned themselves to protect their portfolios against upside inflation risks. However, the global economy is still slowing - a development that has further to run. As a result, this current anticipation of inflation could easily morph into a temporary fear of deflation, at least relative to lofty expectations. This would undo the dynamics previously seen in the market. This is historically an environment in which the dollar performs well, suggesting the greenback rally is not over. Moreover, NOK/SEK could suffer in this environment. The Bad News Is Baked Into The Pound There is no denying that the data flow out of the U.K. has been poor of late. In fact, despite what was already a low bar for expectations, the U.K. economy has managed to generate large negative surprises (Chart I-13). One of the direct drivers of this poor performance has been the complete meltdown in the British credit impulse (Chart I-14). Additionally, the slowdown in British manufacturing can be easily understood in the context of slowing global growth (Chart I-15). Chart I-13Anarchy In The U.K. Anarchy In The U.K. Anarchy In The U.K. Chart I-14The Credit Impulse Has Bitten The Credit Impulse Has Bitten The Credit Impulse Has Bitten Chart I-15U.K. Exports Are Slowing Because Of Global Growth U.K. Exports Are Slowing Because Of Global Growth U.K. Exports Are Slowing Because Of Global Growth But, the bad new seems well priced into the pound, especially when compared to the euro. Not only is the GBP trading at a discount to the EUR on our fundamental and Intermediate-term timing models, speculators have accumulated near-record short bets on the pound versus the euro (Chart I-16). This begs the question: Could any positive factor come in and surprise investors, resulting in a fall in EUR/GBP? We think the answer to this question is yes. First, despite the negatives already priced in, incremental bad news have had little traction in dragging the pound lower versus the euro in recent weeks, suggesting that EUR/GBP buying has become exhausted. Second, a falling EUR/USD tends to weigh on EUR/GBP, as the pound tends to act as a low-beta version of the euro (Chart I-17). Chart I-16Investors Are Well Aware Of Britain's Problems Investors Are Well Aware Of Britain's Problems Investors Are Well Aware Of Britain's Problems Chart I-17EUR/GBP Sags When EUR/USD Weakens EUR/GBP Sags When EUR/USD Weakens EUR/GBP Sags When EUR/USD Weakens Third, the economic outlook for the U.K. is improving. It is true that in the context of slowing global growth, the manufacturing and export sectors are unlikely to be a source of positive surprises for Great Britain. However, the domestic economy could well be. As Chart I-14 highlights, the credit impulse has collapsed, but the good news is that outside of the Great Financial Crisis it has never fallen much below current levels, suggesting that a reversion to the mean may be in offing. Additionally, U.K. inflation is peaking, which is lifting British real wages (Chart I-18). In response, depressed consumer confidence is picking up. This is crucial as consumer spending, which represents roughly 70% of the U.K.'s GDP, has been the key drag on growth since 2016. Any improvement on this front will lift the whole British economy, even if the manufacturing sector remains soft. Fourth, Brexit is progressing. This week's vote in the House of Commons was confusing, but it is important to note than an amendment that gives Westminster the right to force a renegotiation between the U.K. and the EU if no deal is reached in 2019 has been passed. This also decreases the risk of a completely economically catastrophic Brexit down the road, but increases the risk that PM Theresa May could be ousted over the next 12 months. Our positive view on the pound versus the euro (or negative EUR/GBP bias) is not mimicked in cable itself. Ultimately, despite the GBP/USD's beta to EUR/GBP being below one, it is nonetheless greater than zero. As such, it is unlikely that GBP/USD will be able to rally if the DXY rallies and the EUR/USD weakens (Chart I-19). Therefore, while we recommend selling EUR/GBP, we are not willing buyers of GBP/USD. Chart I-18A Crucial Support To Growth A Crucial Support To Growth A Crucial Support To Growth Chart I-19Cable Will Not Avoid The Downward Pull Of A Strong Dollar Cable Will Not Avoid The Downward Pull Of A Strong Dollar Cable Will Not Avoid The Downward Pull Of A Strong Dollar Bottom Line: The British economy has undergone a period of weakness, which is already reflected in the very negative positioning of investors in the GBP versus the EUR. However, the bad data points are losing their capacity to push EUR/GBP higher, and the British economy may begin to heal as consumer confidence is rebounding thanks to improving real wages. The low beta of GBP/USD to the euro also implies that a falling EUR/USD will weigh on EUR/GBP. However, while the pound has upside against the euro, it will continue to suffer against the dollar if EUR/USD experiences further downside. What To Do With EUR/CAD? One weeks ago, we were stopped out of our short EUR/CAD trade. Has EUR/CAD finished its fall, or was the recent rally a pause within a downward channel? We are inclined to think the latter. Heated rhetoric on trade has hit the CAD harder than the EUR, as exports to the U.S. represent a much larger share of Canada's GDP than of the euro area, forcing the pricing of a risk premium in the loonie. However, even after a rather explosive G7 meeting, we do believe that a compromise is still feasible and that NAFTA is not dead on arrival. A deal is still likely because, as Chart I-20 demonstrates, Canadian tariffs on U.S. imports are not only marginally in excess of U.S. tariffs on Canadian imports, they are also in line with international comparisons. This suggests only a small push is needed to arrive to a deal that salvages NAFTA, which ultimately is much more important to Canada than the dairy industry. Chart I-20Canada And The U.S. Can Find A Compromise Inflation Is In The Price Inflation Is In The Price Despite this reality, we cannot be too complacent, U.S. President Donald Trump is likely to be playing internal politics ahead of the upcoming mid-term elections. U.S. citizens are distrustful of free trade (Chart I-21), a trend especially pronounced among his base. However, a good result for the GOP in November is contingent on the Republican base showing up at the polls. Firing this base up with inflammatory trade rhetoric is a sure way to do so. This means that risks around NAFTA are still not nil. Chart I-21America Belongs To The Anti-Globalization Bloc Inflation Is In The Price Inflation Is In The Price However, EUR/CAD continues to trade at a substantial premium to fair-value on an intermediate-term horizon (Chart I-22). Moreover, as the last panel of the chart illustrates, speculators remain massively short the CAD against the EUR. This creates a cushion for the CAD versus the EUR if global growth slows. Moreover, technicals are still favorable of shorting EUR/CAD. Not only is EUR/CAD still overbought on a 52-week rate-of-change basis, it seems to be in the process of forming a five-wave downward pattern, with the fourth one - a countertrend wave - potentially ending (Chart I-23). Chart I-22EUR/CAD Is Still Vulnerable EUR/CAD Is Still Vulnerable EUR/CAD Is Still Vulnerable Chart I-23Wave Pattern Not Completed Wave Pattern Not Completed Wave Pattern Not Completed Finally, EUR/CAD tends to perform poorly when the USD strengthens, which fits with our current thematic for the remainder of 2018. Bottom Line: The headline risk surrounding NAFTA has weighed on the loonie against the euro, stopping us out of our short EUR/CAD trade with a small profit. However, the valuation, positioning and technical dynamics suggest the timing is ripe to short this cross once again. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Rome Is Burning: Is It The End?", dated June 1, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "This Time Is NOT Different", dated May 25, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 U.S. data was stellar: NFIB Business Optimism Index climbed to 107.8, outperforming expectations; the price changes and good times to expand components are also very strong; Headline and core PPI both outperformed expectations, auguring well for future consumer inflation; Headline and core retail sales grew by 0.8% and 0.9% in monthly terms, beating expectations; Both initial and continuing jobless claims also came out below expectations, highlighting that the labor market is still tightening, and wage growth could pick up further. The Fed raised interest rates this week to 2%, and added one additional rate hike to its guidance for 2018. FOMC members once again highlighted the "symmetric" target, suggesting that the Fed expects the economy to overheat slightly. An outperforming U.S. economy relative to the rest of the world is likely to propel the greenback this year. Report Links: This Time Is NOT Different - May 25, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 Economic data was largely disappointing: Italian industrial output contracted by 1.2% on a monthly basis, and grew only by 1.9% on a yearly basis; The German ZEW Survey declined substantially across all metrics; European industrial production increased by 1.7% annually, less than the expected 2.8% increase; However, Spanish headline inflation spiked up from 1.1% to 2.1%. Yesterday, ECB President Mario Draghi announced the ECB's plan to taper asset purchases to EUR 15 bn a month in September, and phase them out completely by year-end. Moreover, Draghi highlighted that the ECB was not anticipating to implement its first hike until after the summer of 2019. Furthermore, the ECB President highlighted the current slowdown in global growth, as well as the rising protectionist risk from the U.S. potentially negatively impacting the European economy and the ECB's decisions going forward, suggesting that the plans are not set in stone. 2018 is likely to remain a volatile year for the euro. Report Links: Rome Is Burning: Is It The End? - June 1, 2018 This Time Is NOT Different - May 25, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 Japanese data has been strong this week: Machine orders increased on a 9.6% annual basis, and a 10.1% monthly basis, in April, outperforming expectations by a large margin; The Domestic Corporate Goods Price Index also increased by 2.7% annually, higher than the expected 2.2% increase. As political and economic risks in Europe and South America having subsided for now, the yen has lost some of its glitter. However, with ongoing uncertainty on trade and populism across the globe, we maintain our tactically bullish stance on the yen, especially against commodity currencies and the euro. However, beyond the short-term horizon, the BoJ will remain determined to cap any excess appreciation in the yen, as a strong JPY tightens Japanese financial conditions, weighing on the BoJ's ability to hit its inflation target. This will ultimately limit the yen's upside on a cyclical basis. Report Links: Rome Is Burning: Is It The End? - June 1, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 Data from the U.K. was somewhat disappointing: Manufacturing and industrial production both increased less than expected, at 1.4% and 1.8%, respectively; The goods trade deficit widened to GBP 14.03bn from GBP 12bn, and the overall trade deficit widened to GBP 5.28bn from GBP 3.22bn; Average earnings grew by 2.8%, less than the expected 2.9%; However, headline inflation came in at 2.4%, less than the expected 2.5%, while retail price inflation also underperformed expectations. This means that the uptrend in real wages continues. Given the limited movement in the pound, it seems that a lot of the bad news was already priced in by last month's depreciation. However, Theresa May's ongoing blunders in parliament represent a continued source of risk for the pound. While the GBP has downside against the EUR, it is unlikely to see much upside against the greenback. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Do Not Get Flat-Footed By Politics - March 30, 2018 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 Australian data was weak: NAB Business Confidence and Conditions surveys both declined, also underperforming expectations; Australian employment grew by 12,000, less than expected. Moreover, full-time employment contracted. While the unemployment rate dropped as a result, this was largely due to a fall in the participation rate. RBA's Governor Lowe, in a speech on Wednesday, announced that any increase in interest rates "still looks some time away" as the slack in the labor market does not seem to be diminishing. Annual wage growth has been constant at 2.1% for the past three quarters, and did not pick up despite an improvement in full-time employment earlier this year. We remain bearish on the AUD. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 The NZD is likely to face significant downside against the greenback along with the other commodity currencies as global growth slows down. However, due to its weaker linkages to Chinese industrial demand, the kiwi is likely to see less downside than the AUD. Nevertheless, it is likely to weaken against the CAD and the NOK as the NZD is expensive against these oil currencies, and oil's is likely to continue to outperform other commodities will support this view. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 USD/CAD has been on an uptrend given the greenback generally strong performance since February year, a force magnified by the volatile rhetoric surrounding NAFTA negotiations. However, the Canadian economy has been accelerating this year, thanks to robust growth in the U.S., to a strong Quebecer economy, and to a pickup in Alberta. In addition, the Canadian labor market is tightening further and wage growth is above 3%. Furthermore, risks surrounding NAFTA seem already reflected in the CAD's behavior and valuation. There is more clarity on the CAD versus its crosses than on the CAD versus the USD. Outperforming U.S. and Canadian growth relative to the rest of the world mean that the CAD should outperform most other G10 currencies. Report Links: Rome Is Burning: Is It The End? - June 1, 2018 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 Recent data out of Switzerland was decent: Industrial production increased by 9% in annual terms, albeit less than the previous 19.6% growth; Producer and import prices increased by 3.2% year on year, in line with expectations, however the monthly increase underperformed markets anticipations. With global trade tensions rising, and Germany having entered President Trump's line of sight, the CHF could experience additional upside against the euro in the coming months. However, the SNB is unlikely to deviate from its ultra-accommodative stance, which means that any downside in EUR/CHF will proved to be short lived. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 The SNB Doesn't Want Switzerland To Become Japan - March 23, 2018 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 Both headline and core inflation underperformed, coming in at 2.3% and 1.2%, respectively. However, the Regional Network Survey hinted at a pickup in capacity utilization as expectations for industrial output remained robust, as well as at an additional strength in employment. This led to a forecast of a resurgence in inflationary pressures. We expect the NOK to outperform the EUR. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 Swedish inflation rose from 1.7% to 1.9%, coming in line with expectations. Additionally, Prospera 1-year inflation expectations survey rose to 1.9% from 1.8% in the March survey. This is likely to provide the Riksbank with reasons to turn gradually more hawkish, which should support the very cheap krona. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - May 18, 2018 Value Strategies In FX Markets: Putting PPP To The Test - May 11, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights Contagion risk from Italy to its European peers presents a buying opportunity; Italian policymakers are constrained by the bond market and avoiding brinkmanship; In a game of chicken between Berlin and Rome, Chancellor Angela Merkel is behind the wheel of a 2.5-ton SUV; Italy's ultimate constraint is its bifurcated economic system - staying in the EU helps manage this problem; Underweight Italian bonds in a global portfolio and short Italian bonds versus their Spanish equivalents. Feature Chart 1Is Contagion Warranted? Is Contagion Warranted? Is Contagion Warranted? On May 31, Italy formed the second overtly populist government in the Euro Area. The first was the short-lived SYRIZA government in Greece, which lasted from January to September 2015. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras and his colorful finance minister Yanis Varoufakis, Athens took Greece to the brink of Euro Area exit in the summer of 2015. Ultimately, Greek politicians blinked, folded, and re-ran the January election in September, transforming SYRIZA from an overtly euroskeptic party to a europhile party in just eight months. Investors are concerned that "this time will be different." We disagree. To use a poker analogy, Italian policymakers are better positioned to "bluff" their European counterparts as their chip stack is larger. But they are still holding a bad hand, and other players at the table still hold big stacks. The recent turbulence in Italian bond markets has spilled over into other Mediterranean countries (Chart 1). This contagion is unwarranted, as there has been much improvement across the region over the past few years, both politically and economically. As for Italy itself, it is positive that populists have come to power today, for several reasons. First, it will force them to actually run the country, a sobering process that often tempers anti-establishment zeal, as it did in Greece. Second, they will run the country at a time when popular support for the Euro Area and EU remains strong enough to deter an overt attempt to exit those institutions. Third, Italy remains massively constrained by material forces outside of their control, which will force compromises in negotiations with Brussels and fellow EU member states. There Will Be No Contagion From Italy Markets overreacted to the political risks emanating from Italy in recent weeks. Fundamentally, Italy's peripheral peers have emerged stronger from the Euro Area crisis. Since the onset of the Euro Area crisis, Greece, Portugal, Ireland, and Spain - the hardest-hit economies in 2010 - have seen their unit labor costs contract by an average of 8.7%. Over the same period, the rest of the Euro Area inflated its labor cost structure by around 10.9% (Chart 2). Italy remains saddled with a rigid, under-educated, and rather unproductive workforce that has seen no adjustment in labor costs.1 Meanwhile, its Mediterranean peers have practically closed their once-enormous unit labor-cost gap with Germany. Furthermore, all southern European countries now run primary surpluses, reducing the need for external funding (Chart 3). It is fair that the market should apply a fiscal premium to Italy, given the new government's plans to blow out the budget deficit. But no such fiscal plan is in the works in the rest of the Mediterranean. The cyclically-adjusted primary balance - for Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Greece - has gone from a deficit of 4.4% during the height of the debt crisis, to a surplus of 1.4% today. One can argue about whether such fiscal austerity was really necessary. The advantage, however, is that the improvement in structural budget balances has diminished the need for additional austerity measures and could also provide greater fiscal space during the next recession. Finally, household balance sheets have been on the mend for some time. Consumer debt levels as a percentage of disposable income in Spain, Portugal, and Ireland - the epicenter of the original Euro Area debt crisis - have now dipped below U.S. levels. In the case of Italy, importantly, the household sector was never over-indebted to begin with (Chart 4). Chart 2Italy Has Had No Labor-Cost Adjustment Italy Has Had No Labor-Cost Adjustment Italy Has Had No Labor-Cost Adjustment Chart 3Mediterranean Austerity Is Over Mediterranean Austerity Is Over Mediterranean Austerity Is Over Chart 4No Household Credit Bubble In Italy No Household Credit Bubble In Italy No Household Credit Bubble In Italy On the political front, Italians are clearly more euroskeptic than their Euro Area peers (Chart 5). Although only 30% of Italians oppose the common currency, in line with Greece, this is still considerably higher than in Spain and Portugal (Chart 6). Italians also feel less "European" than the Spanish or the Portuguese - i.e., they identify more exclusively with their unique nationality. Again this is in line with Greek sentiment (Chart 7). Italians were not always this way: in the early 1990s, they felt the most European. Chart 5Italy Lags In Support For The Euro... Italy Lags In Support For The Euro... Italy Lags In Support For The Euro... Chart 6...But Only 30% Of Italians Want Out ...But Only 30% Of Italians Want Out ...But Only 30% Of Italians Want Out Chart 7Italians Are Feeling More Italian Italians Are Feeling More Italian Italians Are Feeling More Italian In Portugal and Spain, parties across the political spectrum have responded to improving political and economic fundamentals. In Spain, the mildly euroskeptic Podemos is polling below its June 2016 election result. Its leadership has also abandoned any ambiguity on its support of the common currency, although it still campaigned in 2016 on restructuring Spain's foreign debt. The leading party in the Spanish polls is the centrist Ciudadanos (Chart 8), led by 38-year old Albert Rivera. Much like French President Emmanuel Macron, Rivera has a background in finance - he worked as a legal counsel at La Caixa - and presents a centrist vision for Europe, favoring more integration. The rise of Ciudadanos is important as Spain could have new elections soon. Conservative Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy resigned following a vote of no-confidence engineered by the Spanish Socialist Party (PSOE) leader Pedro Sánchez. However, PSOE only holds 84 seats of the 350-seat parliament. As such, it is unclear how the Socialist minority government will govern, particularly with the budget vote coming in early fall. But investors should welcome, not fear, early elections in Spain. With Ciudadanos set to join a governing coalition, it is clear that Spain's commitments to the Rajoy structural reforms will remain in place while no discussions of Spanish exit from European institutions is on any investment-relevant horizon. In Portugal, the minority government of Prime Minister António Costa has overseen a brisk economic recovery. Costa's center-left Socialist Party has received support in parliament from the far-left, euroskeptic Left Bloc, plus the Communists and Greens. Despite the involvement of the Left Bloc, the minority government has not initiated any euroskeptic policy. The latest polling suggests that Costa could win a majority in 2019. An election has to be held by October of that year, thus potentially strengthening the pro-European credentials of the Portuguese government (Chart 9). Finally, in Greece, the once overtly euroskeptic SYRIZA is polling well below their 2015 levels of support. Ardently europhile and centrist New Democracy (ND) is set to win the next election - which must be held by October 2019 - if polling remains stable (Chart 10). The fascist and euroskeptic Golden Dawn remains a feature of Greek politics, but has a support rate under 10%, as it has over the past decade. In fact, the rising player in Greek politics is the centrist and europhile Movement for Change, an alliance that includes the vestiges of the center-left PASOK, which polls around 10%. Chart 8There Is No Populism In Spain... There Is No Populism In Spain... There Is No Populism In Spain... Chart 9...Or Portugal... ...Or Portugal... ...Or Portugal... Chart 10...And Surprisingly None In Greece ...And Surprisingly None In Greece ...And Surprisingly None In Greece Bottom Line: Italy stands alone in the Mediterranean as a laggard on both economic and political fundamentals. Contagion risk from Italy to the rest of its European peers should be faded by investors. It represents a buying opportunity every time it manifests itself. What Car Is Italy Driving In This Game Of Chicken? The new ruling coalition in Rome has a democratic mandate for a confrontation with Brussels over fiscal spending. The coalition consists of the Five Star Movement (M5S) and the League (Lega), formerly known as the "Northern League." In his inaugural speech to the Italian Parliament, Prime Minister Guiseppe Conte emphasized that the mandate of the new coalition includes "reducing the public debt ... by increasing our wealth, not with austerity."2 So, the gloves are off! Not really. Almost immediately, Conte pointed out that "we are optimistic about the outcome of these discussions and confident of our negotiating power, because we are facing a situation in which Italy's interests... coincide with the general interests of Europe, with the aim of preventing its possible decline. Europe is