Geopolitics

Highlights Global stocks are very vulnerable to a correction. But cyclically the Fed is committed to an inflation overshoot and the global economy is recovering. China’s fiscal-and-credit impulse fell sharply, which leaves global cyclical stocks and commodities exposed to a pullback. Beyond the near term, China’s need for political stability should prevent excessive policy tightening. The risk is frontloaded. China’s population census underscores one of our mega-themes: China’s domestic politics are unstable and can bring negative surprises. India’s state elections, held amid a massive COVID-19 wave, suggest that the ruling party is still favored in 2024. This implies policy continuity. Stick with a bullish cyclical bias but be prepared to shift if China commits a policy mistake. Feature Chart 1Inflation Rears Its Head Global markets shuddered this week in the face of a strong core inflation print in the US as well as broader fears as inflation rears its head after a long slumber (Chart 1). Cyclically we still expect investors to rotate away from US stocks into international stocks and for the US dollar to fall as the global economy recovers (Chart 2). However, this view also entails that emerging market stocks should start outperforming their developed market peers, which has not panned out so far this year. Emerging markets are not only technology-heavy and vulnerable to rising US bond yields but also further challenged now by China’s stimulus having peaked. Chart 2Equity Market Trembles Chart 3Global Economy And Sentiment Recovering Chart 4Global Cyclicals Versus Defensives Wavering The one thing we can rely on is that the COVID-19 vaccine rollout will continue to enable a global growth recovery (Chart 3). The US dollar is signaling as much. The greenback bounced in the first quarter on US relative growth outperformance but it has since fallen back. A falling dollar is positive for cyclical stocks relative to defensives, although cyclicals are flagging that the reflation trade is overdone in the near term (Chart 4). China’s growth now becomes the critical focal point. A policy mistake in China would upset the bullish cyclical view. China’s tightening of monetary and fiscal policy is a major global policy risk that we have highlighted this year and it is now materializing. However, we have also highlighted the constraints to tightening. At present China is standing right on the threshold of overtightening according to our benchmarks. If China tightens further, we will take a fundamentally more defensive view. Also in this report we will review the results of China’s population census and the implications of India’s recent state elections in the face of the latest big wave of COVID-19 infections. We are not making any changes to our bullish view on India yet but we are putting it on watch. China: The Overtightening Risk China’s troubles stem from the ongoing change of its economic model from reliance on foreign trade to reliance on domestic demand. This was a strategic decision that the Communist Party made prior to the rise of President Xi Jinping. Xi also has come to embody it and reinforce it through his strategic vision and confrontation with the United States. Beijing’s goal was to manage a smooth and stable transition. The financial turmoil of 2015 and the trade war of 2018-19 jeopardized that goal but policymakers ultimately prevailed. Then COVID-19 broke out and caused the first real economic contraction since the 1970s. While China contained the virus and bounced back with another massive round of stimulus (13.8% of GDP from the onset of the trade war to the 2021 peak), it now faces an even more difficult transition. Chart 5China's Rising Propensity To Save The need to improve quality of life is more urgent given that potential GDP has slowed. The need to contain systemic financial risk is more urgent given the big new increase in debt. And the need to diversify the economy is more urgent given that the US is now creating a coalition of democracies to confront China over a range of policies. The spike in the “marginal propensity to save” among Chinese people and corporations – as measured by the ratio of long-term cash deposits to short-term deposits – is an indication that the country is beset by troubles and animal spirits are depressed (Chart 5). China’s fiscal-and-credit impulse is turning down after the large expansion in 2018-21. Policymakers have signaled since last year that they would withdraw emergency stimulus and now the impact is apparent in the hard data. China’s money, credit, and combined credit-and-fiscal impulses all correlate with economic growth after a six-to-nine-month lag. This is true regardless of which indicators one uses for China’s money and credit cycles and economic activity (Charts 6A and 6B). China’s economic momentum is peaking and will become a headwind for the global economy later this year and in 2022, even though the world is otherwise enjoying the tailwinds of vaccination and economic reopening. Chart 6AChina’s Fiscal-And-Credit Impulse Falls Sharply … Chart 6B… As Do Money-And-Credit Impulses The downshift in the fiscal-and-credit impulse portends a slowdown in demand for commodities, materials, and other goods that China imports, especially for domestic consumption. (Chinese imports of parts and inputs that go into its manufacturing exports to the rest of the world look healthier as the rest of the world recovers.) This shift will make it hard for high-flying metals prices and other China plays, such as Swedish stocks, to continue rising without a correction (Chart 7). Speculative positioning is heavily in favor of commodities at the moment. The divergence between China and the metals markets that it dominates looks untenable in the short run (Chart 8). Chart 7China Reflation Trades Near Peaks Chart 8Money Cycle And Commodity Prices Clash The global shift to green or renewable energy systems (i.e. de-carbonization) is bullish for metals, especially copper, but will not be able to make up for the fall in Chinese demand in the short run, as our Emerging Markets Strategy has shown. China’s domestic uses of copper for construction and industry make up about 56.5% of global copper demand while the green energy race – namely the production of solar panels, windmills, electric cars – makes up only about 3.5% of global demand. This number somewhat understates the green program since re-gearing and retrofitting existing systems and structures is also projected, such as with electricity grids. But the point is that a drop in China’s copper consumption will work against the big increase in American and European consumption – especially given that the US infrastructure program will not kick in until 2022 at the earliest. Hence global copper demand will slow over the next 12 months in response to China even though the rest of the world’s demand is rising. Chinese policymakers have not yet signaled that they are worried about overtightening policy or that they will ease policy anew. The Politburo meeting at the end of April did not contain a major policy change from the Central Economic Work Conference in December or the Government Work Report in March (Table 1). But if there was a significant difference, it lay in reducing last year’s sense of emergency further while projecting some kind of scheme to hold local government officials accountable for hidden debt. The implication is continued tight policy – and hence the risk of overtightening remains substantial. Table 1China’s Recent Macroeconomic Policy Statements: Removing Stimulus Chart 9Benchmarks For China's Policy Tightening True, the tea leaves of the April meeting can be read in various ways. The April statement left out phrases about “maintaining necessary policy support” from the overarching macroeconomic policy guidance, which would imply less support for the economy. But it also left out the goal of keeping money supply (M2) and credit growth (total social financing) in line with nominal GDP growth, which could be seen as enabling a new uptick in credit growth. However, the People’s Bank of China did maintain this credit goal in its first quarter monetary policy report, so one cannot be sure. Notice that according to this rubric, China is right on the threshold of “overtightening” policy that we have utilized to measure the risk (Chart 9). Based on Chinese policymaking over the past two decades, we would expect any major inflection point to be announced at the July Politburo meeting, not the April one. We do not consider April a major change from the preceding meetings – nor does our China Investment Strategy. Therefore excessive policy tightening remains a genuine risk for the Chinese and global economy over the next 12 months. Our checklist for excessive tightening underscores this point (Table 2). Table 2Checklist For Chinese Policy Tightening China’s fiscal-and-credit downshift is occurring in advance of the twentieth national party congress, which will take place throughout 2022 and culminate with the rotation of the top leadership (the Politburo Standing Committee) in the autumn. The economy is sufficiently stimulated for the Communist Party’s hundredth birthday on July 1 of this year, so policymakers are focused on preventing excesses. Financial risk prevention, anti-monopoly regulation, and tamping down on the property bubble are the orders of the day. The increase in corporate and government bond defaults and bankruptcies underscore the leadership’s willingness to push forward with economic restructuring and reform, which is well-attested in recent years (Chart 10). Chart 10Creative Destruction In China Investors cannot assume that the party congress in 2022 is a reason for the leadership to ease policy. The contrary occurred in the lead-up to the 2017 party congress. However, investors also cannot assume that China will overtighten and sink its own economy ahead of such an important event. Stability will be the goal – as was the case in 2017 and previous party congresses – and this means that policy easing will occur at some point if the current round of tightening becomes too painful financially and economically. China-linked assets are vulnerable in the short run until policymakers reach their inflection point. Incidentally, the approach of the twentieth national party congress will be a magnet for political intrigue and shocking events. The top leader normally sacks a prominent rival ahead of a party congress as a show of force in the process of promoting his faction. The government also tightens media controls and cracks down on dissidents, who may speak up or protest around the event. But in 2022 the stakes are higher. President Xi was originally expected to step down in 2022 but now he will not, which will arouse at least some opposition. Moreover, under Xi, China has undertaken three historic policy revolutions: it is adopting a strongman leadership model, to the detriment of the collective leadership model under the two previous presidents; it is emphasizing economic self-sufficiency, at the expense of liberalization and openness; and it is emphasizing great power status, at the expense of cooperation with the United States and its allies. Bottom Line: Global equities, commodities, and “China plays” stand at risk of a substantial correction as a result of China’s policy tightening. Our base case is that China will avoid overtightening but the latest money and credit numbers run up against our threshold for changing that view. Another sharp drop in these indicators will necessitate a change. China’s Disappearing Workforce Ultimately one of the constraints on overtightening policy is the decline in China’s potential GDP growth as a result of its shrinking working-age population. China’s seventh population census came out this week and underscored the deep structural changes affecting the country and its economy. Population growth over the past ten years slowed to 5.4%, the lowest rate since the first census in 1953. The fertility rate fell to 1.3 in 2020, lower than the 2.1 replacement rate and the 1.8 target set when Chinese authorities relaxed the one-child policy in 2016. The fertility rate is also lower than the World Bank’s estimates (1.7 in 2019) and even Japan’s rate. The birthrate (births per 1,000 people) also fell, with the number of newborns in 2020 at the lowest point since 1961, the year of the Great Famine. The birth rate has converged to that of high-income countries, implying that economic development is having the same effect of discouraging childbearing in China, although China is less developed than these countries. Chart 11China’s Working Population Falling Faster Than Japan’s In 1990s The youngest cohort rose from 16.6% to 17.95% of the population, the oldest cohort rose 8.9% in 2010 to 13.5% today, while the working-age cohort fell from 75.3% to 68.6%. The working-age population peaked in 2010 and fell by 6.79 percentage points over the past ten years. By contrast, Japan’s working-age population peaked in 1992 and fell 2.18 percentage points in the subsequent decade (Chart 11). In other words China is experiencing the demographic transition that hit Japan in the early 1990s – but China’s working-age population might fall even faster. The country is experiencing this tectonic socioeconomic shift at a lower level of per capita wealth than Japan had attained. The demographic challenge will put pressure on China’s socioeconomic and political system. The China miracle, like other Asian miracles, was premised on the use of export-manufacturing to generate large piles of savings that could be repurposed for national development. The decline in China’s working-age population coincides with economic development and a likely decline in the saving rate over the long run. This is shown in Chart 12, which shows two different pictures of China’s working population alongside the gross national saving rate. As China’s dependency ratio rises the saving rate will fall and fewer funds will be available for repurposing. The cost of capital will rise and economic restructuring will accelerate. In the case of Japan, the demographic shift coincided with the 1990 financial crisis and then a nationwide shift in economic behavior. The saving rate fell as the economy evolved but the savings that were generated still exceeded investment due to the shortfall in private demand and the pressure of large debt burdens. Companies focused on paying down debt rather than expanding investment and production (Chart 13). All of this occurred when the external environment was benign, whereas China faces a similar demographic challenge in the context of rising economic pressure due to geopolitical tensions. Chart 12Chinese Workers Getting Scarcer Chart 13High Savings Enable Debt Splurge Until Debt Overwhelms China has so far avoided a debilitating financial crisis and collapse in real estate prices that would saddle the country with a traumatizing liquidity trap. The Chinese authorities are painfully aware of the danger of the property bubble and are therefore eager to prevent financial excesses and curb bubble-like activity. This is what makes the risk of overtightening significant. But a mistake in either direction can lead to a slide into deflation. The Xi administration has stimulated the economy whenever activity slowed too much or financial instability threatened to get out of hand, as noted above, but this is a difficult balancing act, which is why we monitor the risk of excessive tightening so closely. A few other notable takeaways from China’s population census include: The two-child policy is not succeeding so far. COVID-19 might have had a negative effect on fertility but it could not have affected births very much due to the timing. So the trends cannot be distorted too much by the pandemic. Rapid urbanization continues, with the rate hitting 64% of the population, up 14 percentage points from 2010. Policy discussions are emphasizing lifting the retirement age; providing financial incentives for having babies; a range of price controls to make it more affordable to have babies, most notably by suppressing the property bubble; and measures to ensure that property prices do not fall too rapidly in smaller cities as migration from the country continues. China’s ethnic minority population, which consists of 9% of the total population, grew much faster (10% rate) over the past decade than the Han majority, which makes up 91% of the population (growing at a 5% rate). Minorities are exempt from the one-child (and two-child) policy. Yet ethnic tensions have arisen, particularly in autonomous regions like Xinjiang, prompting greater international scrutiny of China’s policies toward minorities. China’s demographic challenge is widely known but the latest census reinforces the magnitude of the challenge. China’s potential growth is falling while the rising dependency ratio underscores social changes that will make greater demands of government. Greater fiscal and social spending needs will require difficult economic tradeoffs