our home." PM Conte subsequently focused in his speech on increasing social welfare payments to the poor, conditional on vocational training and job reintegration. Talk of a "flat tax" was replaced with an eponymous concept that is anything but a "flat tax."3 And there was no mention of overturning unpopular pension reforms, but merely "intervening in favor of retirees who do not have sufficient income to live in dignity."4 We may be reading too much into one speech. However, the time for brinkmanship is at the beginning of a government's mandate. And Conte's opening salvo suggests that the M5S-Lega coalition has already punted on three of its most populist promises: wholesale change to retirement reforms, a flat tax of 15%, and universal basic income. The back-of-the-envelope cost of these three proposals is €100bn, which would easily blow out Italy's budget deficit by 5% of GDP, putting the total at 7%. There was also no mention of issuing government IOUs that would create a sort of "parallel currency" in the country. Conte's relatively tame speech represents one of three concessions that Rome has made before it even engaged Brussels in brinkmanship. The two others were to replace the original economy minister designate - euroskeptic Paulo Savona - and to form a government in the first place. The latter is particularly telling. Polls have shown that the two populist parties would have an even stronger hand if they waited until the fall to re-run the election (Chart 11). In particular, Lega has seen its support rise by 9% since the election. It is politically illogical to form a governing coalition with less political capital when a new election would strengthen the hand of both populist parties. So why the concessions? Because Italian policymakers are not interested in brinkmanship. The populist campaign rhetoric and hints of euroskepticism were an act. And perhaps the act would have continued, but the bond market reaction was so quick and jarring (Chart 12) - including the largest day-to-day selloff since 1993 (Chart 13) - that it has disciplined Italy's policymakers almost immediately. Chart 11Lega Gave Up A Lot By Forming A Coalition Lega Gave Up A Lot By Forming A Coalition Lega Gave Up A Lot By Forming A Coalition Chart 12Bond Vigilantes Are... Bond Vigilantes Are... Bond Vigilantes Are... Chart 13...A Massive Constraint On Rome ...A Massive Constraint On Rome ...A Massive Constraint On Rome This is instructive for investors. In 2015, Greece decided to play the game of brinkmanship with Europe and ultimately lost. Our high-conviction view at the time was that Athens would back off from brinkmanship because it was massively constrained.5 Not only would an exit from the Euro Area mean a government default and the redenomination of all household saving into "monopoly money," but the level of euroskepticism in Greece was not high enough to support such a high-risk strategy. At the time, we pointed out that most investors - and practically all pundits - were wrong when they argued that brinkmanship between Greece and Brussels was "unpredictable." This conventional view was supported by an incorrect reading of game theory, particularly the "game of chicken." Game theory teaches us that a game of chicken is the most dangerous game because it can create an equilibrium in which all rational actors have an incentive to stick to their guns - to "keep driving" in the parlance of the game - despite the risks.6 In Diagram 1, we can see that continuing to drive carries the most risks, but it also carries the most reward, provided that your opponent swerves. Since all actors in a game of chicken assume the rationality of their opponents, they also expect them to eventually swerve. When this does not happen, the bottom-right quadrant emerges, one of chaos and deeply negative payouts for everyone involved in the crash. The problem with this analysis is that - as with most game theory - its parsimony belies deep complexity that often varies due to a number of factors. The first such factor is replayability. The decisions of Italian policymakers will be informed by the outcomes of the 2015 Greek episode, which did not go well for Athens. Another factor that obviously varies the payout matrix is the relative strength of each player; or, to stick with the analogy, the type of vehicle driven by each actor. Greece and its Euro Area peers were not driving the same car. The classic game of chicken only produces the payouts from Diagram 1 if all participants are driving the same vehicle. However, if Angela Merkel is behind the wheel of a Mercedes-Benz G-Class SUV, while Greek PM Alexis Tsipras is riding a tricycle, then the payouts are going to be much different in the case of a crash. In that case, the payouts should approximate something closer to Diagram 2. Diagram 1Regular Game Of Chicken Mediterranean Europe: Contagion Risk Or Bear Trap? Mediterranean Europe: Contagion Risk Or Bear Trap? Diagram 2Greece Versus Euro Area In 2015 Mediterranean Europe: Contagion Risk Or Bear Trap? Mediterranean Europe: Contagion Risk Or Bear Trap? So the crucial question for investors is what vehicle are Italian policymakers driving? We do not doubt that it is an actual car, unlike Tsipras's tricycle. But it is more likely to be a finely-crafted Italian sportscar, adept at hugging the twists and turns of Rome's policy, rather than an SUV capable of colliding with Merkel's ominous truck. Why doesn't Rome have more capability than Greece? Because of time horizons. An Italian exit from the Euro Area would undoubtedly shake the foundations of the common currency and the European integrationist project. But Rome actually has to exit in order to shake those foundations. As we have learned with Brexit, such an "exit" scenario could take months, if not years. In the process of trying to exit, the Italian banking system would become insolvent, turning household savings and retirements into linguini. This would occur immediately and would exert economic, financial, and - most importantly - political pressure on Italian policymakers instantaneously. Our colleague Dhaval Joshi, BCA's Chief European Strategist, has argued that a 4% Italian bond yield is the "line in the sand" regarding the survival of Italy's banks.7 As Dhaval points out, investors start to get nervous about a bank's solvency when equity capital no longer covers net non-performing loans (NPLs). Based on this rule, the largest Italian banks now have €165 billion of equity capital against €130 billion of net NPLs, implying excess capital of €35 billion (Chart 14). Although the net NPL figure has improved much from the peak in 2015, it remains large. It follows that there would be fresh doubts about Italian banks' mark-to-market solvency if their bond valuations sustained a drop of just a tenth from the recent peak. Dhaval estimates that this equates to the 10-year BTP yield breaching and remaining above 4% (Chart 15). Chart 14Italian Banks' Equity Capital ##br##Exceeds Net NPLs By Euro 35 Bn Italian Banks' Equity Capital Exceeds Net NPLs By Euro 35 Bn Italian Banks' Equity Capital Exceeds Net NPLs By Euro 35 Bn Chart 15Italian Banks' Solvency Would Be In ##br##Question If The 10-Year BTP Yield Breached 4% Italian Banks' Solvency Would Be In Question If The 10-Year BTP Yield Breached 4% Italian Banks' Solvency Would Be In Question If The 10-Year BTP Yield Breached 4% Additionally, while Italian support for the common currency is relatively low, there is still a majority of around 60% that support the euro. This is similar to the level of support for the euro in Greece in 2015. We would suspect that the support for the currency would rise - and that populist parties would decline in popularity - if Italian policymakers set off a bond market riot that caused the insolvency of Italian banks. Does this mean that the bond market is a permanent constraint on Italian exit from the Euro Area? No. At some point in the future, after a deep recession that raises unemployment levels substantively, popular support for the common currency could tank precipitously. But we are far from that point. In fact, Italy has enjoyed a relatively robust recovery over the past 18 months. As such, any economic crisis today will be blamed on the populist policymakers themselves, yet another reason for them to moderate and seek the path of calm negotiations with the EU. Bottom Line: With regards to any potential "game of chicken" negotiations with the rest of Europe, Italian policymakers are not riding a tricycle like their Greek counterparts were in 2015. Italians are behind the wheel of a finely-crafted, titanium-chassis, Italian roadster. Unfortunately, Chancellor Angela Merkel is still in a Mercedes SUV that weighs 2.5 tons. This is a high-conviction view based on the actions of Italian policymakers over the past month. Despite an improvement in polling, populists have backed off from calling for a new election (which would have been perfectly logical) and that would have been advantageous to them and have abandoned some of the most controversial - and expensive - platforms of their coalition agreement. Unlike their peers in Greece, Italian populists have proven to have little stomach for actual confrontation. The Ultimate Constraint: Risorgimento In a report published back in 2016, we argued that Italy's original sin was its unification in 1861.8 Risorgimento brought together the North and South in a political and economic union that made little sense. The North had developed a market economy during the Middle Ages (and gave the West its Renaissance!), while the South had remained under feudalism well into the early twentieth century. Given the limited resources, governance, and technology of the mid-nineteenth century, the scope, ambition, and yes, folly of uniting Italy were probably several orders of magnitude greater than the effort to forge a common currency union in Europe in the twenty-first century. To this day, Italy remains an economically bifurcated country. Map 1 shows that the four wealthiest and most-productive regions of Europe, outside of capital cities, are the German Rhineland, Bavaria, the Netherlands, and Northern Italy. Meanwhile, the Italian South - or Mezzogiorno - is as undeveloped as Greece and Eastern Europe. Map 1Core Europe Extends Well Into Northern Italy Mediterranean Europe: Contagion Risk Or Bear Trap? Mediterranean Europe: Contagion Risk Or Bear Trap? The units of analysis in Map 1 are the so-called EU "nomenclature of territorial units for statistics" (NUTS).9 These regions matter because Brussels uses them to determine how much "structural funding" - essentially development aid - each country receives from the EU. The EU "regional and cohesion" funding - totaling €351.8 billion for the 2014-2020 budget period - is not distributed based on the aggregate wealth of each country, since that would favor the new entrants into the union. The EU's discerning eye when it comes to distributing development funds is not accidental. It is a product of decades of lobbying by Italy (and Spain) to prevent a shift of structural funding to Eastern European member states. From Rome's perspective, the real European development project is not in Poland or Greece, but in the Mezzogiorno. Chart 16Italy Shares The Burden Of The Mezzogiorno With The EU Mediterranean Europe: Contagion Risk Or Bear Trap? Mediterranean Europe: Contagion Risk Or Bear Trap? To this day, Italy and Spain receive the second and third largest amount of EU development aid (Chart 16). Despite contributing, in gross terms, 13% to the EU's total revenues, Italy's net contribution per person is smaller than those of the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Austria (Chart 17). Given that Italy is a wealthy EU state, its net budget contribution of approximately €3 billion, 0.2% of GDP, essentially means that it gets the benefits of EU membership for free. Chart 17Italy Gets To Join The Club For Free Mediterranean Europe: Contagion Risk Or Bear Trap? Mediterranean Europe: Contagion Risk Or Bear Trap? And EU membership comes with many benefits. Membership in the Euro Area - combined with sharing the same "lender of last resort" with Germany, the European Central Bank - allows Italy to finance its budget deficits at low interest rates and to issue government debt in the world's second largest reserve currency (Chart 18). These financial benefits are even greater than the rebate it gets from Europe. Access to cheap financing allows Italy to carry the costs of Mezzogiorno on its own. Chart 18The Big Difference Between 2011 & Today The Big Difference Between 2011 & Today The Big Difference Between 2011 & Today It is somewhat ironic that Lega is today preaching populism and euroskepticism. In the early 1990s, its main target of angst was not the EU and Brussels, but Italy's South and profligate Rome, which funneled the North's taxes to the South. This early iteration of the party was quite pro-EU, as it saw Italy's North as genuinely European and worthy of membership in EU institutions. Some of its politicians and voters hoped that Northern Italy could meld into the EU, leaving the Mezzogiorno to fend for itself. Hence there is no deep, ideological euroskepticism in Lega's DNA. The party's evolution also illustrates how opportunistic and pragmatic Italian policymakers can be. The reality is that if Italy were to act on its threat of "exit," it would undoubtedly become far worse off economically. Not only would Northern Italy have to support the Mezzogiorno alone, but any structural reforms that could lift productivity and education in the South would become far less likely as anti-establishment forces took hold. Bottom Line: Our high-conviction view is now the same as it was in 2016. Italy is "bluffing." Leaving the EU or the Euro Area makes no sense given its economic bifurcation, which is the result of Risorgimento. Both policymakers and voters understand this. The real intention in the game of chicken between Brussels and Rome is to see an easing of austerity. We expect that Italian policymakers will ultimately succeed in getting leniency from Brussels on allowing deficit-widening fiscal stimulus, but the stimulus will be much smaller than their original plans that spooked the bond market laid out. To European and Italian politicians, Italy's economic bifurcation is well understood. Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of the European Commission, specifically referred to it when he said, "Italians have to take care of the poor regions of Italy." He was later forced to apologize for his comments, with leaders of M5S and Lega faking outrage. But given that the ideological roots of Lega are precisely in the same intellectual vein as Juncker's comments, investors should understand that politicians in Rome are well aware of their fundamental constraints. Juncker's comments were a dog whistle to Rome. The actual message was: we know you are bluffing. Investment Implications Our analysis suggests that the path of least resistance for the M5S-Lega coalition is to negotiate some austerity relief from the EU Commission, but to definitively pivot away from talk of "exit" from European institutions. PM Conte has reaffirmed that exiting the euro is off the table and that it was never on the table to begin with. The new economy minister, Giovanni Tria, followed this up with a comment that "the position of this government is clear and unanimous... there are no discussions taking place about any proposal to leave the euro." Meanwhile, Lega leader and new Italian interior minister Matteo Salvini has focused his early efforts and commentary on the party's promise to check illegal immigration to Italy. This will be a policy upon which Lega will test its populist credentials, not a fight with Brussels. Is the worst of the crisis therefore "over"? Is it time to buy Italian assets? Not yet. Both Italian bonds and equities rallied throughout 2017. Italian equities, for example, have a higher Shiller P/E ratio than both Spanish and Portuguese stocks (Chart 19). As such, a sell-off was long overdue. Chart 19Why Did Italian Equities Rally So Much? Why Did Italian Equities Rally So Much? Why Did Italian Equities Rally So Much? Chart 20Italy's Binary Future Italy's Binary Future Italy's Binary Future Furthermore, we do not expect Rome's negotiations with Brussels to proceed smoothly. It is very likely that the bond market will have to continue to play the role of disciplinarian. The government debt-to-GDP ratio could quickly become unsustainable if the current primary budget balance is thrown into a deficit (Chart 20). According to the IMF and BCA Research calculations, Italian long-term debt dynamics are stable even with real interest rates rising to 2% - from just 0.5% today - and real GDP growth remaining at a muted 1%. But this stability requires the country to continue to run a primary budget surplus of around 2% of GDP (Chart 21). Conversely, running a persistent primary deficit of 2% would result in an explosive increase in Italy's debt dynamics. Even if that stimulus produces real GDP growth of 3%, the "bond vigilantes" could protest the surge in debt and drive real interest rates to 3.5% or higher. As such, the country's fiscal space will ultimately be determined by the bond market. Rome can afford to lower its primary budget surplus, but only so far as the bond market does not riot. Our colleague Dhaval Joshi believes that the math behind an Italian fiscal stimulus would make sense if it provides enough of a sustainable boost to economic growth without blowing out the budget deficit.10 We suspect that the bond market will eventually agree, but only if Brussels and Berlin bless the ultimate fiscal package as well. While investors wait to see the outcome of Rome-Brussels budget talks, which will likely last well into Q4, we prefer to play Mediterranean politics by shorting Italian government bonds versus their Spanish equivalents. BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy initiated such a trade on December 16, 2016, which has produced a total return of 5.8%. The original logic for the trade was based on an assessment that Italy's medium-term growth potential, sovereign-debt fundamentals, and political stability were all much worse than those of Spain (Chart 22). These differences were not reflected in relative bond prices. Chart 21Three Factors Will Influence Italy's Debt Trajectory Three Factors Will Influence Italy's Debt Trajectory Three Factors Will Influence Italy's Debt Trajectory Chart 22Spain Trumps Italy On All Fronts Spain Trumps Italy On All Fronts Spain Trumps Italy On All Fronts Ongoing political turmoil in Italy has justified sticking with the trade. Looking ahead, there is potential for additional spread widening between Italy and Spain in the coming months. Spain is enjoying better economic growth; the deficit outlook will invariably worsen for Italy with the new coalition government; and Spanish support for the euro and establishment policymakers remains far higher and more buoyant than in Italy. All these factors justify a wider risk premium for Italian debt over Spanish bonds (Chart 23). Chart 23Stay Short 5-Year Italy Vs. 5-Year Spain Stay Short 5-Year Italy Vs. 5-Year Spain Stay Short 5-Year Italy Vs. 5-Year Spain Chart 24Stay Underweight Italian Debt Stay Underweight Italian Debt Stay Underweight Italian Debt One final critical point - the timing of any budget related uncertainty could not be worse for Italy. Economic growth is slowing and leading indicators say that this trend will continue, which suggests that Italian government bonds should continue to underperform global peers (Chart 24). Our Global Fixed Income Strategy team has argued that government debt in the European "periphery" should be treated more like corporate credit rather than sovereign debt.11 Faster economic growth leads to fewer worries about debt sustainability and increased risk-taking behavior by investors, both of which lead to reduced credit risk premiums and eventually, stronger growth. In other words, think of Italian BTPs as a BBB-rated corporate bond rather than a "risk-free" Euro Area government bond. So as long as the Italian economy continues to lose momentum, an underweight stance on Italian government bonds is justified. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy Part II: Italy In Purgatorio," dated June 21, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Repubblica, "Il discorso di Conte in Senato, la versione integrale," dated June 6, 2018, available at repubblica.it. 3 Conte's exact quote was "the objective is the 'flat tax,' that is a tax reform characterized by the introduction of rates that are fixed, with a system of deductions that can guarantee that the tax code remains progressive." This is our own translation from Italian and therefore we may be missing something. However, a "flat tax" that has a number of different rates and that remains progressive is, by definition, not a flat tax. 4 In fact, the speech could be read with an eye towards some genuine supply-side reforms, particularly in bringing the country's youth into the labor force, improving governance, reforming the judiciary, cracking down on corruption and privileges of the political class, and generally de-bureaucratizing Italy. If successful, these would all be welcome reforms. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "After Greece," July 8, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 The game derives its name from a test of manhood by which two drivers drive towards each other on a collision course, preferably behind the wheel of a 1950s American muscle car. Whoever swerves loses. Whoever keeps driving, wins and gets the girl. 7 Please see BCA European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Italy's 'Line In The Sand,'" dated May 31, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 The acronym stands for Nomenclature des Unités Statistiques. 10 Please see BCA European Investment Strategy Special Report, "Italy Vs. Brussel: Who's Right?" dated May 24, 2018, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Is It Partly Sunny Or Mostly Cloudy?" dated May 22, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com.

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

Highlights Investors are underestimating the risks of U.S.-Iran tensions; The Obama administration's 2015 deal resulted in Iran curbing aggressive regional behavior that threatened global oil supply; The U.S. negotiating position vis-à-vis Iran has not improved; Unlike North Korea, Iran can retaliate against the Trump administration's "Maximum Pressure" doctrine - particularly in Iraq; U.S.-Iran conflicts will negatively affect global oil supply, critical geographies, and sectarian tensions - hence a geopolitical risk premium is warranted. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy (CES) desk is using a new ensemble forecast, which takes its 2H18 Brent forecast to $76/bbl from an average $78/bbl, and WTI to $70/bbl from $72/bbl. For next year, CES's Brent forecast goes to $73/bbl from $80/bbl, and WTI goes to $67/bbl from $72/bbl. CES expects higher volatility, as well. Feature Following the roll-out of our oil-price ensemble model last week, we are publishing a Special Report written by our colleague Marko Papic, who runs BCA's Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) service. This report explores the more nuanced aspects of the U.S. - Iran sanctions conflict, and why the contest for Iraq is important for investors. We also summarize our latest forecast. We trust you will find this analysis informative, Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy Tensions between the U.S. and Iran snuck up on the markets (Chart 1), even though President Trump's policy agenda was well telegraphed via rhetoric, action, and White House personnel moves.1 Still, investors doubt the market relevance of the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the international agreement between Iran and the P5+1.2 Chart 1Iran: Nobody Was Paying Attention! Iran: Nobody Was Paying Attention! Iran: Nobody Was Paying Attention! Several reasons to fade the risks - and hence to fade any implications for global oil supply - have become conventional wisdom. These include the alleged ability of OPEC and Russia to boost production and Washington's supposed ineffectiveness without an internationally binding sanction regime. Chart 2BCA's Updated Ensemble Forecast:##BR##Brent Averages /bbl in 2H18 BCA's Updated Ensemble Forecast: Brent Averages $76/bbl in 2H18 BCA's Updated Ensemble Forecast: Brent Averages $76/bbl in 2H18 Our view is that investors and markets are underestimating the geopolitical, economic, and financial relevance of the U.S.-Iran tensions. First, the ideological rhetoric surrounding the original U.S.-Iran détente tends to be devoid of strategic analysis. Second, Iran's hard power capabilities are underestimated. Third, OPEC 2.0's ability to tap into its spare capacity is overestimated.3 CES's updated ensemble forecast takes its 2H18 Brent forecast to $76/bbl from an average $78/bbl previously, and its WTI forecast to $70/bbl from $72/bbl (Chart 2). For next year, CES's Brent forecast goes to $73/bbl from $80/bbl, and its WTI expectation goes to $67/bbl from $72/bbl. CES expects higher volatility, as well, as markets continue to process sometimes-conflicting news flows. This means spike to and through $80/bbl for Brent are more likely than markets currently anticipate. Why Did The U.S.-Iran Détente Emerge In 2015? Both detractors and defenders of the 2015 nuclear deal often misunderstand the logic of the deal. First, the defenders are wrong when they claim that the deal creates a robust mechanism that ensures that Iran will never produce a nuclear device. Given that the most critical components of the deal expire in 10 or 15 years, it is simply false to assert that the deal is a permanent solution. More importantly, Iran already reached "breakout capacity" in mid-2013, which means that it had already achieved the necessary know-how to become a nuclear power.4 We know because we wrote about it at the time, using the data of Iran's cumulative production of enriched uranium provided to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).5 In August 2013, Iran's stockpile of 20% enriched uranium, produced at the impregnable Fordow facility, reached 200kg (Chart 3). Chart 3Iran's Negotiating Leverage Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict At that point, Israeli threats of attacking Iran became vacuous, as the Israeli air force lacked the necessary bunker-busting technology to penetrate Fordow.6 As we wrote in 2013, this critical moment gave Tehran the confidence to give up "some material/physical components of its nuclear program as it has developed the human capital necessary to achieve nuclear status."7 The JCPOA forced Iran to stop enriching uranium at the Fordow facility altogether and to give up its stockpile of uranium enriched at 20%. However, Iran only agreed to the deal because it had reached a level of technological know-how that has not been eliminated by mothballing centrifuges and "converting" facilities to civilian nuclear research. Iran is a nuclear power in all but name. Second, the detractors of the JCPOA are incorrect when they claim that Iran did not give up any regional hegemony when it signed the deal. This criticism focuses on Iran's expanded role in the Syrian Civil War since 2011, as well as its traditional patronage networks with the Lebanese Shia militants Hezbollah and with Yemen's Houthis. However, critics ignore several other, far more critical, fronts of Iranian influence: Strait of Hormuz: In 2012, Iran's nearly daily threats to close the Strait of Hormuz were very much a clear and present danger for global investors (Map 1). Although we argued in 2012 that Iran's capability was limited to a 10-day closure, followed by another month during which they could threaten the safe passage of vessels through the Strait, even such a short crisis would add a considerable risk premium to oil markets given that it would remove about 17-18 million bbl/day from global oil supply (Chart 4).8 Since 2012, Iran's capabilities to threaten the Strait have grown, while the West's anti-mine capabilities have largely stayed the same.9 Map 1Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province Is A Crucial Piece Of Real Estate Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Chart 4Geopolitical Crises And Global Peak Supply Losses Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq: The key geographic buffer between Saudi Arabia and Iran is Iraq (Map 2). Iran filled the power vacuum created by the U.S. invasion almost immediately after Saddam Hussein's overthrow. It deployed members of the infamous Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) into Iraq to support the initial anti-American insurgency. Iran's support for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was critical following the American withdrawal in 2011, particularly as his government became increasingly focused on anti-Sunni insurgency. Map 2Iraq: A Buffer Between Saudi Arabia And Iran Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Bahrain: Home of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, Bahrain experienced social unrest in 2011. The majority of Bahrain's population are Shia, while the country is ruled by the Saudi-aligned, Sunni, Al Khalifa monarchy. The majority of Shia protests were at least rhetorically, and some reports suggest materially, supported by Iran. To quell the protests, and preempt any potential Iranian interference, Saudi Arabia intervened militarily with a Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Peninsula Shield Force. Eastern Province: Similar to the unrest in Bahrain, Shia protests engulfed Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province in 2011. The province is highly strategic, as it is where nearly all of Saudi oil production, processing, and transportation facilities are located (Map 1). Like Bahrain, it has a large Shia population. Saudi security forces cracked down on the uprising and have continued to do so, with paramilitary operations lasting into 2017. While Iranian involvement in the protests is unproven, it has been suspected. Anti-Israel Rhetoric: Under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran threatened Israel with destruction on a regular basis. While these were mostly rhetorical attacks, the implication of the threat was that any attack against Iran and its nuclear facilities would result in retaliation against U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf and Iraq and direct military action against Israel. Both defenders and detractors of the JCPOA are therefore mistaken. The JCPOA does not impact Iran's ability to achieve "breakout capacity" given that it already reached it in mid-2013. And Iran's regional influence has not expanded since the deal was signed in 2015. In fact, since the détente in 2015, and in some cases since negotiations between the Obama administration and Tehran began in 2013, Iran has been a factor of stability in the Middle East. Specifically, Iran has willingly: Stopped threatening the Strait of Hormuz (the last overt threats to close the Strait of Hormuz were made in 2012); Acquiesced to Nouri al-Maliki's ousting as Prime Minister of Iraq in 2014 and his replacement by the far more moderate and less sectarian Haider al-Abadi; Stopped meddling in Bahraini and Saudi internal affairs; Stopped threatening Israel's existence (although its material support for Hezbollah clearly continues and presents a threat to Israel's security); Participated in joint military operations with the U.S. military against the Islamic State, cooperation without which Baghdad would have most likely fallen to the Sunni radicals in late 2014. The final point is worth expanding on. After the fall of Mosul - Iraq's second largest city - to the Islamic State in May 2014, Iranian troops and military advisors on the ground in Iraq cooperated with the U.S. air force to arrest and ultimately reverse the gains by the radical Sunni terrorist group. Without direct Iranian military cooperation - and without Tehran's material and logistical support for the Iraqi Shia militias - the Islamic State could not have been eradicated from Iraq (Map 3). Map 3The Collapse Of A Would-Be Caliphate Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict How did such a dramatic change in Tehran's foreign policy emerge between 2012 and 2015? Iranian leadership realized in 2012 that the U.S. military and economic threats against it were real. Internationally coordinated sanctions had a damaging effect on the economy, threatening to destabilize a regime that had experienced social upheaval in the 2009 Green Revolution (Chart 5). It therefore began negotiations almost immediately after the imposition of stringent economic sanctions in early and mid-2012.10 Chart 5Iran's Sanctions Had A Hard Bite Iran's Sanctions Had A Hard Bite Iran's Sanctions Had A Hard Bite To facilitate the negotiations, the Guardian Council of Iran disqualified President Ahmadinejad's preferred candidate for the 2013 Iranian presidential elections, while allowing Hassan Rouhani's candidacy.11 Rouhani, a moderate, won the June 2013 election in a landslide win, giving him a strong political mandate to continue the negotiations and, relatedly, to pursue economic development. Many commentators forget, however, that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Hosseini Khamenei allowed Rouhani to run in the first place, knowing full well that he would likely win. In other words, Rouhani's victory revealed the preferences of the Iranian regime to negotiate and adjust its foreign policy. Bottom Line: The 2015 U.S.-Iran détente traded American acquiescence in Iranian nuclear development - frozen at the point of "breakout capacity" - in exchange for Iran's cooperation on a number of strategically vital regional issues. As such, focusing on just the JCPOA, without considering the totality of Iranian behavior before and since the deal, is a mistake. Iran curbed its influence in several regional hot spots - almost all of which are critical to global oil supply. The Obama administration essentially agreed to Iran becoming a de facto nuclear power in exchange for Iran backing away from aggressive regional behavior. This included Iran's jeopardizing the safe passage of oil through the Strait of Hormuz either by directly threatening to close the channel or through covert actions in Bahrain and the Eastern Province. The U.S. also drove Iran to accept a far less sectarian Iraq, by forcing out the ardently pro-Tehran al-Maliki and replacing him with a prime minister far more acceptable to Saudi Arabia and Iraqi Sunnis. Why Did The U.S. Chose Diplomacy In 2011? The alternative to the above deal was some sort of military action against Iranian nuclear facilities. The U.S. contemplated such action in late 2011. Two options existed, either striking Iran's facilities with its own military or allowing Israel to do it themselves. One reason to choose diplomacy and economic sanctions over war was the limited capability of Israel to attack Iran alone.13 Israel does not possess strategic bombing capability. As such, it would have required a massive air flotilla of bomber-fighters to get to the Iranian nuclear facilities. While the Israeli air force has the capability to reach Iranian facilities and bomb them, their effectiveness is dubious and the ability to counter Iranian retaliatory capacity with follow-up strikes is non-existent. Chart 6Great Power Competition Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict The second was the fact that a U.S. strike against Iran would be exceedingly complex. Compared to previous Israeli strikes against nuclear facilities in Iraq (Operation Opera 1981) and Syria (Operation Outside The Box 2007), Iran presented a much more challenging target. Its superior surface-to-air missile capability would necessitate a prolonged, and dangerous, suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD) mission. In parallel, the U.S. would have to preemptively strike Iran's ballistic missile launching pads as well as its entire navy, so as to obviate Iran's ability to retaliate against international shipping or the U.S. and its allies in the region. The U.S. also had a strategic reason to avoid entangling itself in yet another military campaign in the Middle East. The public was war-weary and the Obama administration gauged that in a world where global adversaries like China and Russia were growing in geopolitical power, avoiding another major military confrontation in a region of decreasing value to U.S. interests (thanks partly to growing U.S. shale oil production) was of paramount importance (Chart 6). Notable in 2011 was growing Chinese assertiveness throughout East Asia (please see the Appendix on page 24). Particularly alarming was the willingness of Beijing to assert dubious claims to atolls and isles in the South China Sea, a globally vital piece of real estate (Diagram 1). There was a belief - which has at best only partially materialized - that if the United States divested itself of the Middle East, then it could focus more intently on countering China's challenge to traditional U.S. dominance in East Asia and the Pacific. Diagram 1South China Sea As Traffic Roundabout Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Bottom Line: The Obama administration therefore chose a policy of military posturing toward Iran to establish a credible threat. The military option was signaled in order to get the international community - both allies and adversaries - on board with tough economic sanctions. The ultimate deal, the JCPOA, did not give the U.S. and its allies everything they wanted precisely because they did not enter the negotiations from a position of preponderance of power. Critics of the JCPOA ignore this reality and assume that going back to the status quo ante bellum will somehow improve the U.S. negotiating position. It won't. What Happens If The U.S.