and unpopular political decisions. Economic change and the movement of people will also deepen regional and wealth disparities. All of these points underscore one of our consistent Geopolitical Strategy mega-themes: China’s domestic political risks are underrated. Bottom Line: China’s 2020 census reinforces the demographic decline that lies at the root of China’s rising socioeconomic and political challenges. While China has a strong central government with power consolidated under a single ruling party, and a track record of managing its various challenges successfully in recent decades, nevertheless the magnitude of the changes happening are overwhelming and will bring negative economic and political surprises. India: State Elections Not A Turning Point Against Modi At the height of the second COVID-19 wave in India, elections were held in five Indian states. Results for the state of West Bengal were most important. West Bengal is a large state, accounting for nearly a-tenth of legislators at India’s national assembly, and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of Prime Minister Narendra Modi had declared that it would win nearly 70% of the 294 seats there. In the event West Bengal delivered a landslide victory for the All India Trinamool Congress (AITMC), a regional party. Despite the fact that the AITMC was facing a two term anti-incumbency, the AITMC seat count hit an all-time high. Few had seen this coming as evinced by the fact that AITMC’s performance exceeded forecasts made by most pollsters. What should investors make of the BJP’s loss in this key state? Was it a backlash against Modi’s handling of the pandemic? Does it portend a change of government and national policy in the general elections in 2024? Not really. Here we highlight three key takeaways: Takeaway #1: The BJP’s performance was noteworthy Chart 14India: BJP Gets Foot In Door In West Bengal Whilst the BJP fell short of its goals in West Bengal, the state is not a BJP stronghold. The BJP is known to have natural traction in Hindi-speaking regions of India and West Bengal is a non-Hindi speaking state where the BJP was traditionally seen as an outsider. Also, this state is known to be unusually unwilling to accept change. For instance, before AITMC, the Left was in power for a record spell of 34 years in this state. In such a setting, the BJP’s performance in 2021 in West Bengal is noteworthy: the party increased its seat count to 77 seats, compared to only 3 seats in 2016 (Chart 14). This performance now catapults the BJP into becoming the key opposition party in West Bengal. It also indicates that the BJP may take time but has what it takes to build traction in states that are not traditional strongholds. Given that it achieved this feat in a state where it has little historic strength, its performance is noteworthy as a sign that the BJP remains a force to be reckoned with. Takeaway #2: The BJP’s popularity slipped but it is still favored to retain power in 2024 Whilst discontent against the BJP is rising on account of its poor handling of COVID-19 and the accompanying economic distress, there remains no viable alternative to the BJP at the national level. The recent state elections, not only in West Bengal, confirm that the opposition Indian National Congress (INC) is yet to get its act in order. The Congress party collapsed from 44 seats in Bengal to 0 seats. More importantly, the Congress is yet to resolve two critical issues, i.e. the need to appoint or elect an internal leader with mass appeal, and the need to develop an identifiable policy agenda. The weakness of the Congress means that while the BJP’s seat count could diminish as against its 2019 peak performance, nevertheless our base-case scenario for 2024 remains that of a BJP-led government maintaining power in India. Policy continuity and the chance of some structural reform are still the base case. Takeaway #3: The rise and rise of India’s regional parties The rise of the BJP over the last decade has coincided with losses in seats by both the Congress party and India’s regional parties. However, the most recent round of state elections signals that the BJP cannot compress regional parties’ seat share drastically. For instance, in West Bengal, it managed to win 77 seats by itself but this was not at the expense of the AITMC, which is the dominant player in this state. In another large state where elections were held earlier this month, i.e. Tamil Nadu, control continues to fluctuate between two well-entrenched regional parties. Chart 15India: BJP Peaked In 2019 But Still Favored 2024 The 2019 general elections saw the share of regional parties (defined as all parties excluding the BJP and Congress) fall to 35% from the near 40% levels seen at the general elections of 2014 (Chart 15). The 2024 elections could in fact see regional parties’ seat share move up a notch as the BJP’s peak seat count could diminish from the highs of 2019. The coming rise of India’s regional parties is a trend rooted in a simple dynamic. With the BJP as a two-term incumbent in the 2024 elections, voters could choose to gratify regional parties at the margin, in the absence of any alternative to the BJP at the national level. The BJP remains in a position to be the single largest party in India in 2024 with a seat count in excess of the half-way mark. But could a situation arise where the ruling party pulls in a regional party to stay ahead of the half-way mark with a large buffer? Absolutely. But of course 2024 is a long way away. Managing COVID-19 and its economic fallout will make it harder than otherwise for the BJP to beat its 2019 performance. The next bout of key state elections in India are due in February 2022 and India’s largest state, Uttar Pradesh, will see elections. With the BJP currently in power in this Hindi-speaking state, the February 2022 elections will shed more light on BJP’s ability to mitigate the anti-incumbency effect of the pandemic and economic shock. Bottom-Line: BJP’s popularity in India has been shaken but not dramatically so. The BJP remains firmly in a position to be the single largest party in India with a seat count that should cross the half-way mark in 2024. So government stability is not a concern in this emerging market for now. In light of China’s domestic political risks, and India’s political continuity, we will maintain our India trades for the time being (Charts 16A and 16B). However, we are undertaking a review of India as a whole and will update clients with our conclusions in a forthcoming special report. Chart 16AStay Long Indian Bonds Versus EM Chart 16BStick To Long India / Short China Investment Takeaways Maintain near-term safe-haven trades. Close long natural gas futures for a 19.8% gain. Maintain cyclical (12-month) bullish positioning with a preference for value over growth stocks. Maintain long positions in commodities, including rare earth metals, and emerging markets. But be prepared to cut these trades if China overtightens policy according to our benchmarks. For now, continue to overweight Indian local currency bonds relative to emerging market peers and Indian stocks relative to Chinese stocks. But we are reviewing our bullish stance on India. Chart 17Cyber Security Stocks Perk Up Amid Tech Rout Stay long cyber security stocks – though continue to prefer aerospace and defense over cyber security as a geopolitical “back to work” trade. Cyber security stocks perked up relative to the tech sector during the general tech selloff over the past week. The large-scale Colonial Pipeline ransomware cyber attack in the US temporarily shuttered a major network that supplies about 45% of the East Coast’s fuel (Chart 17). Nevertheless the attack on critical infrastructure highlights that cyber security is a secular theme and investors should maintain exposure. Cyber stocks have outperformed tech in general since the vaccine discovery (Chart 18). Chart 18Cyber Security Is A Secular Theme Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Yushu Ma Research Associate yushu.ma@bcaresearch.com Ritika Mankar, CFA Editor/Strategist Ritika.Mankar@bcaresearch.com

Special Report

Highlights The Scottish parliamentary election does not present a near-term risk of a second referendum on Scottish independence. Independence is possible down the road but very unlikely due to a host of economic and geopolitical challenges still relevant in the twenty-first century. Book gains on long CHF-GBP. Go long FTSE 100 versus developed markets excluding the United States. Feature British equities have underperformed developed markets over the past decade – even if we exclude the market-leading United States (Chart 1). The British equity market is heavily concentrated in cyclical sectors like financials and materials and has a low concentration in information technology and communications services. As such the bourse has sprung to life since the advent of the COVID-19 vaccine and the prospect of a government-stimulated global growth recovery. In keeping with our strategic preference for value over growth we also look constructively at British equities. A potential source of geopolitical and political risk is Britain’s ongoing constitutional crisis, which flared up with the failed Scottish independence referendum in 2014 and the successful referendum to leave the EU in 2016. Tensions within the UK and between the UK and EU are part of the same problem – a loss of popular confidence and trust in the current nation-state and governing institutions in the aftermath of hyper-globalization.1 This constitutional crisis added insult to injury for UK stocks by jacking up policy uncertainty and undermining the attractiveness of domestic-oriented UK companies that suffered from trade disruptions with the European Union. Chart 1UK Referendums Added Insult To Injury Chart 2Post-Brexit Trading Range For GBP-EUR Now the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath have changed the global scene entirely and Brexit is no longer Britain’s chief concern. But there is still a lingering question over Scotland’s status. The Scottish question has recently weighed on the British pound and reinforced the new trading range for the GBP-EUR exchange rate in the aftermath of a “hard” exit from the European Union (Chart 2). Scotland voted for a new parliament on May 6 and the preliminary results are coming in as we go to press. The pro-independence Scottish National Party is still the most popular party and even if it falls short of a majority, as online betting markets expect, it has pro-independence allies with which it could form a coalition (Chart 3). Its leader, Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, has promised to pursue a second popular referendum on seceding from the United Kingdom by 2023. Chart 3Betting Markets Doubt Single-Party Majority For SNP British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, backed by a strong Conservative Party parliamentary majority, has vowed not to allow a second referendum, arguing that the 2014 plebiscite was supposed to lay the question to rest for a while. Scottish opinion in favor of secession stands at 43.6% today, right near the 44.7% that nationalists achieved in 2014 (Chart 4). Chart 4Support For Independence Ticks Down, Still Shy Of Majority Our takeaway is to fade the Scottish risk. Book gains on our long CHF-GBP tactical trade. Go long British equities relative to DM-ex-US on the expectation of global economic normalization, which is beneficially for the outwardly oriented British multinationals that dominate the British bourse. Does Scotland Have Grand Strategy? The history of Scotland is marked by internal differences that prevent it from achieving unity and independence. Even in the twenty-first century, when many factors have coalesced to make Scottish independence more likely than at any time since the eighteenth century, the 2014 referendum produced a 10% gap in favor of remaining in the United Kingdom. This majority is all the more compelling when viewed from the perspective of geography because cross-regional support for the union is clear (Map 1). Map 1Scottish Independence Referendum Result, 2014 Why is Scotland always divided? Because it is trapped by the sea and adjacent to a greater power, England. England is usually strong enough to keep Scotland from consolidating power and asserting control over its maritime and land borders. Specifically, Scotland contains a small population (at 5.5 million today) and small economic base (GBP 155 billion in economic output at the end of 2022) dispersed over an inconvenient geography. The low-lying plains around the Firth of Forth that form the historic core of Scotland share a porous border with England. The highlands provide a retreat for Scottish forces during times of conflict, which makes it extremely difficult for southern forces, whether Roman or Anglo-Saxon, to conquer Scotland. But the highlands are equally hard for any standalone Scottish state to rule. Meanwhile the western isles are even more remote from the seat of Scottish power and vulnerable to foreign maritime powers. Since England could never conquer Scotland, its solution was to coopt the Scottish elite, who reciprocated, culminating in a merger of the two monarchies and then the two states in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The British empire provided Scotland with peace, prosperity, and access to the rest of the world. History and geopolitics do not imply that Scottish independence is impossible, i.e. that union with the rest of Britain is inevitable and permanent. The Anglo-Scots union is only 314 or 418 years old, whereas Scotland existed as a recognizable kingdom for roughly six centuries prior to the joining of the crowns in 1603. It is entirely possible for Scotland to secede and break up the union known as Great Britain. The principle of rule by consent and modern democratic ideology make it difficult for London and Westminster to force Scotland into subjection like in the old days. In particular, American hegemony over Europe since WWII and the rise of the European Union have created a pathway for Scottish independence. England is no longer the indispensable gateway to peace and prosperity. Scotland can exist independently under the EU’s economic umbrella and the American security umbrella.   Europe has always played a major role in Scotland’s political fate and has always held the key to independence. Independence usually failed because European powers failed to devote large and steady resources to supporting Scotland militarily and economically. France was Scotland’s greatest patron and would lend its support for Scottish rebellion. But France also consistently failed Scotland (and Ireland) at critical junctures when independence might have been obtained. This is because France’s interests lay in distracting England rather than adopting Scotland. Chart 5Scottish Energy Production In Decline Today’s unified European continent could be a much greater patron than France ever was alone. The EU could assure Scotland of investment and access to markets even in the face of British resistance. However, the EU is still not politically unified: some members fear separatism in their own borders and therefore tend to oppose Scottish accession. It is possible that the EU could overcome this difficulty but only after a series of major events (on which more below). It took an American empire to clear the way for Irish independence. But Ireland has the moat of the Irish Sea – and the United Kingdom still retained Northern Ireland. Today the United States can be expected to keep its distance from quarrels within the UK or between the UK and EU. However, it does not have an interest in Scottish secession or any other disintegration of the UK, whether from a global security point of view (the West’s conflict with Russia) or even from the point of view of US grand strategy relative to Europe (prevention of a European empire that could challenge the US). An independent Scotland would struggle economically. Its declining base of fossil fuel reserves illustrates the problem of generating sufficient revenue to maintain the Scandinavian-style social welfare state that Scotland’s nationalists imagine (Chart 5). Scottish nationalists are keen to embrace renewable energy – and the Scottish Greens are pro-independence – yet Scotland is not a manufacturing powerhouse that will produce its own solar panels and windmills. In the face of economic difficulties, Scotland would become politically divided like it was for most of its history prior to union with England. England would revert to an obstructive or sabotaging role. It is telling that the Scottish voter turnout in the 2014 independence referendum was very strong – much stronger than in other recent elections and plebiscites, including the Brexit referendum in Scotland (Table 1). The implication is that it is much harder for Scotland to strike out on its own than it appears. Opinion polling cited above suggests that neither Brexit nor the COVID-19 pandemic has moved the needle decisively in the direction of independence. If anything it is the opposite. The Scottish National Party has lost momentum since 2014 and is losing momentum in advance of today’s local election, which has been pitched as the opportunity to make a second go at independence (Chart 6). Table 1Scotland: High Turnout In 2014 Independence Referendum Implies Firm Conclusion To Stay In UK Chart 6Scottish National Party Losing Momentum Just Ahead Of Holyrood Election Bottom Line: History suggests that the geopolitical and macroeconomic barriers to a unified and independent Scottish state are higher and stronger than they may appear at any given time, including the inevitable periods of tensions with England like today. The UK’s Saving Graces A fair question is whether the UK’s decision to leave the EU since 2016 has changed Scotland’s calculus. Brexit may also have affected the international context, reducing the EU’s willingness to intervene on the UK’s behalf and discourage Scottish ambitions. However, a handful of factors supports the continuation of the union despite Scotland’s grievances. The UK proved a boon amid COVID-19: While 62% of Scots voted against Brexit, the COVID-19 pandemic and recession have supplanted Brexit as the nation’s chief cause of concern. The UK and Scotland saw a higher rate of deaths during the biggest waves of the pandemic but now the pandemic is effectively over in the UK and Scotland, in stark contrast with the European Union (Chart 7). The UK has provided a net benefit to Scotland by inventing the vaccine and distributing it effectively (Chart 8). Scottish voters would have been worse off had they left the UK in 2014. Of course, Scottish nationalism is apparent in the fact that voters give the credit to Edinburgh while blaming London over its handling of the pandemic (Chart 9). But the underlying material reality – that being part of the UK provided a net benefit – will discourage independence sentiment. The Scottish Conservative Party and Labour Party are both in favor of sustaining the union and have benefited in opinion polling since the pandemic peaked. Chart 7COVID Deaths Collapse In ##br##United Kingdom Chart 8Scotland Benefited From UK Vaccine And Rollout   Chart 9Scots Praise Edinburgh, Blame London On COVID Handling Brexit is a cautionary economic tale: If Brexit is relevant to Scottish voters, it is not the source of grievance that it could have been. Prime Minister Boris Johnson achieved an exit and trade deal at the end of 2019-20 that largely preserves economic ties with the EU. True, the deal has problems that undermine the UK economy and enhance Scottish grievances. But these also serve as a warning to Scots who would attempt to exit the UK, highlighting the economic pitfalls of raising borders and barriers against one’s chief market. The UK’s trade is far more critical to Scotland’s economy than that of the EU (Chart 10).   Chart 10Major Constraint On Scottish Independence Unlike in the case of the UK and EU, Scotland shares the same currency and central bank with the UK. Scotland’s large banking sector stands to suffer drastically if the Bank of England ceases to be a lender of last resort. This would become a major problem at least until Scotland could be assured of admission into the EU and Euro Area. Otherwise redenomination into a national currency would deal an even greater financial and economic blow. Scots  would face a far more painful economic divorce from the UK than the UK faced with the EU. The UK’s fiscal blowout helped Scotland: Since the bank run at Northern Rock in 2007, the UK and Scotland have suffered a series of crises. This instability should discourage risk appetite today when contrasted with the possibility of stimulus-fueled economic recovery. In particular, the UK government is no longer pursuing fiscal austerity – an economic policy that fanned the flames of Scottish secession back in 2012. Indeed, the UK tops the ranks of global fiscal stimulus, according to the change in government net lending and borrowing as reported by the IMF. The UK’s outlier status ensures that Scotland receives more fiscal support than it otherwise would have (Chart 11). A brief comparison with comparable countries – Ireland, Belgium, France, Norway, Portugal – reinforces the point. Chart 11Scotland Benefited From UK Fiscal Blowout The UK’s aggressive policy of monetary and fiscal reflation is not a coincidence. It stems from the past two decades’ constitutional and political struggles – it is an outgrowth of domestic instability and populism. It includes an industrial policy, a green energy policy, and other rebuilding measures to combat the erosion of the state in the wake of hyper-globalization. Essentially the UK, even under a Tory government, is now about debt monetization and nation-building. While Scotland would have trouble bargaining for its share of EU resources, it benefits from the UK’s shift to government largesse and can use the threat of independence to receive greater funds from the United Kingdom. Geopolitics discourages a fledgling Scottish nation. Scotland hosts naval and air bases of considerable value to the UK, US, and broader NATO alliance. Former US President Trump’s punitive measures against the European allies and open doubts about the US’s commitment to NATO’s collective security illustrated the dangers of western divisions in the face of autocratic regimes like Russia and China. The US and EU are now recommitting to their economic and security bonds under the Biden administration. Scottish independence would undermine this recommitment and as such the small country would pit itself against the US, EU, and NATO. While the US and NATO would ultimately admit Scotland into collective security, for fear of cultivating a neutral Scotland that could eventually be exploited by Russia, they would likely discourage independence ahead of time to prevent a historic division within the UK and NATO. Chart 12No Urgency For A Second Referendum As for the EU, the Spanish government has indicated that it would be willing to make an exception for Scottish independence if it were negotiated amicably with the United Kingdom.2 Such statements are doubtful, however, as any successful secession would lend ideological credibility to Spanish secessionism – not only in Catalonia but also in the Basque country and elsewhere. And Spain is not the only country that harbors deep hesitations over Scottish accession to the European Union. Belgium, Slovakia, and Cyprus could also oppose it. It only takes a single veto to halt the whole accession process. Ultimately the EU could accept Scotland, just as would NATO, to avoid the dangers of having a neutral state in a strategic location. But the point is that Scottish voters cannot be certain. For example, Scotland cannot secure EU accession prior to leaving the UK and yet to leave the UK and fail to achieve EU accession would render it a fledgling. This explains why Scottish voters are not eager to hold a new independence referendum (Chart 12). Bottom Line: The UK offers medical, economic, fiscal, and geopolitical advantages to Scotland that independence would revoke. The context of Great Power struggle with Russia and China means that an independent Scotland would probably ultimately be admitted into NATO and the EU – but Scottish voters cannot be certain, a factor that discourages independence at least in the short and medium run. Scottish Hurdles Table 2 highlights the historic results of Scottish elections according to political party, popular vote share, and share of seats in parliament. Early, tentative signs suggest that the Scottish National Party maxed out in 2011. The party has suffered from a leadership schism, offshoot parties, and a distraction of its key message since 2014. The implication is not only that Scottish independence is on ice for now but also that the tumultuous constitutional disagreements are subsiding and voters want to focus on economic recovery. Table 2Scottish National Party Hit High-Water Mark In 2011? If the Scottish National Party manages to form a majority coalition capable of pushing forward a second referendum, it will face several hurdles. It will need a UK Supreme Court ruling on the legality of a referendum. If a referendum is declared legal (as it very likely will be), Scotland will need to forge an agreement with Prime Minister Boris Johnson to hold a referendum. If a referendum eventually is held and passes, an exit will need to be negotiated. In a post-Brexit world, investors cannot assume that any referendum will fail or that a referendum is a domestic political ploy that the ruling party has no serious intention of following through. Nevertheless it is true that the Scottish National Party could use the threat of a referendum to agree to negotiate a greater devolution of power from Westminster. The party could hold up England’s concessions as a victory while retaining the independence threat as leverage for a later date. Devolution in the past has strengthened the independence cause, as in the creation of the Scottish parliament in 1999. After all, a referendum loss would be devastating for the nationalists, whereas the threat of a referendum could yield victories without depriving the nationalists of their reason for being. It is notable that First Minister Nicola Sturgeon promised not to hold a “wildcat” referendum, in which Scotland holds a referendum regardless of what Westminster or the UK Supreme Court say. The implication is that Scottish nationalism is looking for a stable way to exit. But if stability is the hope then there is dubious support for independence in the first place. A wildcat referendum is theoretically still an option but a formal process with popular support is much more likely to result in a successful referendum than an informal process with dubious popular support. Chart 13Scotland’s Chronic Deficits If Scottish independence succeeded in any wildcat referendum, an extreme controversy would follow as Edinburgh tried to translate this result to the formal political and constitutional sphere. If the referendum were not recognized by the UK then Scotland would be forced to secede unilaterally at greater economic cost. Otherwise a third referendum (second formal referendum) would need to be held to confirm the results. Any third referendum would be irrevocable. As with Brexit, the secessionists would have to carry one or more subsequent elections to execute the political will in the event of secession. The point for investors is that volatility would be prolonged as was the case with Brexit. A major complication in Scottish independence remains the problem of public finances. Scotland’s fiscal standing is weak. Scotland ran a 9.4% of GDP budget deficit prior to COVID-19, excluding transfers from the UK, which compensates for a gap of about 6% of GDP (Chart 13).3 The country maintains generous social spending alongside a low-tax regime. There is no sign of correction as all Scottish parties are proposing more expansive social spending in the parliamentary election. The Scottish National Party is even proposing universal basic income. Scotland’s emergency COVID deficits are larger than the UK’s as well and projections over the coming years suggest that they will stay elevated. Historically economic growth keeps closely in line with the rest of the UK and there is no reason to believe independence would boost growth. The implication is that Scotland would have to curtail spending or raise taxes to come into line with UK-sized deficits, which are not small (Chart 14).4 Of course Scotland would not embrace austerity unless financial market pressure forced it to do so. Chart 14Scottish Deficit Projected Larger Than UK Scotland would become a high-debt economy. Its public debt-to-GDP ratio would be about 97%, on a back-of-the-envelope calculation. Back in 2013 estimates ranged around 80% of GDP.5 The Scottish National Party’s Sustainable Growth Commission projected in 2018 – before the pandemic blew an even wider hole in the budget deficit – that deficits would nearly have to be cut in half (i.e. capped at 5% of GDP and falling) to achieve a 50% debt-to-GDP ratio over 10 years.6 This is not going to happen. Scotland would also have to take on a portion of the UK’s national debt if it were to have an amicable divorce from the UK and retain the pound sterling. But then much of its newfound independence would be compromised from the beginning by legacy debt and monetary policy shackles. Similar restrictions would come with EU and euro membership. Any accession process after the pandemic would require conformity to the EU’s growth and stability pact, which limits deficits and debt. Redenomination into a national currency, as noted, would dilute domestic wealth, zap the financial industry, and self-impose austerity. Bottom Line: Even if the Scottish nationalists manage to put together a pro-independence majority in Edinburgh, they face a complex process in setting up a referendum. Its passage is doubtful based on the current evidence. But obviously in the wake of Brexit investors should not assume that a referendum attempt will fail or that a successful referendum will be thwarted by parliament after a “leave” vote. The timeline for a second referendum is not imminent – and Scottish independence is highly unlikely, albeit possible at some future date given that middle-aged Scots lean in favor of independence.   Investment Takeaways We will conclude with two market takeaways: Chart 15UK Stocks Recovering From Referendum Fever Chart 16Hindsight On How To Play A Constitutional Struggle The UK’s referendum fever has compounded political uncertainty and contributed to negative factors for the UK equity market over the past decade. A segmentation of the FTSE 100 according to country shows that Scottish-based companies’ share prices rolled over in the aftermath of the 2014 referendum, while the non-Scottish segment performed better (Chart 15). The implication is not that the referendum caused stocks to fall but that the 2014 independence push was the result of national exuberance supercharged by high commodity prices. Enthusiasm for independence has been flat since that time. What is clear is that financial markets look even less favorably upon Scottish equities than other British equities – another sign of the economic problems that will ultimately discourage Scottish voters from going it alone. In advance of the Scottish election, we went tactically long the Swiss franc relative to the British pound to capitalize on jitters that we expected to hit the currency. This trade was in keeping with the long fall of GBP-CHF over the past decade (Chart 16). But the stronger forces of global stimulus, vaccination, economic normalization, and recovery will soon provide a tailwind for sterling yet again. Therefore we are booking 1% gains and shifting to a more optimistic outlook on the pound. With the Brexit saga and the COVID crisis in the rear view mirror, and the tail risk of Scottish independence unlikely, the pound can resume its upward trajectory – at least relative to the Swiss franc. International equities and cyclicals are also poised to continue rising as the world recovers. We recommend investors go long the FTSE 100 relative to developed markets excluding the United States. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Jeremy Black, “The Legacy of the Scottish Referendum,” Foreign Policy Research Institute E-Notes, September 22, 2014, fpri.org. 2 See Akash Paun et al, "Scottish Independence: EU Membership And The Anglo-Scottish Border," Institute For Government, March 2021, instituteforgovernment.org.uk. 3 See Eve Hepburn, Michael Keating, and Nicola McEwen, "Scotland’s New Choice: Independence After Brexit," Centre on Constitutional Change, 2021, centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk. 4 See David Phillips, "Updated projections of Scotland’s fiscal position – and their implications," Institute for Fiscal Studies, April 29, 2021, ifs.org.uk. 5 Granting that the UK’s general government gross debt stood at GBP 1.88 trillion at the end of 2020, and assuming that Scotland takes on a share of this debt equivalent to Scotland’s share of the UK’s total population and output (roughly 8%), the Scottish debt would stand at GBP 150 billion out of a Scottish GDP at current market prices of GBP 156 billion, or 97% of GDP. For the 2013 estimate of at least 80% of GDP, see David Bell, "Scottish Independence: Debt And Assets," Centre on Constitutional Change, December 3, 2013, centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk.  6 Scottish National Party, "Part B: The Framework & Strategy for the Sustainable Public Finances of an Independent Scotland," Sustainable Growth Commission, May 2018, sustainablegrowthcommission.scot. The commission’s debt curbs will have to be revised in the wake of COVID-19. For discussion see Chris Giles and Murie Dickie, "Independent Scotland would face a large hole in its public finances," Financial Times, April 2, 2021, ft.com.  

Biden’s first 100 days can be summed up as the return of Big Government, i.e. “the Leviathan.” But markets are not afraid of one-off corporate tax hikes that only partially reverse the previous administration’s tax cuts amid a brand new stimulus-charged economic cycle. Biden’s approval rating after his first 100 days is comparable to that of Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, suggesting that he can accomplish a major legislative achievement. The $2.3 trillion American Jobs Plan will be watered down in Congress but not to a great extent. Green energy investments and funding for research and development will survive. Thus Biden’s plan will sow the seeds of a productivity mini-boom, if not a structural boom, in the 2020s. Republicans are favored to win the midterm elections in 2022 but investors should not make any decisions based on that expectation. The risk of Democrats keeping the House of Representatives – and therefore having a new chance to surprise with taxes in the second half of Biden’s term – is much greater than the historical pattern suggests. Stick with our long materials versus tech trade. Stick with short health care trades. Go long renewable energy stocks. Feature President Biden passed the 100 day mark at the end of April. The most striking characteristic of his administration is the giant deficit spending. Biden marks the symbolic return of the “leviathan,” i.e. the state, to American political economy. Normally the budget deficit tracks closely with the unemployment rate because rising unemployment causes tax revenue to fall and government spending to rise. The divergence between the deficit and unemployment became pronounced in 2016 and revealed the structural forces – e.g. slow growth, disinflation, high debt, inequality, populism – driving US policymakers to abandon fiscal discipline. But the 2016-20 political cycle combined with the pandemic broke the dam and the divergence is now gigantic (Chart 1). Chart 1Biden's First 100 Days: An Historic Divergence All else equal, the implication is inflationary, though inflation will respond to a range of factors on different time frames. Signs of inflation today may well be under control, as Federal Reserve Chairman Jay Powell and Secretary of Treasury Janet Yellen believe, but over the long run we take the inflation risk seriously as the policy elite has fundamentally shifted to be vigilant about deflation, not inflation. Biden’s Approval Is “Just Enough”  Biden’s popularity is “fair to middling” as his honeymoon comes to an end. His approval rating clocks in right between that of Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump (Chart 2A). He is not as popular and charismatic as Obama and not as unpopular and controversial as Trump. His approval among Democratic voters is higher than that of Obama, similar to Trump among Republicans, due to the fact that the US has hit historic levels of political polarization (Chart 2A, second panel). His embrace of left-wing policy is keeping him in good standing among Democratic voters but may become a liability during the 2022 midterm election (more on that below). Chart 2ABiden’s Approval Rating: Fair-To-Middling Chart 2BBiden Close To Clinton, Bush At 100 Days American presidential approval ratings have fallen continuously for decades and they typically fall after inauguration. This is true of Biden but he looks more like Presidents Bill Clinton or George W. Bush than Trump. His approval is likely to stay over 50% for the foreseeable future due to a supercharged economic recovery (Chart 2B). Trump stands out conspicuously in this chart for his negative net approval, which implies that on a relative basis Biden will be more capable in conducting policy. And yet Trump got his signature piece of legislation – the Tax Cut and Jobs Act – through Congress, which has some bearing on Biden’s proposals.  Our political capital index (Appendix) shows that Biden will benefit from consumer confidence and wage growth shooting up, business sentiment strengthening, and polarization slightly abating due to a slight rise in Republican approval. While Biden’s Democratic Party has only the narrowest of majorities in the Senate, Biden’s signature legislative proposal – the American Jobs Plan – still has an 80% chance of passing in some form. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky declared this week that Biden will not get any Republican votes for this package of infrastructure and corporate tax hikes but budget reconciliation is a ready way for the bill to pass on a partisan basis. Biden’s fiscal blowout should be seen as the culmination of a popular shift against fiscal discipline (or “austerity”) that took root in the middle of the last decade and was also expressed by Republican support for the big-spending President Trump. But it is more extravagant than what the Republicans proposed or would have been able to get had Trump been elected. Chart 3 highlights the difference between the Democratic and Republican spending proposals for the early 2021 COVID-19 relief bill and infrastructure plan. Chart 4 highlights the corporate tax increases Biden has proposed in excess of the Trump rate. Chart 3Biden’s Spending In Excess Of Republican Plans Chart 4Biden’s Taxes In Excess Of Republican Plans From an investment point of view, now is the perfect time to raise corporate taxes as the early cyclical surge in economic activity will prevent the one-off hit to earnings, which should be around 5%-8% according to our Global Investment Strategy, from hindering the stock market for long. The output gap, apparent from still relatively low industrial capacity utilization, will rapidly be plugged regardless of the tax hikes, as is evident from the surge in retail sales and core capital goods new orders and the decline in fuel inventories (Chart 5). The hyper-stimulated economy has been a key reason for our argument that Biden will mostly get what he wants, in terms of corporate taxes, since growth will be fine. The public is positively crying out for taxing corporations, as we showed in our April 7 missive and other reports. Chart 5The Output Gap Will Close Quickly Given that Biden’s political capital is only “just enough,” and that it is falling over time, many investors believe that Biden’s major legislative proposals will be watered down beyond recognition. They will be watered down but the reconciliation process ensures that Democrats will pass at least one bill and that it will largely gratify the party’s preferences. And any watering down will affect tax hikes more so than spending, since tax hikes are the most controversial parts of the bill for moderate Senate Democrats. As Table 1 reveals, an infrastructure package with half the revenue increase is a $1.3 trillion addition to the budget deficit over the eight-to-15 year life-cycle of the bill, as opposed to a fictitious $341 billion in the event that all tax hikes pass Congress. Hence the paring back of Biden’s ambitions does not imply fiscal restraint and is not bullish for US Treasuries.  Table 1Watering Down Biden’s Proposals Not Good For Deficit A Productivity Boomlet How can we benchmark the magnitude of the structural transformation taking place in the US as a result of Biden’s Leviathanic spending proposals? From the perspective of government spending as a contributor to economic output, the Leviathan shrank in the decades after President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Great Society” and Vietnam debacle. But from the perspective of government accounts, Big Government never actually went away (Chart 6), as Reagan used spending to win the Cold War and Clinton only enjoyed the briefest hiatus from deficits in the 1990s. From these charts we can conclude that Biden’s administration will create unprecedented spending and deficits that, taken with an extremely accommodative Fed, will increase the risk of substantially higher inflation over the 2020s.  Chart 6Johnson’s ‘Great Society’ Versus Biden’s ‘Green Society’ Chart 7US Adds To Expansive Social Safety Net Biden is not fighting an economic depression and world war, like Franklin D. Roosevelt, although the US has experienced a Great Recession and is entering a new cold war with China. So the shift should be seen as a generational change in the role of government and not as an ephemeral, four-year trend. This is true notwithstanding the fact that the US already spends a lot on health and education (Chart 7) and not as an ephemeral, four-year trend. The element of international competition is critical to the unique components of Biden’s spending package. Biden jettisoned the health care debates of the Obama era – to our surprise – and instead inaugurated the American foray into the global green energy race. Looking at the OECD’s measure of the “greenness” of global fiscal stimulus – and supplementing it with Biden’s proposed jobs plan – the US compares favorably with the EU and China (Chart 8). Chart 8US Enters The Green Energy Race True, climate policy is more controversial in the US, which means it may well be frozen after Biden’s major bill. The EU and China will spend more on renewable energy and environmental protection because they are net energy importers and manufacturing powers. But the US is highly unlikely to exit the green race in the future, as younger generations care about it more than their elders and it is connected to the US strategic imperative of technological leadership. Biden will have opened up a new field of national policy, regardless of where on the field the players will fight over the ball at any given time. Biden is also pumping federal money into research and development, another area of geopolitical competition (Chart 9).  The takeaway is that Biden’s first year in office – which may be his most consequential year in terms of legislation, particularly if he is a one-term president – is sowing the seeds for a productivity boom, or at least a mini-boom, in the coming years (Chart 10). The pace of productivity growth in the coming years is a matter of speculation and the long term trend is down. But the expected cyclical increase should be supplemented with the knowledge that the US is now aggressively monetizing debt, aggressively pursuing industrial policy and technological advancement, and aggressively competing with geopolitical rivals like China (and even allies like the EU). The likelihood of productivity breakthroughs may go up in such an extraordinary context. We cannot know but we cannot discount the possibility. Chart 9US Doubles Down On Tech Race Chart 10Productivity Will Rise Cyclically But What About Structurally? Vaccines And Immigration Elsewhere Biden’s first 100 days are less specific to his administration. The US is performing very well on the pandemic, both in innovating vaccines and distributing them, but an objective analysis will force Biden to share the credit with the Trump administration (Chart 11). On immigration, by comprehensively weakening enforcement and raising refugee allowances, all in the midst of a surging American economy, Biden will be vulnerable to Republican accusations of encouraging a humanitarian crisis on the border, vitiating rule of law, and making a cynical ploy to expand the Democratic voter base. The number of southwest border encounters by the Customs and Border Protection agency began to skyrocket over the past year – and as such it reflects structural factors that would have troubled a second Trump administration as well. But the election seems to have had an impact based on the inflection point in the data at the end of 2020 (Chart 12). Chart 11COVID-19 Vaccination Campaign On Track Chart 12Immigration: Biden's Fatal Flaw? Regardless, Biden has made the decision to cater to the pro-immigration side of his party and will now own this trend. It will be a unifying force for Republicans, although they remain deeply split over a range of issues and are not any closer to healing their wounds. The market impact is limited in the short run. In the medium run, if unchecked immigration feeds the nativist and populist elements of the Republican Party, then Biden’s decision could have a substantial impact on future US policy by generating a backlash. Our best guess at the moment is that Biden’s actions will reinforce the Republican Party’s embrace of Trump’s policy platform. Since Biden is not making major bipartisan legislative efforts to reform immigration comprehensively, the great immigration debate will return in 2024 or thereafter. Public opinion suggests Republican nativism is out of fashion but a large influx of immigrants could opinion over time as today’s issues fade. Thus Biden’s successes on economic recovery today are sowing the seeds of his party’s biggest vulnerability in domestic policy in future. But admittedly it is too soon to say whether this weakness will be effectively exploited by the opposition. In the meantime investors and corporations will cheer the prospect of cheap and abundant labor. An Overlooked Market Risk From The Midterm Elections This overview of Biden’s honeymoon period naturally refers to the 2022 midterm elections in several places. The Republicans will not be able to repeal Biden’s laws if they take the House of Representatives – or less likely the Senate – in the 2022 vote. But they will be able to grind proposals to a halt. The fate of Biden’s third major legislative proposal, the $1.8 trillion American Families Plan, will hang in the balance, as will green energy subsidies, the child tax credit, and various social initiatives. Much has been made about the 2020 US census and the reapportionment of seats in the House of Representatives according to the population. States that have a single party in control of the governor’s mansion and the legislature can gerrymander or redraw congressional districts as they please to favor their party. Table 2 shows that this partisan process could easily yield two Republican seats on a net basis. This is less than expected but Republicans only need a net of five seats to reclaim the House.  Table 2US Census And Reapportionment Favors Republicans Slightly Redistricting is an important theme because it perpetuates political polarization. But it is not important in determining who will win the House in 2022. The House has changed hands numerous times despite gerrymandered districts. Midterms almost always work against the president’s party. Only in 1934, during the Great Depression, and 2002, immediately after the Twin Towers were attacked, did voters strengthen a first-term president’s hold on Congress. Judging by Biden’s approval rating, Democrats would be lined up for a loss of far more than five seats on a net basis in 2022. They could lose 20 or more (Chart 13). As noted in the previous section, Republicans may find a rallying point on immigration. Chart 13Midterm Elections Dominated By Opposition Party – And Need For Checks And Balances Having said that, investors should not make any decisions based on the midterm election. While Republicans have a 95% chance of winning the House according to the modern historical pattern, they have a lower 73% chance according to the online political betting hub Predictit.org, and we would side with the latter or even lower, at this early stage in the political cycle.  The pandemic and social unrest of 2020, combined with the slow-growth 2010s and trade war, create a context of upheaval that is not entirely dissimilar to the exceptional midterm elections of 1932 and 2002. Biden’s rescue packages and the economic recovery will be a huge boon for the Democratic Party in 2024 and it is possible that they will reap some benefits even in 2022. This is especially the case because Trump and his allies will challenge establishment and elitist Republicans in the primary elections, which could result in Republicans losing five-to-nine seats. If they put up Trumpists in competitive, purple, or suburban districts, voters will swing toward moderate Democrats over populist Republicans in order to preserve the “bread and butter” gains of Biden’s agenda. The bottom line is that Republicans are favored to take the House in 2022 but the 75% odds are much more realistic than the 95% historical probability and possibly even too high. Gridlock would freeze Biden’s spend-and-tax agenda in place but the absence of gridlock would come as a surprise to investors who counted on a Republican victory. Tax hikes on wealthy individuals and capital gains – as projected in the American Families Plan – could still be on the table after the midterm. These tax hikes would still be unlikely to overturn the equity bull market but they could cause investors to reassess the overall policy setting for the worse. The implication would be that the 2020 political change marked a more lasting leftward shift in US policy. For example, taxes could go up beyond what Biden currently projects. Midterm risks should not trouble investors in the near term but they should be on the radar, particularly as the Republican primaries get underway next year and as investors get a better read on inflation in the wake of Biden’s mammoth spending. Investment Takeaways We would draw a few main investment takeaways from Biden’s first 100 days. In the short run, we would call attention to the “buy the rumor, sell the news” behavior exhibited by financial markets during President Trump’s first year in office with full party control of Congress. US equities stood to benefit from tax cuts, especially relative to the rest of the world, which would not receive tax cuts but could face trade tariffs. This expectation played out after Trump’s election but the market sold upon the news of his inauguration. It played out again after Republicans failed to repeal Obamacare, suggesting they might fail to cut taxes. The market correctly bid up US equities on the rumor that the GOP would then turn its full attention to cutting taxes. US equities outperformed until the end of the year when the tax cuts became a fait accompli, at which point the news was sold (Chart 14, top panel). The implication today is that US stocks, especially cyclical stocks and infrastructure-related plays, will continue generally to rally ahead of Biden signing the American Jobs Plan into law, likely around November. Obviously a correction could occur at any time but upon the signing of the law one should not be surprised to see some serious profit-taking. An analogy can also be drawn to renewable energy plays after the Democrats’ “Blue Sweep” in 2020. Markets have largely discounted the surge in renewable energy plays that occurred upon the recession in 2020 and the rising likelihood that Trump would lose reelection (Chart 14, bottom panel). This creates a buying opportunity for a long-term theme. Republicans will not be able to repeal Biden’s green projects and there is some risk that Democrats retain legislative control. And younger generations, even Republicans, are favorable toward the greening of society. Therefore we recommend going long US renewable energy stocks. It also follows that cyclical and value stocks have not yet exhausted their run against defensives and growth stocks. We will therefore hang onto our long materials / short Big Tech trade until we see more substantial signs that near-term disinflationary risks will derail this trade (Chart 15). We will also stick with our short managed health care trade – and our preference for health care equipment and facilities within the health care sector – despite the Democrats’ tentative decision to sideline the health care policies that would have hit the health insurers and Big Pharma. Chart 14Investment Takeaways: Buy The Green Hype (For Now) Chart 15Housekeeping: Stick With Materials Over Tech In the long run, we would point out that the shift away from Reaganism toward Johnsonianism – the return of Leviathan – is a lasting trend that will bring significant change to the US policy setting. These are mostly but not all inflationary. Larger immigration and a productivity boost are not inflationary. But large deficits, tax hikes, and wage pressures are inflationary. Therefore the risk of inflation has gone up in a historic way even though the magnitude of the risk can be overstated in the short term – when there is still slack in the economy – and there are still disinflationary factors that could work against the risk as events unfold. We remain cyclically bullish.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table A1USPS Trade Table Table A2Political Risk Matrix Table A3Political Capital Index Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Chart A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets

Highlights Biden’s first 100 days are characterized by a liberal spend-and-tax agenda unseen since the 1960s. It is not a “bait and switch,” however. Voters do not care about deficits and debt. At least not for now. The apparent outcome of the populist surge in the US and UK in 2016 is blowout fiscal spending. Yet the US and UK also invented and distributed vaccines faster than others. US growth and equities have outperformed while the US dollar experienced a countertrend bounce. While growth will rotate to other regions, China’s stimulus is on the wane. Of Biden’s three initial geopolitical risks, two are showing signs of subsiding: Russia and Iran. US-China tensions persist, however, and Biden has been hawkish so far. Our new Australia Geopolitical Risk Indicator confirms our other indicators in signaling that China risk, writ large, remains elevated. Cyclically we are optimistic about the Aussie and Australian stocks. Mexico’s midterm elections are likely to curb the ruling party’s majority but only marginally. The macro and geopolitical backdrop is favorable for Mexico. Feature US President Joe Biden gave his first address to the US Congress on April 28. Biden’s first hundred days are significant for his extravagant spending proposals, which will rank alongside those of Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society, if not Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, in their impact on US history, for better and worse. Chart 1Biden's First 100 Days - The Market's Appraisal The global financial market appraisal is that Biden’s proposals will turn out for the better. The market has responded to the US’s stimulus overshoot, successful vaccine rollout, and growth outperformance – notably in the pandemic-struck service sector – by bidding up US equities and the dollar (Chart 1). From a macro perspective we share the BCA House View in leaning against both of these trends, preferring international equities and commodity currencies. However, our geopolitical method has made it difficult for us to bet directly against the dollar and US equities. Geopolitics is about not only wars and trade but also the interaction of different countries’ domestic politics. America’s populist spending blowout is occurring alongside a sharp drop in China’s combined credit-and-fiscal impulse, which will eventually weigh on the global economy. This is true even though the rest of the world is beginning to catch up in vaccinations and economic normalization. As for traditional geopolitical risk – wars and alliances – Biden has not yet leaped over the three initial foreign policy hurdles that we have highlighted: China, Russia, and Iran. In this report we will update the view on all three, as there is tentative improvement on the Russian and Iranian fronts. In addition, we will introduce our newest geopolitical risk indicator – for Australia – and update our view on Mexico ahead of its June 6 midterm elections. Biden’s Fiscal Blowout From a macro point of view, Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) was much larger than what Republicans would have passed if President Trump had won a second term. His proposed $2.3 trillion American Jobs Plan (AJP) is also larger, though both candidates were likely to pass an infrastructure package. The difference lies in the parts of these packages that relate to social spending and other programs, beyond COVID relief and roads and bridges. The Republican proposal for COVID relief was $618 billion while the Republicans’ current proposal on infrastructure is $568 billion – marking a $3 trillion difference from Biden. In reality Republicans would have proposed larger spending if Trump had remained president – but not enough to close this gap. And Biden is also proposing a $1.8 trillion American Families Plan (AFP). Biden’s praise for handling the vaccinations must be qualified by the Trump administration’s successful preparations, which have been unfairly denigrated. Similarly, Biden’s blame for the migrant surge at the southern border must be qualified by the fact that the surge began last year.1 A comparison with the UK will put Biden’s administration into perspective. The only country comparable to the US in terms of the size of fiscal stimulus over 2019-21 so far – excluding Biden’s AJP and AFP, which are not yet law – is the United Kingdom. Thus the consequence of the flare-up of populism in the Anglo-Saxon world since 2016 is a budget deficit blowout as these countries strive to suppress domestic socio-political conflict by means of government largesse, particularly in industrial and social programs. However, populist dysfunction was also overrated. Both the US and UK retain their advantages in terms of innovation and dynamism, as revealed by the vaccine and its rollout (Chart 2). Chart 2Dysfunctional Anglo-Saxon Populism? No sharp leftward turn occurred in the UK, where Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his Conservatives had the benefit of a pre-COVID election in December 2019, which they won. By contrast, in the US, President Trump and the Republicans contended an election after the pandemic and recession had virtually doomed them to failure. There a sharp leftward turn is taking place. Going forward the US will reclaim the top rank in terms of fiscal stimulus, as Biden is likely to get his infrastructure plan (AJP) passed. Our updated US budget deficit projections appear in Chart 3. Our sister US Political Strategy gives the AJP an 80% chance of passing in some form and the AFP only a 50% chance of passing, depending on how quickly the AJP is passed. This means the blue dashed line is more likely to occur than the red dashed line. The difference is slight despite the mind-boggling headline numbers of the plans because the spending is spread out over eight-to-ten years and tax hikes over 15 years will partially offset the expenditures. Much will depend on whether Congress is willing to pay for the new spending. In Chart 3 we assume that Biden will get half of the proposed corporate tax hikes in the AJP scenario (and half of the individual tax hikes in the AFP scenario). If spending is watered down, and/or tax hikes surprise to the upside, both of which are possible, then the deficit scenarios will obviously tighten, assuming the economic recovery continues robustly as expected. But in the current political environment it is safest to plan for the most expansive budget deficit scenarios, as populism is the overriding force. Chart 3Biden’s Blowout Spending Biden’s campaign plan was even more visionary, so it is not true that Biden pulled a “bait and switch” on voters. Rather, the median voter is comfortable with greater deficits and a larger government role in American life. Bottom Line: The implication of Biden’s spending blowout is reflationary for the global economy, cyclically negative for the US dollar, and positive for global equities. But on a tactical time frame the rotation to other equities and currencies will also depend on China’s fiscal-and-credit deceleration and whether geopolitical risk continues to fall. Russia: Some Improvement But Coast Not Yet Clear US-Russia tensions appeared to fizzle over the past week but the coast is not yet clear. We remain short Russian currency and risk assets as well as European emerging market equities. Tensions fell after President Putin’s State of the Nation address on April 21 in which he warned the West against crossing Russia’s “red lines.” Biden’s sanctions on Russia were underwhelming – he did not insist on halting the final stages of the Nord Stream II pipeline to Germany. Russia declared it would withdraw its roughly 100,000 troops from the Ukrainian border by May 1. Russian dissident Alexei Navalny ended his hunger strike. Putin attended Biden’s Earth Day summit and the two are working on a bilateral summit in June. Chart 4Russia's Domestic Instability Will Continue De-escalation is not certain, however. First, some US officials have cast doubt on Russia’s withdrawal of troops and it is known that arms and equipment were left in place for a rapid mobilization and re-escalation if necessary. Second, Russian-backed Ukrainian separatists will be emboldened, which could increase fighting in Ukraine that could eventually provoke Russian intervention. Third, the US has until August or September to prevent Nord Stream from completion. Diplomacy between Russia and the US (and Russia and several eastern European states) has hit a low point on the withdrawal of ambassadors. Fourth, Russian domestic politics was always the chief reason to prepare for a worse geopolitical confrontation and it remains unsettled. Putin’s approval rating still lingers in the relatively low range of 65% and government approval at 49%. The economic recovery is weak and facing an increasingly negative fiscal thrust, along with Europe and China, Russia’s single-largest export destination (Chart 4). Putin’s handouts to households, in anticipation of the September Duma election, only amount to 0.2% of GDP. More measures will probably be announced but the lead-up to the election could still see an international adventure designed to distract the public from its socioeconomic woes. Russia’s geopolitical risk indicators ticked up as anticipated (Chart 5). They may subside if the military drawdown is confirmed and Biden and Putin lower the temperature. But we would not bet on it. Chart 5Russian Geopolitical Risk: Wait For 'All Clear' Signal Bottom Line: It is possible that Biden has passed his first foreign policy test with Russia but it is too soon to sound the “all clear.” We remain short Russian ruble and short EM Europe until de-escalation is confirmed. The Russian (and German) elections in September will mark a time for reassessing this view. Iran: Diplomacy On Track (Hence Jitters Will Rise) While Russia may or may not truly de-escalate tensions in Ukraine, the spring and summer are sure to see an increase in focus on US-Iran nuclear negotiations. Geopolitical risks will remain high prior to the conclusion of a deal and will materialize in kinetic attacks of various kinds. This thesis is confirmed by the alleged Israeli sabotage of Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility this month. The US Navy also fired warning shots at Iranian vessels staging provocations. Sporadic attacks in other parts of the region also continue to flare, most recently with an Iranian tanker getting hit by a drone at a Syrian oil terminal.2 The US and Iran are making progress in the Vienna talks toward rejoining the 2015 nuclear deal from which the US withdrew in 2018. Iran pledged to enrich uranium up to 60% but also said this move was reversible – like all its tentative violations of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) so far (Table 1). Iran also offered a prisoner swap with the US. Saudi Arabia appears resigned to a resumption of the JCPA that it cannot prevent, with crown prince Mohammed bin Salman offering diplomatic overtures to both the US and Iran. Table 1Iran’s Nuclear Program And Compliance With JCPA 2015 Still, the closer the US and Iran get to a deal the more its opponents will need to either take action or make preparations for the aftermath. The allegation that former US Secretary of State John Kerry’s shared Israeli military plans with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif is an example of the kind of political brouhaha that will occur as different elements try to support and oppose the normalization of US-Iran ties. More importantly Israel will underscore its red line against nuclear weaponization. Previously Iran was set to reach “breakout” capability of uranium enrichment – a point at which it has enough fissile material to produce a nuclear device – as early as May. Due to sabotage at the Natanz facility the breakout period may have been pushed back to July.3 This compounds the significance of this summer as a deadline for negotiating a reduction in tensions. While the US may be prepared to fudge on Iran’s breakout capabilities, Israel will not, which means a market-relevant showdown should occur this summer before Israel backs down for fear of alienating the United States. Tit-for-tat attacks in May and June could cause negative surprises for oil supply. Then there will be a mad dash by the negotiators to agree to deal before the de facto August deadline, when Iran inaugurates a new president and it becomes much harder to resolve outstanding issues. Chart 6Iran Deal Priced Into Oil Markets? Hence our argument that geopolitics adds upside risk to oil prices in the first half of the year but downside risk in the second half. The market’s expectations seem already to account for this, based on the forward curve for Brent crude oil. The marginal impact of a reconstituted Iran nuclear deal on oil prices is slightly negative over the long run since a deal is more likely to be concluded than not and will open up Iran’s economy and oil exports to the world. However, our Commodity & Energy Strategy expects the Brent price to exceed expectations in the coming years, judging by supply and demand balances and global macro fundamentals (Chart 6). If an Iran deal becomes a fait accompli in July and August the Saudis could abandon their commitment to OPEC 2.0’s production discipline. The Russians and Saudis are not eager to return to a market share war after what happened in March 2020 but we cannot rule it out in the face of Iranian production. Thus we expect oil to be volatile. Oil producers also face the threat of green energy and US shale production which gives them more than one reason to keep up production and prevent prices from getting too lofty. Throughout the post-2015 geopolitical saga between the US and Iran, major incidents have caused an increase in the oil-to-gold ratio. The risk of oil supply disruption affected the price more than the flight to gold due to geopolitical or war risk. The trend generally corresponds with that of the copper-to-gold ratio, though copper-to-gold rose higher when growth boomed and oil outperformed when US-Iran tensions spiked in 2019. Today the copper-to-gold ratio is vastly outperforming the oil-to-gold on the back of the global recovery (Chart 7). This makes sense from the point of view of the likelihood of a US-Iran deal this year. But tensions prior to a deal will push up oil-to-gold in the near term. Chart 7Biden Passes Iran Test? Likely But Not A Done Deal Bottom Line: The US-Iran diplomacy is on track. This means geopolitical risk will escalate in May and June before a short-term or interim deal is agreed in July or August. Geopolitical risk stemming from US-Iran relations will subside thereafter, unless the deadline is missed. The forward curve has largely priced in the oil price downside except for the risk that OPEC 2.0 becomes dysfunctional again. We expect upside price surprises in the near term. Biden, China, And Our Australia GeoRisk Indicator Ostensibly the US and Russia are avoiding a war over Ukraine and the US and Iran are negotiating a return to the 2015 nuclear deal. Only US-China relations utterly lack clarity, with military maneuvering in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea and tensions simmering over the gamut of other disputes. Chart 8Biden Still Faces China Test The latest data on global military spending show not only that the US and China continue to build up their militaries but also that all of the regional allies – including Japan! – are bulking up defense spending (Chart 8). This is a substantial confirmation of the secular growth of geopolitical risk, specifically in reaction to China’s rise and US-China competition. The first round of US-China talks under Biden went awry but since then a basis has been laid for cooperation on climate change, with President Xi Jinping attending Biden’s virtual climate change summit (albeit with no bilateral summit between the two). If John Kerry is removed as climate czar over his Iranian controversy it will not have an impact other than to undermine American negotiators’ reliability. The deeper point is that climate is a narrow basis for US-China cooperation and it cannot remotely salvage the relationship if a broader strategic de-escalation is not agreed. Carbon emissions are more likely to become a cudgel with which the US and West pressure China to reform its economy faster. The Department of Defense is not slated to finish its comprehensive review of China policy until June but most US government departments are undertaking their own reviews and some of the conclusions will trickle out in May, whether through Washington’s actions or leaks to the press. Beijing could also take actions that upend the Biden administration’s assessment, such as with the Microsoft hack exposed earlier this year. The Biden administration will soon reveal more about how it intends to handle export controls and sanctions on China. For example, by May 19 the administration is slated to release a licensing process for companies concerned about US export controls on tech trade with China due to the Commerce Department’s interim rule on info tech supply chains. The Biden administration looks to be generally hawkish on China, a view that is now consensus. Any loosening of punitive measures would be a positive surprise for Chinese stocks and financial markets in general. There are other indications that China’s relationship with the West is not about to improve substantially – namely Australia. Australia has become a bellwether of China’s relations with the world. While the US’s defense commitments might be questionable with regard to some of China’s neighbors – namely Taiwan (Province of China) but also possibly South Korea and the Philippines – there can be little doubt that Australia, like Japan, is the US’s red line in the Pacific. Australian politics have been roiled over the past several years by the revelation of Chinese influence operations, state- or military-linked investments in Australia, and propaganda campaigns. A trade war erupted last year when Australia called for an investigation into the origins of COVID-19 and China’s handling of it. Most recently, Victoria state severed ties with China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Despite the rise in Sino-Australian tensions, the economic relationship remains intact. China’s stimulus overweighed the impact of its punitive trade measures against Australia, both by bidding up commodity prices and keeping the bulk of Australia’s exports flowing (Chart 9). As much as China might wish to decouple from Australia, it cannot do so as long as it needs to maintain minimum growth rates for the sake of social stability and these growth rates require resources that Australia provides. For example, global iron ore production excluding Australia only makes up 80% of China’s total iron ore imports, which necessitates an ongoing dependency here (Chart 10). Brazil cannot make up the difference. Chart 9China-Australia Trade Amid Tensions Chart 10China Cannot Replace Australia This resource dependency does not necessarily reduce geopolitical tension, however, because it increases China’s supply insecurity and vulnerability to the US alliance. The US under Biden explicitly aims to restore its alliances and confront autocratic regimes. This puts Australia at the front lines of an open-ended global conflict. Chart 11Introducing: Australia GeoRisk Indicator (Smoothed) Our newly devised Australia GeoRisk Indicator illustrates the point well, as it has continued surging since the trade war with China first broke out last year (Chart 11). This indicator is based on the Australian dollar and its deviation from underlying macro variables that should determine its course. These variables are described in Appendix 1. If the Aussie weakens relative to these variables, then an Australian-specific risk premium is apparent. We ascribe that premium to politics and geopolitics writ large. A close examination of the risk indicator’s performance shows that it tracks well with Australia’s recent political history (Chart 12). Previous peaks in risk occurred when President Trump rose to power and Australia, like Canada, found itself beset by negative pressures from both the US and China. In particular, Trump threatened tariffs and the Australian government banned China’s Huawei from its 5G network. Today the rise in geopolitical risk stems almost exclusively from China. There is potential for it to roll over if Biden negotiates a reduction in tensions but that is a risk to our view (an upside risk for Australian and global equities). Chart 12Australian GeoRisk Indicator (Unsmoothed) What does this indicator portend for tradable Australian assets? As one would expect, Australian geopolitical risk moves inversely to the country’s equities, currency, and relative equity performance (Chart 13). Australian equities have risen on the back of global growth and the commodity boom despite the rise in geopolitical risk. But any further spike in risk could jeopardize this uptrend. Chart 13Australia Geopolitical Risk And Tradable Assets An even clearer inverse relationship emerges with the AUD-JPY exchange rate, a standard measure of risk-on / risk-off sentiment in itself. If geopolitical risk rises any further it should cause a reversal in the currency pair. Finally, Australian equities have not outperformed other developed markets excluding the US, which may be due to this elevated risk premium. Bottom Line: China is the most important of Biden’s foreign policy hurdles and unlike Russia and Iran there is no sign of a reduction in tension yet. Our Australian GeoRisk Indicator supports the point that risk remains very elevated in the near term. Moreover China’s credit deceleration is also negative for Australia. Cyclically, however, assuming that China does not overtighten policy, we take a constructive view on the Aussie and Australian equities. Biden’s Border Troubles Distract From Bullish Mexico Story The biggest criticism of Biden’s first 100 days has been his reduction in a range of enforcement measures on the southern border which has encouraged an overflow of immigrants. Customs and Border Patrol have seen a spike in “encounters” from a low point of around 17,000 in 2020 to about 170,000 today. The trend started last year but accelerated sharply after the election and had surpassed the 2019 peak of 144,000. Vice President Kamala Harris has been put in charge of managing the border crisis, both with Mexico and Central American states. She does not have much experience with foreign policy so this is her opportunity to learn on the job. She will not be able to accomplish much given that the Biden administration is unwilling to use punitive measures or deterrence and will not have large fiscal resources available for subsidizing the nations to the south. With the US economy hyper-charged, especially relative to its southern neighbors, the pace of immigration is unlikely to slacken. From a macro point of view the relevance is that the US is not substantially curtailing immigration – quite the opposite – which means that labor force growth will not deviate from its trend. What about Mexico itself? It is not likely that Harris will be able to engage on a broader range of issues with Mexico beyond immigration. As usual Mexico is beset with corruption, lawlessness, and instability. To these can be added the difficulties of the pandemic and vaccine rollout. Tourism and remittances are yet to recover. Cooperation with US federal agents against the drug cartels is deteriorating. Cartels control an estimated 40% of Mexican territory.4 Nevertheless, despite Mexico’s perennial problems, we hold a positive view on Mexican currency and risk assets. The argument rests on five points: Strong macro fundamentals: With China’s fiscal-and-credit impulse slowing sharply, and US stimulus accelerating, Mexico stands to benefit. Mexico has also run orthodox monetary and fiscal policies. It has a demographic tailwind, low wages, and low public debt. The stars are beginning to align for the country’s economy, according to our Emerging Markets Strategy. US and Canadian stimulus: The US and Canada have the second- and third-largest fiscal stimulus of all the major countries over the 2019-21 period, at 9% and 8% of GDP respectively. Mexico, with the new USMCA free trade deal in hand, will benefit. US protectionism fizzled: Even Republican senators blocked President Trump’s attempted tariffs on Mexico. Trump’s aggression resulted in the USMCA, a revised NAFTA, which both US political parties endorsed. Mexico is inured to US protectionism, at least for the short and medium term. Diversification from China: Mexico suffered the greatest opportunity cost from China’s rise as an offshore manufacturer and entrance to the World Trade Organization. Now that the US and other western countries are diversifying away from China, amid geopolitical tensions, Mexico stands to benefit. The US cannot eliminate its trade deficit due to its internal savings/investment imbalance but it can redistribute that trade deficit to countries that cannot compete with it for global hegemony. AMLO faces constraints: A risk factor stemmed from politics where a sweeping left-wing victory in 2018 threatened to introduce anti-market policies. President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (known as AMLO) and his MORENA party gained a majority in both houses of the legislature. Their coalition has a two-thirds majority in the lower house (Chart 14). However, we pointed out that AMLO’s policies have not been radical and, more importantly, that the midterm election would likely constrain his power. Chart 14Mexico’s Midterm Election Looms These are all solid points but the last item faces a test in the upcoming midterm election. AMLO’s approval rating is strong, at 63%, putting him above all of his predecessors except one (Chart 15). AMLO’s approval has if anything benefited from the COVID-19 crisis despite Mexico’s inability to handle the medical challenge. He has promised to hold a referendum on his leadership in early 2022, more than halfway through his six-year term, and he is currently in good shape for that referendum. For now his popularity is helpful for his party, although he is not on the ballot in 2021 and MORENA’s support is well beneath his own. Chart 15AMLO’s Approval Fairly Strong MORENA’s support is holding at a 44% rate of popular support and its momentum has slightly improved since the pandemic began. However, MORENA’s lead over other parties is not nearly as strong as it was back in 2018 (Chart 16, top panel). The combined support of the two dominant center-right parties, the Institutional Revolutionary Party and the National Action Party, is almost equal to that of MORENA. And the two center-left parties, the Democratic Revolution Party and Citizen’s Movement, are part of the opposition coalition (Chart 16, bottom panel). The pandemic and economic crisis will motivate the opposition. Chart 16MORENA’s Support Holding Up Despite COVID Traditionally the president’s party loses seats in the midterm election (Table 2). Circumstances are different from the US, which also exhibits this trend, because Mexico has more political parties. A loss of seats from MORENA does not necessarily favor the establishment parties. Nevertheless opinion polling shows that about 45% of voters say they would rather see MORENA’s power “checked” compared to 41% who wish to see the party go on unopposed.5 Table 2Mexican President’s Party Tends To Lose Seats In Midterm Election While the ruling coalition may lose its super-majority, it is not a foregone conclusion that MORENA will lose its majority. Voters have decades of experience of the two dominant parties, both were discredited prior to 2018, and neither has recovered its reputation so quickly. The polling does not suggest that voters regret their decision to give the left wing a try. If anything recent polls slightly push against this idea. If MORENA surprises to the upside then AMLO’s capabilities would increase substantially in the second half of his term – he would have political capital and an improving economy. While the senate is not up for grabs in the midterm, MORENA has a narrow majority and controls a substantial 60% of seats when its allies are taken into account. In this scenario AMLO could pursue his attempts to increase the state’s role in key industries, like energy and power generation, at the expense of private investors. Even then the Supreme Court would continue to act as a check on the government. The 11-seat court is currently made up of five conservatives, two independents, and three liberal or left-leaning judges. A new member, Margarita Ríos Farjat, is close to the government, leaving the conservatives with a one-seat edge over the liberals and putting the two independents in the position of swing voters. Even if AMLO maintains control of the lower house, he will not be able to override the constitutional court, as he has threatened on occasion to do, without a super-majority in the senate. Bottom Line: AMLO will likely lose some ground in the lower house and thus suffer a check on his power. This will only confirm that Mexican political risk is not likely to derail positive underlying macro fundamentals. Continue to overweight Mexican equities relative to Brazilian.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Appendix 1 The market is the greatest machine ever created for gauging the wisdom of the crowd and as such our Geopolitical Risk Indicators were not designed to predict political risk but to answer the question of whether and to what extent markets have priced that risk. Our Australian GeoRisk Indicator (see Chart 11-12 above) uses the same simple methodology used in our other indicators, which avoid the pitfall of regression-based models. We begin with a financial asset that has a daily frequency in price, in this case the AUD, and compare its movement against several fundamental factors – in this case global energy and base metal prices, global metals and mining stock prices, and the Chilean peso. Australia is a commodity-exporting country. It is the largest producer of iron ore and is among the largest producers of coal and natural gas. It is also a major trading partner for China. Due to the nature of its economy the Australian dollar moves with global metal and energy prices and the global metals and mining equity prices. Chile, another major commodity producer also moves with global metal prices, hence our inclusion of the peso in this indicator. The AUD has a high correlation with all of these assets, and if the changes in the value of the AUD lag or lead the changes in the value of these assets, the implication is that geopolitical risk unique to Australia is not priced by the market. We included the peso as Chile is not as affected as Australia by any conflict in the South China Sea or Northeast Asia, which means that a deviation of the AUD from CLP represents a unique East Asia Pacific risk. Our indicator captures the involvement of Australia in a few regional and international conflicts. The indicator climbed as Australia got involved in the East Timor emergency and declined as it exited. It continued declining even as Australia joined the US in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, which showed that investors were unperturbed by faraway wars, while showing measurable concern in the smaller but closer Timorese conflict. Risks went up again as the nation erupted in labor protests as the Howard government made changes to the labor code. We see the market pricing higher risk again during the 2008 financial crisis, although it was modest and Australia escaped the crisis unscathed due to massive Chinese stimulus. Since then, investors have been climbing a wall of worry as they priced in Northeast Asia-related geopolitical risks. These started with the South Korean Cheonan sinking and continued with the Sino-Japanese clash over the Senkaku islands. They culminated with the Chinese ADIZ declaration in late 2013. In 2016, Australia was shocked again when Donald Trump was elected, and investor fears were evident when the details of Trump-Turnbull spat were made public. The risk indicator reached another peak during the trade wars between the US and the rest of the world. Investors were not worried about COVID-19 as Australia largely contained the pandemic, but the recent Australian-Chinese trade war pushed the risk indicator up, giving investors another wall of worry. If the Biden administration forces Australia into a democratic alliance in confrontation with autocratic China then this risk will persist for some time.   Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor Jesse.Kuri@bcaresearch.com We Read (And Liked) ... The Narrow Corridor: States, Societies, And The Fate Of Liberty This book is a sweeping review of the conditions of liberty essential to steering the world away from the Hobbesian war of all against all. In this unofficial sequel to the 2012 hit, Why Nations Fail: The Origins Of Power, Prosperity, And Poverty, Daron Acemoglu (Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) and James A. Robinson (Professor of Global Conflict Studies at the University of Chicago) further explore their thesis that the existence and effectiveness of democratic institutions account for a nation’s general success or failure. The Narrow Corridor6 examines how liberty works. It is not “natural,” not widespread, “is rare in history and is rare today.” Only in peculiar circumstances have states managed to produce free societies. States have to walk a thin line to achieve liberty, passing through what the authors describe as a “narrow corridor.” To encourage freedom, states must be strong enough to enforce laws and provide public services yet also restrained in their actions and checked by a well-organized civil society. For example, from classical history, the Athenian constitutional reforms of Cleisthenes “were helpful for strengthening the political power of Athenian citizens while also battling the cage of norms.” That cage of norms is the informal body of customs replaced by state institutions. Those norms in turn “constrained what the state could do and how far state building could go,” providing a set of checks. Though somewhat fluid in its definition, liberty, as Acemoglu and Robinson show, is expressed differently under various “leviathans,” or states. For starters, the “Shackled Leviathan” is a government dedicated to upholding the rule of law, protecting the weak against the strong, and creating the conditions for broad-based economic opportunity. Meanwhile, the “Paper Leviathan” is a bureaucratic machine favoring the privileged class, serving as both a political and economic brake on development and yielding “fear, violence, and dominance for most of its citizens.” Other examples include: The “American Leviathan” which fails to deal properly with inequality and racial oppression, two enemies of liberty; and a “Despotic Leviathan,” which commands the economy and coerces political conformity – an example from modern China. Although the book indulges in too much jargon, it is provocative and its argument is convincing. The authors say that in most places and at most times, the strong have dominated the weak and human freedom has been quashed by force or by customs and norms. Either states have been too weak to protect individuals from these threats or states have been too strong for people to protect themselves from despotism. Importantly, many states believe that once liberty is achieved, it will remain the status quo. But the authors argue that to uphold liberty, state institutions have to evolve continuously as the nature of conflicts and needs of society change. Thus society's ability to keep state and rulers accountable must intensify in tandem with the capabilities of the state. This struggle between state and society becomes self-reinforcing, inducing both to develop a richer array of capacities just to keep moving forward along the corridor. Yet this struggle also underscores the fragile nature of liberty. It is built on a precarious balance between state and society; between economic, political, and social elites and common citizens; between institutions and norms. If one side of the balance gets too strong, as has often happened in history, liberty begins to wane. The authors central thesis is that the long-run success of states depends on the balance of power between state and society. If states are too strong, you end up with a “Despotic Leviathan” that is good for short-term economic growth but brittle and unstable over the long term. If society is too strong, the “Leviathan” is absent, and societies suffer under a pre-modern war of all against all. The ideal place to be is in the narrow corridor, under a shackled Leviathan that will grow state capacity and individual liberty simultaneously, thus leading to long-term economic growth. In the asset allocation process, investors should always consider the liberty of a state and its people, if a state’s institutions grossly favor the elite or the outright population, whether these institutions are weak or overbearing on society, and whether they signify a balance between interests across the population. Whether you are investing over a short or long horizon, returns can be significantly impacted in the absence of liberty or the excesses of liberty. There should be a preference among investors toward countries that exhibit a balance of power between state and society, setting up a better long-term investment environment, than if a balance of power did not exist.   Guy Russell Research Analyst GuyR@bcaresearch.com GeoRisk Indicator China Russia UK Germany France Italy Canada Spain Taiwan – Province Of China Korea Turkey Brazil Australia Footnotes 1 "President Biden’s first 100 days as president fact-checked," BBC News, April 29, 2021, bbc.com. 2 "Oil tanker off Syrian coast hit in suspected drone attack," Al Jazeera, April 24, 2021, Aljazeera.com. 3 See Yaakov Lappin, "Natanz blast ‘likely took 5,000 centrifuges offline," Jewish News Syndicate, jns.org. 4 John Daniel Davidson, "Former US Ambassador To Mexico: Cartels Control Up To 40 Percent Of Mexican Territory," The Federalist, April 28, 2021, thefederalist.com. 5 See Alejandro Moreno, "Aprobación de AMLO se encuentra en 61% previo a campañas electorales," El Financiero, April 5, 2021, elfinanciero.com. 6 Penguin Press, New York, NY, 2019, 558 pages. Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Special Report

Highlights President Biden’s proposal to raise the capital gains tax rate from 20% to 43.4% is part of the American Families Plan, which at best has a 50% chance of passing before the 2022 midterm election. Biden will soon present the full outline of this $1 trillion bill. The legislative priority is the American Jobs Plan with infrastructure spending and corporate tax hikes. This bill has an 80% chance of passing by Christmas. If it passes by end of July, then the odds of passing the American Families Plan prior to the midterm will shoot up. But we expect it to take to November, which could render the families plan (and capital gains tax) a campaign issue for 2022. Republicans are much more likely to vote for infrastructure spending than tax hikes. Traditional infrastructure can be separated into a bipartisan bill with Republicans and passed along with a renewed highway authorization by September. This creates an alternate avenue for infrastructure. Democrats would still pass the rest of Biden’s American Jobs Plan via reconciliation, including corporate tax hikes, which will only be watered down a bit. We reiterate our recommendations in favor of the BCA Infrastructure Basket and the Biden Fiscal Advantage Equity Basket. Given the eight-year span of the US infrastructure proposals, we recommend a cyclical and structural overweight for these baskets. Feature President Joe Biden’s $2.3 trillion American Jobs Plan is shifting from the initial phase – “coordinated policy rollout” and media cheerleading – to the drawn-out process of congressional negotiation and voting. None of our core views on the bill have changed: we expect the bill to pass before the end of the year and to be similar to what Biden has proposed on both corporate tax hikes and spending. Some spending proposals can be offloaded, some tax hikes can be watered down, but the gist of the bill is known to investors. Scares over Biden’s proposed capital gains tax hike are premature as this bill must pass before Congress can turn to Biden’s second plan and individual tax hikes. In this special report with BCA’s US Equity Strategy, we update the status of the bill and then take a closer look at our BCA Infrastructure Basket. We recommend investors stick to this trade over a structural time horizon of 12 months-plus. Biden’s Bill Will Pass – Bipartisanship Is Possible But Separate Biden’s infrastructure plan will pass on a party-line vote through budget reconciliation. Republicans will reject tax increases; Democrats will muster all 50 of their caucus votes plus Vice President Kamala Harris. Procedurally, reconciliation has been cleared. The fiscal 2021 budget resolution will be revised and this will enable Democratic leaders to cram the infrastructure package into a new reconciliation bill, ostensibly to raise the debt ceiling, which is due to expire on July 31. Technical public debt default will loom in early fall to help the Democrats motivate stragglers to vote for the bill.1 Spending Compromises: The reconciliation process will keep the price tag of the bill from rising higher than the proposed $2.3 trillion, since it will mostly exclude “earmarks.” States will have to apply in a competitive bidding for funding for projects beginning sometime in 2022 rather than receive guarantees of special projects in exchange for their senator’s vote for the overall package. The headline price tag could be whittled down by about $1 trillion if a bipartisan deal is done. Biden’s proposal consists of $784 billion in traditional infrastructure, $647 billion in social welfare, $370 billion in green energy initiatives, $280 billion in tech initiatives, and $219 billion in business support (Chart 1). The Republicans might be willing to agree to most of the traditional infrastructure as well as some of the tech initiatives and business support (Chart 2). This means these measures could be removed from the bill and passed separately. This would leave the Democrats to pass the rest on their own, including corporate tax hikes, which they could do at earliest by the end of July and at latest by the end of December (Diagram 1). Or Democrats could pass the whole package alone. Chart 1American Jobs Plan Has $784Bn In Traditional Infrastructure Chart 2Republicans Support Roads And Bridges Diagram 1Timeline For Congress To Pass American Jobs Plan By End Of 2021 Tax Compromises: Much has been made of West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin’s claim that the corporate tax rate should not exceed 25%, as opposed to Biden’s preferred 28%. Manchin is not alone, however. Table 1 highlights other Senate Democrats who oppose a 28% rate. These decisive swing voters may get a reduction in the rate but we tend to doubt it will be modified much from the proposal. Corporate tax hikes are popular – including when presented as a responsible way to pay for infrastructure (Chart 3). A minimum corporate tax will play very well politically while the headline corporate rate can be toggled one or two percentage points to ensure the bill gets enough votes (Chart 4). Chart 3Independents Support Corporate Taxes For Infrastructure Chart 4Voters Favor Corporate Tax Hike And Minimum Tax Table 1Centrist Senators: Democrats Who Oppose A 28% Corporate Rate, Republicans Who Voted To Convict Trump Of Insurrection, And Others Bipartisan infrastructure spending is possible but separate. Republicans are at risk of getting steamrolled by Democrats in the coming years. Democrats have stolen back the lead on infrastructure, manufacturing, trade, and China, yet they are free of the taint of mishandling the pandemic. Most importantly they have gotten hold of the magic money tree (Modern Monetary Theory), which enables them to expand the social safety net in a historic way that could boost the fortunes of their own party and its underlying principle of Big Government for a decade or more. Thus the pressure will be high on Republicans to show that they can govern and compromise – and infrastructure is the policy on which it is least painful for the GOP to join them. Republicans could hive off traditional “roads and bridges” – as well as tech competition with China – into a separate bill that could go forward on a bipartisan basis. There is a separate opportunity to pass infrastructure spending because the federal highway funding authorization, the 2015 FAST Act, expires on September 30 (Chart 5). The need to reauthorize this law will force lawmakers to act, thus presenting an opportunity to top up funding for traditional infrastructure projects.2 But this merely highlights that infrastructure spending has multiple avenues. If partisanship prevails as usual then Democrats will drive through their bill anyway. Chart 5US Infrastructure Spending In Recent Decades The regular budget process will be gridlocked. The regular appropriations process for FY2022 will not be an avenue for increased spending. Limits on discretionary spending expire at the end of FY2021 so there are no limits on budget appropriations. But 60 votes are needed for appropriations. Republicans will be loath to assist Democrats on the normal budget while the latter achieve all their other priorities via reconciliation. The economy will not need extra spending. A continuing resolution – a stopgap measure that keeps appropriations at the same level as the previous year – is the likeliest outcome. Or a government shutdown, which might be useful for Republicans to rally their base after a demoralizing year, though it would hurt their standing among the general public. Biden’s $1 trillion American Families Plan will be presented on April 28. This bill could pass in H1 2022, if the American Jobs Plan passes by July, but it is just as likely to become the Democrats’ campaign platform for the 2022 midterms. This bill will require the House and Senate to draft a FY2022 concurrent resolution, which cannot be finalized prior to passing the FY2021 reconciliation bill for both parliamentary and budgetary reasons. The economy will be red hot and fiscal fatigue will be setting in. We stick with our subjective 50/50 odds of passage for this bill. This means that the market’s concern over the capital gains rate hike is premature. First, Democrats have been back-loading tax hikes to prioritize economic recovery – and minimize negative impacts prior to the midterm election – so there is no reason to expect the capital gains tax hike to be retroactive whenever the American Families Plan passes Congress. If Congress passes it in mid-2022 then it will most likely go into effect on January 1, 2023. Second, the capital gains rate itself will likely be watered down from Biden’s proposed 43.4% to something around 32%. The good news for investors is that Biden is proposing to keep the distinction between individual income and capital gains (thus preserving the “carried interest loophole”). The bad news is that he is also keeping the Obamacare surtax of 3.8% on capital gains for those making over $250,000 or more. The American Families Plan is not urgent for investors because it is less likely to pass than the American Jobs Plan – and Republicans could win the House in 2022. But if the latter passes by July then the odds of the former passing before the midterm will shoot up. The family plan also shows that there is an upside risk to the budget deficit outlook and inflation expectations (Chart 6). Chart 6Revised US Budget Deficit Projection Post-ARPA Investment Implications Of Biden’s Sweeping Infrastructure Package While both the CBO and IMF currently project that the fiscal impulse will turn negative in 2022 (a mid-term election year) following a modest decrease this year, government largesse has staying power (Chart 7). Chart 7Fiscal Easing… The populist shift in US politics will push government expenditures as a share of output to nose-bleed levels. Given the lack of adequate tax offsets, it will buttress government debt-to-GDP to levels last seen during WWII (Chart 8). True, debt sustainability largely depends on nominal GDP growth, but spendthrift politicians are unconcerned about paying back debt as interest rates are held low courtesy of an extremely accommodative Federal Reserve and (temporarily) well-behaved bond vigilantes. This is all welcome news for equities exposed to fiscal spending in general and for infrastructure-reliant shares in particular. Two weeks ago we matched different segments of Biden’s infrastructure proposal (Tables A1 and A2 in the Appendix) to eight ETFs and one stock that now comprise our Biden Fiscal Advantage equity basket (Chart 9).3 Today we reiterate our sanguine view on this basket – especially versus the NASDAQ 100, given the high concentration of tech stocks in these ETFs. Chart 8...And Debt Uptake Bode Well For Infrastructure Stocks Chart 9Stick With The Biden Fiscal Advantage Basket Importantly, Charts 7 & 8 highlight that a rising fiscal deficit and ballooning government debt are a boon for the BCA’s infrastructure stock basket both from a cyclical and structural perspective.4 Tack on the Fed’s 6.5% real GDP growth projections for calendar 2021 that are more or less in line with the Street’s economic expectations and even the shorter-term outlook brightens for these infrastructure-laden equities (real GDP forecast shown advanced, Chart 10). Chart 10Enticing Domestic Growth Already, the US ZEW Indicator of Economic Sentiment is soaring following up the path of the ISM manufacturing survey, corroborating that the US economy is firing on all cylinders (top panel, Chart 11). While the recent bond market selloff has gone on hiatus, it will likely prove short-lived. The US population is on track to reach herd immunity sometime this fall and by then inflation will be rearing its ugly head (bottom panel, Chart 11). As a result, the 10-year US Treasury yield should resume its ascent (middle panel, Chart 11). Chart 11Plenty Of Upside Left Historically, all these key macro indicators have been positively correlated with the relative share price ratio of BCA’s infrastructure equity basket and the current message is positive (Chart 11). Beyond the conducive domestic backdrop, likely in the back half of the year the rest of the world will also be on the cusp of getting back to normal – with China’s pace of deceleration being the sole question mark – heralding a synchronized global growth setting. Not only will the US twin deficits weigh on the greenback, but a looming commodity up-cycle is also a boon for hypersensitive commodity-exposed currencies. This dual boost coupled with the budding rebound in EMs is music to the ears of US infrastructure-reliant US conglomerates (Chart 12). Gelling everything together, our US and global capex indicators do an excellent job in encapsulating all of these moving parts. Chart 13 shows that both of our capital expenditure indicators are in V-shaped recoveries, with our global capex one probing multi-decade highs. Chart 12Alluring EM Growth Chart 13Heed The Bullish Message From Our Capex Indicators Bottom Line: The sweeping American Jobs Plan will bolster both the BCA infrastructure and BCA Biden Fiscal Advantage equity baskets. Given the multi-year span of this looming bill, we recommend a cyclical and structural overweight in both baskets.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table A1 Table A2 Footnotes 1       Paul M. Krawzak, “More questions than answers in parliamentarian’s budget opinion,” Roll Call, April 8, 2021, www.rollcall.com. 2       Jinjoo Lee, “Road Is Smoother Than Expected For Infrastructure, Biden Plan Or Not,” Wall Street Journal, March 24, 2021, wsj.com. 3      As a reminder, the ticker symbols we included in this Equity Basket are: PAVE, PHO, QCLN, TAN, WOOD, SOXX, HAIL, GRID and SU. We choose SU as there is no pure play Canadian oil sands ETF trading in USD. 4      We first created this basket in late-2018 comprising a range of industrials and materials indexes that should see a positive reaction to a spur in infrastructure demand; Table A2 in the Appendix at the end of this report updates all the constituents in our basket.