-Iran Détente Ends? The Trump administration is serious about applying its Maximum Pressure tactics on Iran. Buoyed by the successful application of this strategy in North Korea, the White House believes that it can get a better deal with Tehran. We do not necessarily disagree. It is indeed true that the U.S. is a far more powerful country than Iran, with a far more powerful military. On a long enough timeline, with enough pressure, it ought to be able to force Tehran to concede, assuming that credible threats are used.14 Unlike the Obama administration, the Trump administration will presumably rely on Israel far less, and on its own military capability a lot more, to deliver those threats, which should be more effective. The problem is that the timeline on which such a strategy would work is likely to be a lot longer with Iran than with North Korea. This is because Iran's retaliatory capabilities are far greater than the one-trick-pony Pyongyang, which could effectively only launch ballistic missiles and threaten all-out war with U.S. and its regional allies.15 While those threats are indeed worrisome, they are also vacuous as they would lead to a total war in which the North Korean regime would meet its demise. Iran has a far more effective array of potential retaliation that can serve a strategic purpose without leading to total war. As we listed above, it could rhetorically threaten the Strait of Hormuz or attempt to incite further unrest in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province. The key retaliation could be to take the war to Iraq. The just-concluded election in Iraq appears to have favored Shia political forces not allied to Iran, including the Alliance Towards Reform (Saairun) led by the infamous cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr (Chart 7). Surrounding this election, various Iranian policymakers and military leaders have said that they would not allow Iraq to drift outside of Iran's sphere of influence, a warning to the nationalist Sadr who has fought against both the American and Iranian military presence in his country. Iraq is not only a strategic buffer between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the two regional rivals, but also a critical source of global oil supply, having brought online about half as much new supply as U.S. shale since 2011 (Chart 8). If Iranian-allied Shia factions engage in an armed confrontation with nationalist Shias allied with Muqtada al-Sadr, such a conflict will not play out in irrelevant desert governorates, as the fight against the Islamic State did. Chart 7Iraqi Elections Favored Shiites But Not Iran Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Chart 8Iraq Critical To Global Oil Supply Iraq Critical To Global Oil Supply Iraq Critical To Global Oil Supply Instead, a Shia-on-Shia conflict would play out precisely in regions with oil production and transportation facilities. In 2008, for example, Iranian-allied Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki fought a brief civil war against Sadr's Mahdi Army in what came to be known as the "Battle of Basra." While Iran had originally supported Sadr in his insurgency against the U.S., it came to Maliki's support in that brief but deadly six-day conflict. Basra is Iraq's chief port through which much of the country's oil exports flow. Iraq may therefore become a critical battleground as Iran retaliates against U.S. Maximum Pressure. From Iran's perspective, holding onto influence in Iraq is critical. It is the transit route through which Iran has established an over-land connection with its allies in Syria and Lebanon (Map 4). Threatening Iraqi oil exports, or even causing some of the supply to come off-line, would also be a convenient way to reduce the financial costs of the sanctions. A 500,000 b/d loss of exports - at an average price of $70 per barrel (as Brent has averaged in 2018) - could roughly be compensated by an increase in oil prices by $10 per barrel, given Iran's total exports. As such, Iran, faced with lost supply due to sanctions, will have an incentive to make sure that prices go up (i.e., that rivals do not simply replace Iranian supply, keeping prices more or less level). The easiest way to accomplish this, to add a geopolitical risk premium to oil prices, is through the meddling in Iraqi affairs. Map 4Iran Needs Iraq To Project Power Through The Levant Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict It is too early to forecast with a high degree of confidence precisely how the U.S.-Iran confrontation will develop. However, Diagram 2 offers our take on the path towards retaliation. Diagram 2Iran-U.S. Tensions Decision Tree Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict The critical U.S. sanctions against Iran will become effective on November 4 (Box 1). We believe that the Trump administration is serious and that it will force European allies, as well as South Korea and Japan, to cease imports of oil from Iran. China will be much harder to cajole. Box 1: Iranian Sanction Timeline President Trump issued a National Security Presidential Memorandum to re-impose all U.S. sanctions lifted or waived in connection with the JCPOA. The Office of Foreign Assets Control expects all sanctions lifted under the JCPOA to be re-imposed and in full effect after November 4, 2018. However, there are two schedules by which sanctions will be re-imposed, a 90-day and 180-day wind-down periods.1 Sanctions Re-Imposed After August 6, 2018 The first batch of sanctions that will be re-imposed will come into effect 90 days after the announced withdrawal from the JCPOA. These include: Sanctions on direct or indirect sale, supply, or transfer to or from Iran of several commodities (including gold), semi-finished metals, and industrial process software; Sanctions on the purchase or acquisition of U.S. dollar banknotes by the government of Iran; Sanctions on trade in Iranian currency and facilitation of the issuance of Iranian sovereign debt; Sanctions on Iran's automotive sector; Sanctions on export or re-export to Iran of commercial passenger aircraft and related parts. Sanctions Re-Imposed After November 4, 2018 The second batch of sanctions will come into effect 180 days after the announced Trump administration JCPOA withdrawal decision. These include: Sanctions on Iranian port operators, shipping, and shipbuilding activities; Sanctions against petroleum-related transactions with the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), Naftiran Intertrade Company (NICO), and National Iranian Tanker Company (NITC); Sanctions against the purchase of petroleum, petroleum products, or petrochemical products from Iran; Sanctions on transactions and provision of financial messaging services by foreign financial institutions with the Central Bank of Iran; Sanctions on Iran's energy sector; Sanctions on the provision of insurance, reinsurance, and underwriting services. 1a Please see the U.S. Treasury Department, "Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Re-Imposition of Sanctions Pursuant to the May 8, 2018, National Security Presidential Memorandum Relating to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)," dated May 8, 2018, available at www.treasury.gov. By Q1 2019, the impact on Iranian oil exports will be clear. We suspect that Iran will, at that point, have the choice of either relenting to Trump's Maximum Pressure, or escalating tensions through retaliation. We give the latter a much higher degree of confidence and suspect that a cycle of retaliation and Maximum Pressure would lead to a conditional probability of war between Iran and the U.S. of around 20%. This is a significant number, and it is critical if President Trump wants to apply credible threats of war to Iran. Bottom Line: Unlike North Korea, Iran has several levers it can use to retaliate against U.S. Maximum Pressure. Iran agreed to set these levers aside as negotiations with the Obama administration progressed, and it has kept them aside since the conclusion of the JCPOA. It is therefore easy for Tehran to resurrect them against the Trump administration. Critical among these levers is meddling in Iraq's internal affairs. Not only is Iraq critical to Iran's regional influence; it is also key to global oil supply. We suspect that a cycle of Iranian retaliation and American Maximum Pressure raises the probability of U.S.-Iran military confrontation to 20%. We will be looking at several key factors in assessing whether the U.S. and Iran are heading towards a confrontation. To that end, we have compiled a U.S.-Iran confrontation checklist (Table 1). Table 1Will The U.S. Attack Iran? Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Investment Implications Over the past several years, there have been many geopolitical crises in the Middle East. We have tended to fade most of them, from a perspective of a geopolitical risk premium applied to oil prices. This is because we always seek the second derivative of any geopolitical event. In the context of the Middle East, by "second derivative" we mean that we are interested in whether the market impact of a new piece of information - of a new geopolitical event - will amount to more than just a random perturbation with ephemeral, decaying, market implications. To determine the potential of new information to catalyze a persistent market risk premium or discount, we investigate whether it changes the way things change in a given region or context. In 2015, we identified three factors that we believe are critical for a geopolitical event in the Middle East to have such second derivative implications, and thus global market implications.16 These are: Oil supply: The event should impact current global oil supply either directly or through a clear channel of contagion. Renewed sanctions against Iran do so directly. So would Iranian retaliation in Iraq or the Persian Gulf. Geography: The event should occur in a geography that is of existential significance to one of the regional or global players. Re-imposed sanctions obviously directly impact Iran as they could increase domestic political crisis. A potential Iranian proxy-war in Iraq would be highly relevant to Saudi Arabia, which considers Iraq as a vital buffer with Iran. Sectarian contagion: The event should exacerbate sectarian conflict - Sunni vs. Shia - which is more likely to lead contagion than tribal conflict such as the Libyan Civil War. A renewed U.S.-Iran tensions check all of our factors. The risk is therefore real and should be priced by the market through a geopolitical risk premium. In addition, Iranian sanctions could tighten up the outlook for oil markets in 2019 by 400,000-600,000 b/d, reversing most of the production gains that Iran has made since 2016 (Chart 9). This is a problem given that the enormous oversupply of crude oil and oil products held in inventories has already been significantly cut. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy and Energy Sector Strategy teams believe that global petroleum inventories will be further reduced in 2019 (Chart 10). Chart 9Current And Future Iran##BR##Production Is At Risk Current And Future Iran Production Is At Risk Current And Future Iran Production Is At Risk Chart 10Tighter Markets And Lower Inventories,##BR##Keep Forward Curves Backwardated Tighter Markets And Lower Inventories, Keep Forward Curves Backwardated Tighter Markets And Lower Inventories, Keep Forward Curves Backwardated What about the hints from the OPEC 2.0 alliance that they would surge production in light of supply loss from Iran? Oil prices fell on the belief OPEC 2.0 could easily restore 1.8 MMb/d of production that they agreed to hold off the market since early 2017. Our commodity strategists have always considered the full number to be an illusion that consists of 1.2 MMb/d of voluntary cuts and around 500,000 b/d of natural production declines that were counted as "cuts" so that the cartel could project an image of greater collaboration than it actually achieved (Chart 11). In fact, some of the lesser "contributors" to the OPEC cut pledged to lower 2017 production by ~400,000 b/d, but are facing 2018 production levels that are projected to be ~700,000 b/d below their 2016 reference levels, and 2019 production levels are estimated to decline by another 200,000 b/d (Chart 12). Furthermore, renewed Iran-U.S. tensions may only be the second-most investment-relevant geopolitical risk for oil markets. Our commodity team expects Venezuelan production to fall to 1.2 MMb/d by the end of 2018 and to 1 MMb/d by the end of 2019, but these production levels could turn out to be optimistic (Chart 13). Chart 11Primary OPEC 2.0 Members Are Producing##BR##1.0 MMb/d Below Pre-Cut Levels Primary OPEC 2.0 Members Are Producing 1.0 MMb/d Below Pre-Cut Levels Primary OPEC 2.0 Members Are Producing 1.0 MMb/d Below Pre-Cut Levels Chart 12Secondary##BR##OPEC 2.0 Secondary OPEC 2.0 "Contributors" Can't Even Reach Their Quotas Secondary OPEC 2.0 "Contributors" Can't Even Reach Their Quotas Chart 13Venezuela Is##BR##A Bigger Risk Venezuela Is A Bigger Risk Venezuela Is A Bigger Risk 2H18, 2019 Oil Forecasts BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy updated its forecast last week, after the leaders of OPEC 2.0 indicated member states would be considering putting as much as 1mm b/d back on the market, following the price run-up accurately called from the beginning of this year. KSA and Russian are not being explicit about what they intend to do. In the background are the U.S.'s renewed Iran sanctions discussed above, which could remove ~ 500k b/d from the export markets by the end of 1H19, and the increasingly likely collapse of Venezuela's exports, which could remove ~ 1mm b/d. Against this, we have production in the U.S. shales increasing this year and next by ~ 1.3 - 1.4mm b/d to offset these potential losses, but even there we're seeing problems getting the shale oil out of the U.S.17 That's why CES went to an ensemble forecast, and will keep it in place as the market continues to process these conflicting signals (Chart 14). While some production will be restored to the market this year, it will be a drawn-out process, given CES's view OPEC 2.0 does not want to undo the hard work it took to drain OECD oil inventories (Chart 15). CES's Brent forecast was lowered $2/bbl in 2H18 and $7/bbl in 2019 to $76/bbl and to $73/bbl, respectively. CES's WTI forecast for 2H18 also was lowered $2/bbl to $70/bbl, while our 2019 forecast is now at $67/bbl, down $5/bbl vs. our previous forecast. Chart 14Factors In BCA's Ensemble Forecast Factors In BCA's Ensemble Forecast Factors In BCA's Ensemble Forecast Chart 15Balances Will Loosen If Supply Increases Balances Will Loosen If Supply Increases Balances Will Loosen If Supply Increases CES continues to expect continued strength on the demand side, with global oil consumption growing 1.7mm b/d. This will be driven by steady income growth in EM economies. One of the principal gauges CES uses to assess EM demand - import volumes - continues to move higher on a year-on-year basis, signaling incomes continue to expand (Chart 16). EM growth accounts for 1.3 of the 1.7mm b/d of growth we're expecting in 2018 and 2019. In forthcoming research, CES will be looking more deeply into the evolution of demand and the threat - if any - higher prices pose for EM growth. As was noted in last week's CES publication,17 consumers in many states no longer are shielded from high oil prices, as they were in the past: Governments around the world used the collapse in prices beginning in 2014 to remove/reduce fuel subsidies. This changes the dynamics of EM oil demand considerably, even if governments feel compelled to step into markets and order suppliers to not pass through the entire price increase. OPEC 2.0's leaders - KSA and Russia - appear united in their view of what is required to keep oil markets balanced over the long haul, so as not to disincentivize consumers from purchasing cars and trucks and the motor fuel required to run them. But over the short term, their goals differ. KSA is looking to IPO Saudi Aramco - next year, according to the latest reports - and this sale would most definitely benefit from higher prices. Indeed, KSA's oil minister Khalid al-Falih appeared to be comfortable with prices pushing toward $80/bbl recently. Russia's energy minister, Alexander Novak, has said in the past he favors an oil price somewhere between $50 and $60/bbl. CES continues to believe the dominant price risks remain on the upside - at 28.31% and 12.12%, markets continue to underestimate the probability Brent prices will trade above $80 and $90/bbl this year and next (Chart 17). Chart 16Strong EM Commodity Demand Expected,##BR##As Incomes And Imports Continue To Grow Strong EM Commodity Demand Expected, As Incomes And Imports Continue To Grow Strong EM Commodity Demand Expected, As Incomes And Imports Continue To Grow Chart 17Oil Markets Continue To Underestimate##BR##Upside Price Risks In 2H18 And 2019 Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Bottom Line: A renewal of U.S. - Iran tensions throws up real risks that are not being fully priced by the oil markets at present. They raise the probability global oil supplies out of the Middle East will be directly threatened, and that tensions in Iran and Iraq will flare into proxy wars. Such an outcome would be highly relevant to Saudi Arabia, which considers Iraq as a vital buffer with Iran. Lastly, rising tensions could exacerbate sectarian conflict in the Middle East as a whole, particularly along the Sunni - Shia divide, which is more likely to lead contagion than tribal conflict such as the Libyan Civil War. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 The JCPOA was concluded in Vienna on July 14, 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States), plus Germany (the "+1" of the P5+1). 3 BCA's Senior Commodity & Energy Strategist Robert P. Ryan has given the name "OPEC 2.0" to the Saudi-Russian alliance that is focused on regaining a modicum of control over the rate at which U.S. shale-oil resources are developed. Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "KSA's, Russia's End Game: Contain U.S. Shale Oil," dated March 30, 2017; and "The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One?" dated April 6, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 "Breakout" nuclear capacity is defined here as having enough uranium enriched at lower levels, such as at 20%, to produce sufficient quantities of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) required for a nuclear device. The often-reported amount of 20% enriched uranium required for breakout capacity is 200kg. However, the actual amount of uranium required depends on the number of centrifuges being employed and their efficiency. In our 2013 report, we gauged that Iran could produce enough HEU within 4-5 weeks at the Fordow facility to develop a weapon, which means that it had effectively reached "breakout capacity." 5 Please see International Atomic Energy Agency, "Implementation Of The NPT Safeguards Agreement And Relevant Provisions Of Security Council Resolutions In The Islamic Republic Of Iran," IAEA Board Report, dated August 28, 2013, available at www.iaea.org. 6 Although, in a move designed to increase pressure on Iran and its main trade partners, the Obama administration sold Israel the GBU-28 bunker-busting ordinance. That specific ordinance is very powerful, but still not capable enough to penetrate Fordow. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: Paradigm Shift," dated November 13, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Special Report, "Crisis In The Persian Gulf: Investment Implications," dated March 1, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 There are four U.S. Navy Avenger-class minesweepers based in Bahrain as part of the joint U.S.-U.K. TF-52. This number has been the same since 2012, when they were deployed to the region. 10 Particularly crippling for Iran's economy was the EU oil embargo imposed in January 2012, effective from July of that year, and the banning of Iranian financial institutions from participating in the SWIFT system in March 2012. 11 The Guardian Council of the Constitution is a 12-member, unelected body wielding considerable power in Iran. It has consistently disqualified reformist candidates from running in elections, which makes its approval of Rouhani's candidacy all the more significant. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Reality Check: Israel Will Not Bomb Iran (Ever)," dated August 14, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 The NATO war with Yugoslavia in 1999 reveals how challenging SEAD missions can be if the adversary refuses to engage its air defense systems. The U.S. and its NATO allies bombed Serbia and its forces for nearly three months with limited effectiveness against the country's surface-to-air capabilities. The Serbian military simply refused to turn on its radar installations, making U.S. AGM-88 HARM air-to-surface anti-radiation missiles, designed to home in on electronic transmissions coming from radar systems, ineffective. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Trump Re-Establishes America's 'Credible Threats,'" dated April 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Insights From The Road - The Rest Of The World," dated September 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: A Tale Of Red Herrings And Black Swans," dated October 14, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "OPEC 2.0 Guiding To Higher Output; Volatility Set To Rise ... Again," published May 31, 2018.It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017 Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict Iraq Is The Prize In U.S. - Iran Sanctions Conflict

Highlights Will A Rising U.S. Dollar Alter The Fed's Tightening Plans? U.S. economic growth appears to be accelerating, the labor market continues to tighten, core inflation is approaching the Fed's target and wage growth is grinding higher. A much higher dollar is needed to seriously derail any of those trends. Will The Italian Turmoil Alter The ECB's Tapering Plans? The ECB has been vocal about separating a decision to taper its asset purchases from any subsequent decision to hike interest rates. Delaying the taper would not have a meaningful impact on boosting euro area economic growth, but keeping policy rates stable for longer would help support the recovery at a time of increasing divergence of inflation rates within the euro area. Feature Chart of the WeekThe Year Of Living Dangerously The Year Of Living Dangerously The Year Of Living Dangerously The latter half of May was a wild wide for global financial markets, which had finally shown signs of healing after the VIX shock from earlier in the year. The cause this time was Italian political turmoil as the populist 5-Star Movement/League coalition attempted to form a government full of fiscal largesse, sprinkled with a hint of euroskepticism. Investors got spooked into thinking that a 2011-style euro "redenomination" (i.e. breakup) risk premium might once again need to be priced into Peripheral government bond yields. The rout in Italian BTPs felt like a classic sovereign debt crisis, emerging markets style. There were even reports of Italian banks providing no price quotes for Italian debt on electronic trading platforms - the 21st Century version of dealers "not answering their phones" during a crisis. All that was missing was an IMF delegation heading to Rome with checkbook in hand. The announcement late last week that the coalition would get another shot at forming a government, rather than throwing Italy into fresh elections that could turn into a referendum on euro membership, restored order to Italian financial markets. The meltdown in Italian yields was almost as rapid as the melt-up, with the 2-year BTP yield ending last week around 1%, almost two full percentage points lower than the peak in yields seen just a few days earlier, but still much higher than the sub-zero yields seen as recently as May 15th. We made a timely decision to cut our recommended stance on Italian debt to underweight two weeks and we are maintaining that call despite the respite from the political turmoil.1 (NOTE: we are putting out a joint Special Report next week with our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy on June 13th, a day later than our usual Tuesday publishing slot, which will discuss the political outlook for Peripheral Europe and what it potentially means for their bond markets). Our more pessimistic view on Italian bonds was based on our assessment that Italian growth was slowing and would continue to do so. For a country like Italy with a large debt stock and structurally low growth, cyclical downturns always lead to increased worries about debt sustainability. Coming at a time when the ECB is looking to begin the long process of exiting its hyper-easy policies, the growth and monetary backdrop was also becoming more challenging for Italian government bonds. The same thing can be said for the rest of the world. The rapid coordinated acceleration in global growth seen in 2017 has clearly peaked, as has the pace of central bank asset purchases that helped support that recovery through low bond yields (Chart of the Week). The growth convergence has turned into a divergence between growth in the still-strong U.S. and most other major economies. This poses a new threat to financial markets - a rising U.S. dollar - which, combined with some cooling of global growth, is already triggering underperformance of emerging market assets. So after the tumultuous market price action of the past few weeks, we think the most critical potential impact on the direction of bond yields, and our recommended below-benchmark overall portfolio duration stance, can be boiled down to two big questions. Will A Rising U.S. Dollar Alter The Fed's Tightening Plans? NO. The U.S. economy continues to exhibit impressive resilience of late, even as the rest of the world has seen some softening in growth. The Payrolls report for May released last Friday showed another sturdy gain of 223,000 jobs, with upward revisions of 15,000 to the prior two months. This pushed the unemployment rate to 3.8% - the lowest level since April 2000 - while boosting the annual growth in Average Hourly Earnings up to 2.7% (Chart 2). The overall employment/population ratio also inched higher. Both wage growth and the employment/population ratio are well below the peaks seen in the past two business cycles, even with similarly low levels of unemployment. During those cycles, the Fed was forced to raise the funds rate to restrictive levels to cool growth to rein in overshooting inflation. The real fed funds rate was consistently above equilibrium measures like the Williams-Laubach "r-star" (bottom panel), which eventually crimped growth and led to a recession in both cases. In the current cycle, wage inflation is struggling to reach 3% and core PCE inflation at 1.8% has still not returned back to the Fed's 2% target. There is no need for the Fed to push harder on the brakes by raising rates faster than inflation is accelerating and pushing the real rate above r-star. If a growing economy continues to absorb labor market slack, however, the Fed could be chasing a higher level of r-star to prevent inflation from continuing to accelerate (bottom panel). Looking ahead, it does look like the Fed will continue to play a bit of catch-up to an accelerating U.S. economy. Leading economic indicators (both from the OECD and Conference Board), as well as our forward-looking models for employment and capital spending, all point to faster growth in the next couple of quarters (Chart 3). This will only support the case for the Fed to continue with its current rate "measured" pace of one rate hike per quarter over the next year. Chart 2Labor Market Tightening##BR##Leads To Fed Tightening Labor Market Tightening Leads To Fed Tightening Labor Market Tightening Leads To Fed Tightening Chart 3U.S. Growth Still##BR##In Good Shape U.S. Growth Still In Good Shape U.S. Growth Still In Good Shape With the U.S. dollar now reconnecting to the widening interest rate differentials between the U.S. and other major economies, there is a risk that the implied tightening of monetary conditions from a higher greenback could limit the need for the Fed to continue with its rate hike plans. Yet at the moment, the trade-weighted dollar is still not accelerating on a year-over-year basis, in contrast to the +15% appreciation seen during the 2014/15 dollar bull run (Chart 4). At the peak of that episode, net exports were a drag on real GDP growth of -1% and headline CPI inflation hit 0% (aided by collapsing oil prices). While an appreciation of that magnitude is unlikely, it would still take a much larger increase in the dollar to meaningfully dent growth in a way that could cause the Fed to pause on the rate hikes. A bigger dollar rally could also raise financial instability, primarily by hitting emerging markets where currency weakness versus the dollar would trigger tighter monetary policy and slower growth. That is certainly a risk for the Fed to consider. Yet given the underlying strength of the U.S. economy today, the Fed would only react to any turmoil in emerging markets if it meaningfully impacted U.S. financial markets, but not before then. While the Fed is still likely to continue on its rate hike path over the rest of 2018, the market has largely discounted that outcome - even after the late May decline in U.S. interest rates on the back of Italy-fueled risk-aversion (Chart 5). The market is still not completely priced to the Fed's interest rate projections over the next year, however, which does raise the potential for a return to the +3% level on the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield that was seen before the Italy crisis flared up. However, our colleagues at our sister publication, BCA U.S. Bond Strategy, continue to point out the risks to a continued near-term period of declining (or at least, consolidating) Treasury yields given persistent short positioning in the Treasury market at a time of slowing data surprises (Chart 6). We remain bearish on Treasuries over a strategic horizon, however. Chart 4USD Rally Not Yet##BR##Enough To Impact The U.S. USD Rally Not Yet Enough To Impact The U.S. USD Rally Not Yet Enough To Impact The U.S. Chart 5Market Still Priced Close To##BR##The Fed's Interest Rate Projections Market Still Priced Close To The Fed's Interest Rate Projections Market Still Priced Close To The Fed's Interest Rate Projections Chart 6UST Yields Likely To##BR##Consolidate In The Near-Term UST Yields Likely To Consolidate In The Near-Term UST Yields Likely To Consolidate In The Near-Term Bottom Line: U.S. economic growth appears to be accelerating, the labor market continues to tighten, core inflation is approaching the Fed's target and wage growth is grinding higher. A much higher dollar is needed to seriously derail any of those trends. Will The Italian Turmoil Alter The ECB's Tapering Plans? PROBABLY NOT. The latest volatility in European financial markets stemming from the Italy crisis came at a difficult time for the ECB. The central bank has been incrementally preparing the market for an eventual tapering of its asset purchase program after it expires in September. Yet the slowdown in euro area growth in the first quarter of the year, amid sluggish readings on inflation, has raised some doubt that the ECB would even be able to announce any sort of withdrawal of monetary stimulus. Chart 7Market Buying Into The ECB's##BR##'Low Rates For Longer' Message Market Buying Into The ECB's 'Low Rates For Longer' Message Market Buying Into The ECB's 'Low Rates For Longer' Message It is now a consensus expectation that the ECB will taper its net new asset purchases fully to zero by the end of 2018. What has moved, however, is the market's expectation for the timing of the first rate hike by the ECB. That has now been pushed out to April 2020 after the Italy turbulence (Chart 7). The ECB has been consistently signaling to the markets that it views the two decisions - tapering and rate hikes - as separate choices to make. In other words, tapering does not mean that rate hikes will come soon afterward. So far, the market appears to be listening to the ECB's signals by moving out the timing of any rate hike to nearly two full years from today. Given the magnitude of the slide in euro area growth seen in the first few months of 2018 (2nd panel), that may be taken as a sign that the market thinks the slump can continue. This also is consistent with the market believing the ECB's views on seeing through any impact on euro area inflation from changes in oil prices and the euro. The annual growth of the Brent oil price, in euro terms, has climbed to nearly 50% over the past few months (3rd panel). There has always been a strong correlation of that growth rate to overall headline euro area inflation, as evidenced by the early read on May CPI inflation released last week that came in at 1.9%. Yet core CPI inflation in the euro area is still only 1.1%, well below the ECB's inflation target of "just below" 2%. Market-based inflation expectations are still below the level as well, with the 5-year euro CPI swap, 5-years forward now sitting at 1.7%. So the market pricing is consistent with an ECB that will be very slow to begin raising interest rates. That would also be consistent with the behavior of the ECB when it comes to its past tightening cycles. In Chart 8, we show diffusion indices at a country level for euro area industrial production growth (as a proxy for economic growth), headline inflation and core inflation. These show the percentage of all euro area countries that are seeing accelerating growth or inflation versus those countries seeing slowing growth and inflation. A higher diffusion index means that any acceleration in growth or inflation is broad-based, and vice versa. Chart 8ECB Rate Hikes Happen During Broad-Based Inflation Upturns ECB Rate Hikes Happen During Broad-Based Inflation Upturns ECB Rate Hikes Happen During Broad-Based Inflation Upturns As can be seen in the chart, the ECB's past tightening cycles since the beginning of the euro in 1998 have all occurred when the diffusion indices for inflation have risen into the 60-80% zone. In other words, the ECB is more aggressive on lifting rates when a large majority of countries in the euro zone is seeing accelerating inflation. During those same tightening cycles, however, the diffusion indices for growth have been decelerating, suggesting less broad-based economic strength. The implication from this analysis is that the ECB cares more about inflation than growth when making its monetary policy decisions. The ECB's reputation for sometimes making overly hawkish policy mistakes, like in 2010-11, is well deserved. Looking ahead, the current readings on the diffusion indices for both growth and, more importantly, inflation are all quite depressed. This suggest that the slowing growth seen in the overall euro area data so far in 2018 has been broad-based, while the increase in the overall euro area inflation data has not been broad-based. This can be seen when looking at the some of the individual country data for the major core euro area countries (Chart 9) and Peripheral countries (Chart 10). For example, Netherlands and Portugal stand out as having inflation trends that are much weaker than the other countries. Yet the more divergent trends in euro area inflation does not mean that the ECB will decide to defer any decision to taper, however. The ECB will have to make that decision at either the June or July meetings, with the current program set to end in September. Absent a significant drop in euro area inflation, the ECB is still likely to signal a full taper by the end of the year. Yet even if they did extend the current program into 2019, at the same pace of 30 billion euros per month, this would likely not have a meaningful impact on the level of euro area bond yields. We have found that is the growth rate of those purchases, and not the absolute level, that is most correlated to the level of euro area bond yields (Chart 11). Even if the current program were to be extended to March 2019, to be followed by a tapering of net purchases to zero by September 2019, then the annual growth rate of the ECB's balance sheet (driven by the asset purchases) would remain mired below 10% - a far slower pace compared to the peak years of ECB bond buying. Chart 9Growth Convergence,##BR##Inflation Divergence In Core Europe... Growth Convergence, Inflation Divergence In Core Europe... Growth Convergence, Inflation Divergence In Core Europe... Chart 10And In##BR##Peripheral Europe And In Peripheral Europe And In Peripheral Europe Chart 11Extending ECB Bond Purchases##BR##Into 2019 Would Have Limited Impact Extending ECB Bond Purchases Into 2019 Would Have Limited Impact Extending ECB Bond Purchases Into 2019 Would Have Limited Impact In other words, an extension of the asset purchases would not drive euro area bond yields any lower, and would entail operational constraints on country sizes, etc. The ECB will have better success at driving down yields by keeping policy rates lower for longer, as it is signaling it will do. Bottom Line: The ECB has been vocal about separating a decision to taper its asset purchases from any subsequent decision to hike interest rates. Delaying the taper would not have a meaningful impact on boosting euro area economic growth, but keeping policy rates stable for longer would help support the recovery at a time of increasing divergence of inflation rates within the euro area. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Is It Partly Sunny Or Mostly Cloudy?", dated May 22nd 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Two Big Questions After Two Wild Weeks Two Big Questions After Two Wild Weeks Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns