Geopolitics

Highlights Expect more volatility in the near-term. The roughly 45% odds of a total US policy reversal in the November election are higher than the market expects. A “Gray Swan” event in the election would be a tie in the Electoral College at 269 versus 269 votes. While Trump would win in this scenario, the process is arcane and the election’s legitimacy would be challenged. Feature Constraints suggest the Democratic Primary nomination will go to a moderate candidate, but only if Bernie Sanders falls short of a strong plurality (~40%) of the vote. Currently, Sanders has momentum, so the risk is that he wins just such a plurality. The world remains spellbound by the risk that the coronavirus outbreak in China will cause a substantial slowdown with knock-on effects. We maintain a cautious stance toward risk assets in the near term in order to get clarity that the virus is indeed being contained. Our latest analysis of the virus impact can be found here and here. Our analysis of the impact on Chinese politics and policy — and forthcoming economic stimulus — can be found here and here. Meanwhile we continue to focus on the US election cycle — which threatens additional volatility both in the immediate term and in Q4. An Electoral College Tie?!? Our expectation that President Trump is slightly favored to win the election hasn’t changed, but our quantitative election model continues to signal that the race is “too close to call.” Specifically it awards Trump with the narrowest possible Republican victory in November. It suggests the president will lose Maine, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, yet keep Wisconsin (Chart 1). Chart 1Our Quant Model Signals That The Race Is "Too Close To Call" An Electoral College Tie?!? An Electoral College Tie?!? The intriguing thing about this combination of states is that it would produce an Electoral College tie, with the Republicans and Democrats each winning 269 votes! While the model generally should not be read so literally — the correct reading is “too close to call” — nevertheless a tie combination is not far-fetched and therefore constitutes a “Gray Swan” risk for this year: a high impact event whose probability is not all that low. The demographic data that we use to project the size and composition of the American voting public in 2020 — provided by the Center for American Progress and a coalition of high-powered Washington think tanks — provides at least one specific election scenario in which such a tie would result. This is a scenario in which the voter turnout and party support rates remain the same as in 2016 yet the elevated 5.7% of votes that went to third party candidates that year reverts back to its historical mean of 1.7%, where it stood in the 2012 election (Chart 2).1 A repeat of the 2016 election with third-party mean-reversion is not implausible. In 2020, President Trump still has a relatively weak approval rating, while none of the Democratic candidates is particularly charismatic or inspiring for key voting groups like African-Americans. (Charisma or a special demographic advantage are factors that could increase Democratic turnout and support from Hillary Clinton’s 2016 levels.) This year’s contest is a “closed election” with an incumbent president running, while 2016 was an “open election” in which voters had greater ability or willingness to flirt with parties outside the Republican-Democratic duopoly. Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton polled as the least favorable candidate in history at that time, with the sole exception of her rival, Republican candidate Donald Trump. The economy was also soft. A symbolic or strategic vote for the Libertarian Party or Green Party seemed a better option for about 6% of voters. Trump would be re-elected in the event of a tie. How is the presidency decided in the event of a tie? The House of Representatives votes to choose the president, albeit with each state only getting one vote. Currently Republicans have a majority in more congressional state delegations than Democrats — even if Pennsylvania is allotted to the latter (Chart 3). As a result President Trump would be re-elected. Chart 2A Tie In The Electoral College Is A "Gray Swan" Risk An Electoral College Tie?!? An Electoral College Tie?!? Chart 3Trump Would Be Re-Elected In The Event Of A Tie An Electoral College Tie?!? An Electoral College Tie?!? Needless to say, the American public is not familiar with the details of the twelfth amendment governing this process and there would be much heartburn from the losing party. The Democrats would highlight the popular vote (which Trump is highly likely to lose in most scenarios) and the “unrepresentative” nature of both the Electoral College and the House voting procedure. Such complaints would be ineffectual but the outcome would trigger a “legitimacy crisis” that would weaken the government’s mandate and exacerbate the country’s extreme polarization. Partisanship and polarization would also shoot through the roof if extremely thin margins of victory resulted in contested election results. Indeed the outcome of the election may not be clear on November 3. The 2000 election, the last time prior to 2016 that the Electoral College and popular vote produced different results, is the obvious example. President George W. Bush won by carrying Florida with 537 votes, but only after the Supreme Court intervened to put a stop to the contested recounting process in the state. President Trump won the critical swing states of the 2016 election by larger margins than that, but they were still thin and his net negative approval rating suggests thin margins could occur again in 2020 (Chart 4). Democratic contender Al Gore did not concede the election till a month later — would populist candidates like President Trump or Senator Bernie Sanders concede their loss? What would they do if the voting system somehow malfunctioned? The reporting debacle at the Democratic Party’s Iowa Caucus this month should serve as a reminder that voting systems are vulnerable to flaws and failures. Chart 4Trump’s Thin Margins In Swing States Could Occur Again In 2020 An Electoral College Tie?!? An Electoral College Tie?!? Even more controversial and polarizing, the Electoral College could swing because of the rogue actions of individuals. There can be no confidence in any prediction of a 269-269 Electoral College tie because college members are not always legally bound to vote for the candidate who carried the state they represent. “Faithless electors” are those who vote according to conscience rather than the strict mandate of their state. There were seven faithless electors in 2016, five of whom defected from Clinton and two of whom defected from Trump. In an election with tight margins in the Electoral College, it is conceivable that half of the population could be deprived of its democratic rights by the actions of a few individuals. There is a justification for the independence of electors but the point is that if they swung the election the results would be illegitimate in the eyes of around half of the country. In sum, the US election is shaping up to be extremely close, which means that frictions in the electoral system are likely to emerge. Thin and contested vote margins — or constitutional yet “unrepresentative” solutions to disputes — may deprive the government of legitimacy in the eyes of many and prolong America’s crisis of polarization. While financial markets expect a clear answer on November 3, they may not get it. Uncertainty may go up instead of down. Extreme polarization also has negative effects like abrupt vacillations in national policy — see the Iraq War, the 2015 Iranian nuclear pact, and domestic issues like the debt ceiling and the Affordable Care Act. Polarization can produce a self-feeding spiral that harms institutions and reduces predictability over the long run. Bottom Line: Can the equity market rally through contested elections and crises of legitimacy? Yes. It may even cheer a hamstring government for a while. But prolonged uncertainty — or social instability — would weigh on business and consumer sentiment. Update On The Democratic Primary: The Lead-Up To Super Tuesday Chart 5Bloomberg May Supplant Biden As Pro-Establishment Front Runner An Electoral College Tie?!? An Electoral College Tie?!? With the ninth Democratic Party primary debate concluding, the race for the nomination has blown open. Our view has been that a centrist or moderate candidate is most likely to emerge as the nominee and that former Vice President Joe Biden’s true testing ground would be in the South: South Carolina and Super Tuesday. Biden’s performance in Iowa and New Hampshire — where he angrily called a voter a “lying, dog-faced, pony soldier” — has been disastrous. Opinion polls suggest that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg may supplant him as the pro-establishment front runner (Chart 5). Bloomberg, however, has only just entered the race and has just suffered a hit from the combined onslaught of all the candidates at the ninth debate in Las Vegas. We need to see the votes — not just the money — to assess whether he can replace Biden (not to mention South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar) as the leading moderate candidate. Super Tuesday is critical for Bloomberg as well as for the other candidates who qualify for delegates and stay in the race after the Nevada Caucus on February 22 and South Carolina primary on February 29. With the roughly 55% share of votes going to moderates, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is benefiting from the ability to monopolize the remaining 45% of the vote for himself. That is, if Elizabeth Warren keeps failing to qualify. The problem for him is that his support could end up getting capped at around 25-30%, based on his performance thus far in Iowa, New Hampshire, and polling in Nevada, which is very different from 2016 when he divided the vote with Hillary Clinton alone (Chart 6). Chart 6Sanders’s Share Could Get Capped At 25-30% An Electoral College Tie?!? An Electoral College Tie?!? The question is whether Sanders can beat Warren definitively and sustain the momentum — which is very strong at the moment (Chart 7). He has tapped into the anti-establishment vein of the populace that propelled Trump to the Republican nomination in 2016. Chart 7Can Sanders Sustain The Strong Momentum? An Electoral College Tie?!? An Electoral College Tie?!? Party elites will not be able to reject Sanders if he wins a commanding plurality of the vote. Sanders is, thus far in the polling, more competitive for the nomination than Bloomberg (Chart 8), and more competitive than any candidate other than Biden when head-to-head against Trump (Chart 9). This is a tailwind in an election in which voters prioritize beating Trump: the more capable of doing so, the more momentum, the more capable of doing so. Chart 8Sanders Is Thus Far More Competitive Than Bloomberg An Electoral College Tie?!? An Electoral College Tie?!? Chart 9Sanders Is More Competitive Than Other Dem Candidates Vs. Trump, Except Biden An Electoral College Tie?!? An Electoral College Tie?!? There won’t be much clarity on the nomination process till after Super Tuesday at earliest. What is clear is that while Sanders may win a plurality of delegates (Chart 10), the moderates will take the nomination if they can coalesce around a candidate in time (Chart 11). Chart 10Sanders Likely To Win A Plurality Of Delegates … An Electoral College Tie?!? An Electoral College Tie?!? Chart 11… Unless Moderates Coalesce Around One Candidate An Electoral College Tie?!? An Electoral College Tie?!? Chart 12Super Delegates Could Tip The Scales Against Sanders, But Risk Sowing Discord An Electoral College Tie?!? An Electoral College Tie?!? It matters whether Sanders wins a commanding plurality of the vote and the proportionately allocated “unpledged delegates” to the Democratic convention. We benchmark his performance at 40%+, keeping in mind the 43% of the popular vote for the nomination that Sanders won in 2016. If he can win this large of a share of the Democratic Party voters, and stay well ahead of his second-ranked competitor due to vote splitting, then it will be hard for the party elites and elders to reject him. The so-called automatic delegates or “super delegates” can join in the second round of voting at the Democratic National Convention, and they would hesitate about a Sanders nomination and would be numerous enough to tip the scales against him (Chart 12). But to do so they would have to send 40%+ of their voters home aggrieved, which would be undemocratic and un-strategic for the party as it would cause a split in July just when it needed to band together to try to beat Trump. Game theory can help to illuminate the constraints of the primary if Sanders fails to win a strong plurality.2 What follows is a simple demonstration to provide a framework for understanding the voting procedure of the Democratic primary elections as a whole, and specifically multiple rounds of voting at a contested convention. Let us assume that the Democratic Party can be divided into three roughly equally popular voting groups for the primary contest: E = The Establishment = Biden, Klobuchar R = Reformers = Buttigieg, Bloomberg A = Anti-Establishment = Sanders, Warren The preferences of the groups are as follows: Establishment: E, R, A. The establishment cannot tolerate losing power to left-wing populism. Reformers: R, E, A. The reformers believe the establishment is out of date but favor gradual change rather than revolution and would prefer the establishment over a radical candidate. Anti-Establishment: A, R, E. The anti-establishment would prefer a populist, but would accept a reformer, as long as he is not the establishment. If the front runner is Sanders, he will lose the first round of voting, as E + R > A. In the second round, if the choice is Biden, Biden will be rejected: R + A > E. Therefore a reformer wins. This is still the outcome if Biden is the front runner in the first round, since Biden would lose (R + A > E) but then his voters would have to help a reformer win (R + E > A). Or, if Bloomberg were put up in the second round instead of Biden, the reformer still would win since R + A > E. Only if Bloomberg began the first round as a front runner would the outcome change. The first round he would lose because E + A > R. And then in the second round Biden would win because E + R > A. In the above voting sequence, neither the establishment nor the reformist voters would have an incentive to vote strategically — both would vote straightforwardly — since both rank the anti-establishment as their least preferred option. Super Tuesday will be critical in seeing if Sanders’s trajectory points toward a strong plurality. Therefore if Sanders cannot get a large enough plurality to win outright — large enough to compel unpledged candidates to join his coalition to win a majority of delegates — then he becomes the victim of a rational decision making process that works against him. The foregoing is a simple demonstration of the way the voting procedure will hurt a weak front runner — and elect someone other than an anti-establishment candidate — if the primary is conceived of as a simple sequential voting procedure, or if it comes to a contested election. But it is still possible that we could have the nomination decided by Sanders outperforming and clinching a majority in the primary elections, or in a brokered deal in June. Or another candidate, a moderate, could become the front runner and clinch the nomination while other moderate candidates are winnowed. Bottom Line: The Sanders risk to the equity market is immediate because he could win a strong plurality of delegates that could then create a dynamic that enables him to clinch the nomination. But if he falls short of a strong plurality then a reformer or establishment Democrat is favored. Super Tuesday will be critical in seeing if his trajectory points toward such a strong plurality. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 See Robert Griffin, Ruy Teixeira, and William H. Frey, "America's Electoral Future: Demographic Shifts and the Future of the Trump Coalition," Center for American Progress, April 2018. 2 See Steven J. Brams, Game Theory And Politics (Dover, 2004).

Highlights Analyses on Asian semis, Argentina and Russia are available on pages 7, 12 and 14, respectively. The most likely trajectory for Chinese growth will be as follows: the initial plunge in business activity will be succeeded by a rather sharp snap-back due to pent-up demand. However, that quick rebound will probably be followed by weaker growth. Financial markets will soon focus on growth beyond the temporary rebound. In our opinion, it will be weaker than markets are currently pricing. Thus, risks for EM risk assets and currencies are skewed to the downside. A major and lasting selloff in EM stocks will only occur if EM corporate bond yields rise. In this week’s report we discuss what it will take for EM corporate credit spreads to widen. Feature The downside risks to EM risk assets and currencies are growing. We continue to recommend underweighting EM equities, credit and currencies versus their DM counterparts. Today we are initiating a short position in EM stocks in absolute terms. Chart I-1 illustrates that the total return index (including carry) of EM ex-China currencies versus the US dollar has failed to break above its 2019 highs, and has rolled over decisively.  In contrast, the trade-weighted US dollar has exhibited a bullish technical configuration by rebounding from its 200-day moving average (Chart I-2). Odds are the dollar will make new highs. An upleg in the greenback will foreshadow a relapse in EM financial markets. Chart I-1EM Ex-China Currencies Have Been Struggling Despite Low US Rates EM Ex-China Currencies Have Been Struggling Despite Low US Rates EM Ex-China Currencies Have Been Struggling Despite Low US Rates Chart I-2The US Dollar Remains In A Bull Market The US Dollar Remains In A Bull Market The US Dollar Remains In A Bull Market   Growth Trajectory After The Dust Settles The evolution of the coronavirus remains highly uncertain and unpredictable. As with any pandemic or virus outbreak, its evolution will be complex with non-trivial odds of a second wave. Even under the assumption that the epidemic will be fully contained by the end of March, its economic impact on the Chinese and Asian economies will likely be greater than global financial markets are currently pricing. As investors come to the realization that this initial pick-up in economic activity after the virus outbreak will be followed by weaker growth, the odds of a selloff in equities and credit markets will rise. In our January 30 report titled Coronavirus Versus SARS: Mind The Economic Differences, we argued that using the framework from the SARS outbreak to analyze the current epidemic is inappropriate. First, only a small portion of the Chinese economy was shut down in 2003, and for a brief period of time. The current closures and limited operations are much more widespread and likely more prolonged. Table I-1China’s Importance Now And In 2003 EM: Growing Risk Of A Breakdown EM: Growing Risk Of A Breakdown Second, China accounts for a substantially larger share of the global economy today than it did in 2003 (Table I-1). Hence, the global business cycle is presently much more sensitive to demand and production in the mainland than it was during the SARS outbreak. Global financial markets have rebounded following the initial selloff in late January on expectations that the Chinese and global economies will experience a V-shaped recovery. In last week’s report, we discussed why the odds favor a tepid recovery for the Chinese business cycle and global trade. The main point of last week’s report was as follows: with the median company and household in China being overleveraged, any reduction in cash flow or income will undermine their ability to service their debt and will dent their confidence for some time. Hence, consumption, investment and hiring over the next several months will be negatively affected, even after the outbreak is contained. This in turn will diminish the multiplier effect of policy stimulus in China. Chart I-3Our Expectations Of China’s Business Cycle EM: Growing Risk Of A Breakdown EM: Growing Risk Of A Breakdown The most likely pattern for Chinese growth will likely resemble the trajectory demonstrated in Chart I-3. It assumes the plunge in business activity will be succeeded by a rather sharp snap-back due to pent-up demand. However, that snap-back will likely be followed by weaker growth, for reasons discussed in last week’s report. Equity and credit markets in Asia and worldwide have been sanguine because they have so far focused exclusively on expectations of a sharp rebound. As investors come to the realization that this initial pick-up in economic activity will be followed by weaker growth, the odds of a selloff in equities and credit markets will rise. Bottom Line: The most likely trajectory for Chinese and Asian growth will be as follows: the initial plunge in business activity will be succeeded by a rather sharp snap-back due to pent-up demand. However, that quick rebound will probably be followed by weaker growth. Financial markets are not pricing in this scenario. Thus, risks are skewed to the downside for EM risk assets and currencies. The Missing Ingredient For An Equity Selloff The missing ingredient for a selloff in EM equities is rising EM corporate bond yields. Chart I-4 illustrates that bear markets in EM stocks typically occur when EM US dollar corporate bond yields are rising. Hence, what matters for the direction of EM share prices is not risk-free rates/yields but EM corporate borrowing costs. Chart I-4The Destiny Of EM Equities Is DependEnt On EM Corporate Bond Yields The Destiny Of EM Equities is DependEnt On EM Corporate Bond Yields The Destiny Of EM Equities is DependEnt On EM Corporate Bond Yields EM (and US) corporate bond yields can rise under the following circumstances: (1) when US Treasury yields are ascending more than corporate credit spreads are tightening; (2) when credit spreads are widening more than Treasury yields are falling; or (3) when both government bond yields and corporate credit spreads are increasing simultaneously. Provided the backdrop of weaker growth is bullish for government bonds, presently corporate bond yields can only rise if credit spreads widen by more than the drop in Treasury yields. In short, the destiny of EM equities currently relies on corporate spreads. A major and lasting selloff in EM stocks will only occur if their respective corporate bond yields rise. From a historical perspective, EM and US corporate credit spreads are currently extremely tight (Chart I-5). A China-related growth scare could trigger a widening in EM corporate credit spreads. As this occurs, corporate bond yields will climb, causing share prices to plummet. EM corporate spreads have historically been correlated with EM exchange rates, the global/Chinese business cycle, and commodities prices (Chart I-6). The Chinese property market plays an especially pivotal role for the outlook of EM corporate spreads. Chart I-5EM And US Corporate Spread Remain Tame EM And US Corporate Spread Remain Tame EM And US Corporate Spread Remain Tame Chart I-6EM Corporate Spreads Inversely Correlate With EM Currencies And Commodities Prices EM Corporate Spreads Inversely Correlate With EM Currencies And Commodities Prices EM Corporate Spreads Inversely Correlate With EM Currencies And Commodities Prices   First, offshore bonds issued by mainland property developers account for a large share of the EM corporate bond index. Chart I-7China Property Market Will Continue Disappointing China Property Market Will Continue Disappointing China Property Market Will Continue Disappointing Second, swings in China’s property markets often drive the mainland’s business cycle and its demand for resources, chemicals and industrial machinery. In turn, Chinese imports of commodities affect both economic growth and exchange rates of EM ex-China. Finally, the latter two determine the direction of EM ex-China corporate spreads. China’s construction activity and property developers were struggling before the coronavirus outbreak (Chart I-7). Given their high debt burden, the ongoing plunge in new property sales and their cash flow will not only weigh on their debt sustainability but also force them to curtail construction activity. The latter will continue suppressing commodities prices. The sensitivity of EM corporate spreads to these variables have in recent years diminished because of the unrelenting search for yield by global investors. As QE policies by DM central banks have removed some $9 trillion of high-quality securities from circulation, the volume of securities available in the markets has shrunk. This has distorted historical correlations of EM corporate spreads with their fundamental drivers – namely, China’s construction activity, commodities prices, EM exchange rates and the global trade cycle. Nonetheless, EM corporate credit spreads’ sensitivity to these variables has diminished, but has not vanished outright. If EM currencies depreciate meaningfully, commodities prices plunge and China’s growth and the global trade cycle disappoint, odds are that EM corporate spreads will widen. Given that credit markets are already in overbought territory, any selloff could trigger a cascading effect, resulting in meaningful credit-spread widening. Bottom Line: A major and lasting selloff in EM stocks will only occur if their respective corporate bond yields rise. The timing is uncertain, but the odds of EM corporate credit spreads widening are mounting as Chinese growth underwhelms, commodities prices drop and EM currencies depreciate. If these trends persist, they will push EM shares prices over the cliff. As to today’s recommendation to short the EM stock index, we anticipate at least a 10% selloff in EM stocks in US-dollar terms. For currency investors, we are maintaining our shorts in a basket of EM currencies versus the dollar. This basket includes the BRL, CLP, COP, ZAR, KRW, IDR and PHP. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Are Semiconductor Stocks Facing An Air Pocket? Global semiconductor share prices have continued to hit new highs, even though there has not been any recovery (positive growth) in global semiconductor sales or in their corporate earnings (EPS). The coronavirus outbreak and the resulting delay in 5G phone sales in China in the first half of 2020 will trigger a pullback in semiconductor equities. Global semiconductor sales bottomed on a rate-of-change basis in June, but their annual growth rate was still negative in December. In the meantime, global semi share prices have been rallying since January 2019. This divergence between stock prices and revenue of global semiconductor stocks is unprecedented (Chart II-1). Chart II-1Over-Hyped Global Semi Share Prices Global Semiconductor Market: Sales & Share Prices Over-Hyped Global Semi Share Prices Global Semiconductor Market: Sales & Share Prices Over-Hyped Global Semi Share Prices Odds are that global semi stocks in general, and Asian ones in particular, will experience a pullback in the coming weeks. The coronavirus outbreak will likely dampen expectations related to the speed of 5G adoption and penetration in China. Critically, China accounted for 35% of global semiconductor sales in 2019, versus 19% for the US and 10% for the whole of Europe. In brief, semiconductor demand from China is now greater than the US and European demand combined. Furthermore, the latest news that the US administration is considering changing its regulations to prevent shipments of semiconductor chips to China’s Huawei Technologies from global companies - including Taiwan's TSMC - could hurt chip stocks further. Since Huawei Technologies is the global leader in 5G networks and smartphones, the ban, if implemented, will instigate a sizable setback to 5G adoption in China and elsewhere. Table II-1Industry Forecasts Of The 2020 Global 5G- Smartphone Shipments EM: Growing Risk Of A Breakdown EM: Growing Risk Of A Breakdown Our updated estimate of global 5G smartphone shipments is between 160 million and 180 million units in 2020, which is below the median of industry expectations of 210 million units (Table II-1). The key reasons why the industry’s expectations are unreasonably high, in our opinion, are as follows: Chinese demand for new smartphones will likely stay weak (Chart II-2). The mainland smartphone market has become extremely saturated, with 1.3 billion units having been sold in just the past three years – nearly equaling the entire Chinese population. Chinese official data show that each Chinese household owned 2.5 phones on average in 2018, and that the average household size was about three persons (Chart II-3). This suggests that going forward nearly all potential phone demand in China is for replacement phones, and that there is no urgent need for households to buy new phones. Chart II-2Chinese Smartphone Demand: Further Decline In 2020 Chinese Smartphone Demand: Further Decline In 2020 Chinese Smartphone Demand: Further Decline In 2020 Chart II-3Chinese Households: No Urgent Need For A New Phone Chinese Households: No Urgent Need For A New Phone Chinese Households: No Urgent Need For A New Phone   The Chinese government’s boost to 5G infrastructure investment will likely increase annual installed 5G base stations from 130,000 units last year to about 600,000 to 800,000 this year. However, the total number of 5G base stations will still only account for about 7-9% of total base stations in China in 2020. Hence, geographical coverage will not be sufficiently wide enough to warrant a very high rate of 5G smartphone adoption and penetration. From Chinese consumers’ perspectives, a 5G phone in 2020 will be a ‘nice-to-have,’ but not a ‘must-have.’ Given increasing economic uncertainty and many concerns related to the use of 5G phones, mainland consumers may delay their purchases into 2021 when 5G phone networks will have more geographic coverage.  The number of 5G phone models on the market is expanding, but not that quickly. Consumers may take their time to wait for more models to hit the market before making a 5G phone purchase. For example, Apple will release four 5G phone models, but only in September 2020. Moreover, the price competition between 5G and 4G phones is getting increasingly intense. Smartphone producers have already started to cut prices of their 4G phones aggressively. For example, the price of Apple’s iPhone XS, released in September 2018, has already dropped by about 50% in China. Outside of China, 5G infrastructure development will be much slower. The majority of developed countries will likely give in to pressure from the US and limit their use of Huawei 5G equipment. This will delay infrastructure installation and adoption of 5G throughout the rest of the world because Huawei has the leading and cheapest 5G technology. In 2019, China accounted for about 70% of worldwide 5G smartphone shipments. We reckon that in 2020 Chinese 5G smartphone shipments will be between 120 million and 130 million units. Assuming this accounts for about 70-75% of the world shipment of 5G phones this year, we arrive at our estimate of global 5G smartphone shipments of between 160 million and 180 million units. We agree that 5G technology is revolutionary. Nevertheless, we still believe global semi share prices are presently overhyped by unreasonably optimistic 2020 projections. Overall, investors are pricing global semi stocks using the pace and trajectory of 4G smartphones adoption. However, in 2020 the number and speed of 5G phone penetration will continue lagging that of 4G ones when the latter were introduced in December 2013 (Chart II-4). We agree that 5G technology is revolutionary, and its adoption and penetration will surge in the coming years. Nevertheless, we still believe global semi share prices are presently overhyped by unreasonably optimistic 2020 projections (Chart II-5).  Chart II-4China 5G-Adoption Pace: Slower Than The Case With 4G China 5G-Adoption Pace: Slower Than The Case With 4G China 5G-Adoption Pace: Slower Than The Case With 4G Chart II-5Net Earnings Of Global Semi Sector: Too Optimistic? Net Earnings Of Global Semi Sector: Too Optimistic? Net Earnings Of Global Semi Sector: Too Optimistic?   Investment Implications Global semi stocks’ valuations are very elevated, as shown in Chart II-6 and Chart II-7. Besides, semi stocks are overbought, suggesting they could correct meaningfully if lofty growth expectations currently baked into their prices do not materialize in the first half of this year. Chart II-6Global Semi Stocks Valuations: Very Elevated Global Semi Stocks Valuations: Very Elevated Global Semi Stocks Valuations: Very Elevated Chart II-7Global Semi Stocks’ Valuations: Very Elevated Global Semi Stocks Valuations: Very Elevated Global Semi Stocks Valuations: Very Elevated   The coronavirus outbreak and the resulting delay in 5G phone sales in China in the first half of 2020, along with US pressure on global semi producers not to sell to Huawei, will likely trigger a pullback in semiconductor equities. We recommend patiently waiting for a better entry point for absolute return investors. Within the EM equity universe, we have not been underweight Asian semi stocks because of our negative outlook for the overall EM equity benchmark. The Argentine government will drag out foreign debt negotiations with the IMF and foreign private creditors to secure a more favorable settlement. We remain neutral on Taiwan and overweight Korea. The reason is that DRAM makers such as Samsung and Hynix have rallied much less than TSMC. Besides, geopolitical risks in relation to Taiwan in general and TSMC in particular are rising, warranting a more defensive stance on Taiwanese stocks relative to Korean equities. Ellen JingYuan He Associate Vice President ellenj@bcaresearch.com Argentina’s Eternal Tango With Foreign Creditors Chart III-1Downside Risks To Bond Prices Downside Risks to Bond Prices Downside Risks to Bond Prices Our view remains that debt negotiations will be drawn-out because the Argentine government is both unwilling and lacks the financial capacity to service public foreign debt. The administration’s recent attitude toward foreign creditors and the IMF have startled markets: sovereign Eurobond bond prices have tanked (Chart III-1). The reasons why the Fernandez administration will play tough ball with creditors and the IMF are as follows: The country’s foreign funding and the public sector debt situations are precarious. Hence, the lower the recovery rate they negotiate with creditors, the more funds will be available to expand social programs and secure domestic political support. Given Fernandez’s and Peronist’s voter base, the government is inclined to please the population at expense of foreign creditors. Moreover, Alberto Fernandez is facing increasing scrutiny from radical Peronists, who want to dissolve the debt altogether. Vice-president Fernandez de Kirchner stated that Argentina should not pay international agents until the economy escapes a recession. To further add to creditors’ frustration, the government has yet to announce a comprehensive economic plan to revive the economy and service outstanding debt. The public foreign currency debt burden is unsustainable – its level stands at $250 billion, about 4 times larger than exports. The country is still in a recession, and economic indicators do not show much improvement. Committing to fiscal austerity to service foreign debt would entail further economic suffering for Argentine businesses and households, something Fernandez rejected throughout his campaign. The authorities are singularly focused on reviving the economy: government expenditures have grown by over 50% annually under the current administration (Chart III-2). Crucially, Argentina has already achieved a large trade surplus and its current account balance is approaching zero (Chart III-3). Assuming exports stay flat, the economy can afford to maintain its current level of imports. This makes the authorities less willing to compromise and more inclined to adopt a tough stance in debt negotiations. Chart III-2Peronist Government Has Again Boosted Fiscal Spending Peronist Government Has Again Boosted Fiscal Spending Peronist Government Has Again Boosted Fiscal Spending Chart III-3Argentina: Current Account Is Almost Balanced Argentina: Current Account Is Almost Balanced Argentina: Current Account Is Almost Balanced   The risk of this negotiation strategy is that the nation will not be able to raise foreign funding for a while. Nevertheless, the country is currently de facto not receiving any external financing. Hence, this risk is less pressing. Moreover, the administration has already delayed all US$ bond payments until August. This allows them to extend negotiations with creditors over the next six months, thereby increasing uncertainty and further pushing down bond prices. A lower market price on Argentine bonds is beneficial for the government’s negotiation strategy as it implies lower expectations for foreign creditors. Thus, the Fernandez administration’s strategy will be to play hardball and draw-out negotiations as long as possible. We expect Argentina to reach a settlement with creditors no earlier than in the third quarter of this year and at recovery rates below current prices of the nation’s Eurobonds. Russian financial assets will be supported due to improving public sector governance, accelerating domestic demand growth and healthy macro fundamentals. Bottom Line: The government will drag out foreign debt negotiations with the IMF and foreign private creditors to secure a more favorable settlement. Continue to underweight Argentine financial assets over the next several months. Juan Egaña Research Associate juane@bcaresearch.com Russia: Harvesting The Benefits Of Macro Orthodoxy Russian financial markets have shown resilience in face of falling oil prices. This has been the upshot of the nation’s prudent macro policies in recent years. We have been positive on Russia and overweight Russian markets over the past two years and this stance remains intact. Going forward, Russian financial assets will be supported due to improving public sector governance, accelerating domestic demand growth and healthy macro fundamentals: Fiscal policy will be relaxed substantially – both infrastructure and social spending will rise. Specifically, the Kremlin is eager to ramp up the national projects program. This is bullish for domestic demand. Russia’s public finances are currently in a very healthy state. Public debt (14% of GDP) is minimal and foreign public debt (4% of GDP) is tiny. The overall fiscal balance is in large surplus (2.7% of GDP). The current account is also in surplus. Hence, a major boost in fiscal spending will not undermine Russia’s macro stability for some time. As a major sign of policy change, President Putin has sidelined or reduced the authority of policymakers who have been advocating tight fiscal policy. This policy change has been overdue as fiscal policy has been unreasonably tight for longer than required (Chart IV-1). Chart IV-1Russia: Government Spending Has Been Extremely Weak Russia: Government Spending Has Been Extremely Weak Russia: Government Spending Has Been Extremely Weak Importantly, the recent changes at the highest levels of government are also positive for governance and productivity. The new Prime Minister Mishustin has earned this appointment for his achievements as the head of the federal tax authority. He has restructured and reorganized the tax department in a way that has boosted its efficiency/productivity substantially and increased tax collection. By promoting him to the head of government, Putin has boosted Mishustin’s authority to reform the entire federal governance system. Given his record of accomplishment, odds are that the new prime minister will succeed in implementing some reforms and restructuring. Thereby, productivity growth that has been stagnant in Russia for a decade could revive modestly. Also, Putin was reluctant to boost infrastructure spending as he was afraid of money being misappropriated without a proper monitoring system. Putin now hopes Mishustin can introduce an efficient governance system of fiscal spending to assure infrastructure projects can be realized with reasonably minimal losses. As to monetary policy, real interest rates are still very high. The prime lending rate is 10%, the policy rate is 6% and nominal GDP growth is 3.3% (Chart IV-2). Weak growth (Chart IV-3) and low inflation will encourage the central bank to continue cutting interest rates. Chart IV-2Russia: Interest Rates Remain Excessively High Russia: Interest Rates Remain Excessively High Russia: Interest Rates Remain Excessively High Chart IV-3Russia's Growth Is Very Sluggish Russia's Growth Is Very Sluggish Russia's Growth Is Very Sluggish   Finally, the economy does not have any structural excesses and imbalances. The central bank has done a good job in cleansing the banking system and the latter is in healthy shape. Bottom Line: The ruble will be supported by improving productivity, cyclical growth acceleration and a healthy fiscal position. We continue recommending overweighting Russian stocks, local currency bonds and sovereign credit relative to their respective EM benchmarks. Last week, we also recommended a new trade: Short Turkish bank stocks / long Russian bank stocks. The main risk to the absolute performance of Russian markets is another plunge in oil prices and a broad selloff in EM. On November 14, 2019 we recommended absolute return investors to go long Russian local currency bonds and short oil. This strategy remains intact. Finally, we have been recommending the long ruble / short Colombian peso trade since May 31, 2018. This position has generated large gains and we are reiterating it. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights Duration: Bond yields will stay low until the daily number of new COVID-19 cases falls to zero, at which point a sell-off is likely. We therefore recommend maintaining below-benchmark portfolio duration on a 6-12 month horizon. Rising odds of a Bernie Sanders presidential win could prevent bond yields from rising at all this year. We may adjust our recommendations in the coming months if this risk increases. Spread Product: Investors should maintain an overweight allocation to spread product versus Treasuries, with a preference for high-yield. Accommodative monetary conditions will ensure that the supply of credit remains ample for some time yet. This will keep defaults low and spreads tight. Monetary Policy: The Fed is in no rush to tighten policy, but has also set a high bar for further cuts. Investors should short August 2020 fed funds futures.  Yields Will Move Higher … But Not Yet Chart 1A Peak In New Cases? A Peak In New Cases? A Peak In New Cases? Uncertainty about the economic impact of the coronavirus – now officially called COVID-19 – is the cloud that continues to hang over financial markets. Last week, bond yields fell when a change in the definition of what constitutes a confirmed infection caused the number of reported cases to spike. However, even after revisions, the daily number of new cases looks like it may have peaked (Chart 1). The end result is that the 10-year Treasury yield sits at 1.58%, not far from where it was last week (Chart 2). Notably, the 10-year yield continues to shrug off the notable improvement in US economic data (Chart 2, bottom panel), taking its cues instead from COVID-19 headline risk. Even if the downtrend in new COVID-19 cases continues, it is too soon to be looking for higher bond yields. For one thing, the most up-to-date economic data releases were collected during January, before the outbreak. Weaker readings during the next 1-2 months are assured, and investors may not look through the weakness given that many were already skeptical about the prospects for global economic recovery. Our read of the data is that global growth was in the process of bottoming when COVID-19 struck. We therefore expect global growth to move higher once the virus’ impact abates. In terms of timing, using the 2003 SARS outbreak as a comparable, we expect bonds to remain bid until the daily number of new cases falls to zero, at which point a sell-off is likely. Yields continue to shrug off improvements in economic data. It’s not just the long-end of the curve that has responded to COVID-19. The front-end has also moved to price-in high odds of a rate cut in the coming months. Specifically, the overnight index swap curve is priced for a 42 bps decline in the fed funds rate during the next 12 months (Chart 2, panel 2), and the fed funds futures market is pricing a 74% chance of a rate cut by the end of the summer. As we discussed last week, given that any economic impact from COVID-19 will be temporary, we think the bar for a Fed rate cut this year is quite high.1 As such, our Golden Rule of Bond Investing dictates that investors should keep portfolio duration low on a 12-month horizon.2 We also recommend shorting August 2020 fed funds futures, a trade that will earn 23 bps of unlevered return if the Fed stands pat between now and August (Chart 2, panel 3). Turning to corporate credit, we see that, so far, COVID-19’s impact on spreads has been minor. The investment grade corporate bond index spread is only 3 bps wider than at the start of the year, and the junk index spread is only 8 bps wider (Chart 3). Value remains stretched in the investment grade space, but high-yield spreads look quite attractive. The sell-off in the energy sector has boosted the high-yield index spread considerably (Chart 3, bottom 2 panels). We view this as a medium-term buying opportunity for junk. Once the COVID outbreak abates and global growth ticks higher, the oil price is bound to increase, leading to some tightening in energy spreads. Chart 2Bond Yields Driven By COVID Bond Yields Driven By COVID Bond Yields Driven By COVID Chart 3HY More Attractive Than IG HY More Attractive Than IG HY More Attractive Than IG Will Bonds Feel The Bern? Beyond COVID-19, there is one more risk on the horizon this year. Specifically, the risk that Bernie Sanders is elected President in November. This outcome is far from certain. Sanders is currently leading all other candidates in the Democratic Primary, but fivethirtyeight.com’s model puts the odds of a brokered convention at 38%.3 This means that the race is still wide open and might only be settled at the convention in July. But given Sanders’ lead, it is worth considering the bond market implications if he were to become the next President. The most obvious implication is that risk assets (equities and corporate spreads) would respond to Sanders’ agenda of wealth redistribution by selling off. This could spur a flight-to-quality into government bonds, causing Treasury yields to fall. However, that flight-to-quality won’t occur if markets also start to price-in the long-run implications of Sanders’ agenda. I.e. the fact that the redistribution of wealth from capital to labor would lower the economy’s marginal propensity to save, and likely raise inflation expectations, leading to higher interest rates. It’s important to note that there are a lot of hurdles to overcome before Sanders’ full policy agenda is implemented. First he must secure the Democratic nomination, then defeat Donald Trump in the general election. Even after that, he will still need to convince the House and Senate to pass non-watered down versions of his proposals. With such a long road ahead, we don’t think Sanders’ momentum will push bond yields higher in 2020. Rather, the risk is that Sanders’ rise keeps bond yields low in 2020 as risk assets sell off. If Bernie Sanders looks poised to win the nomination, we will consider reducing our 6-12 month allocation to spread product and increasing our recommended portfolio duration. The outlook for the Democratic Primary should become clearer after Super Tuesday on March 3. If Sanders looks poised to win the nomination we will consider reducing our recommended 6-12 month allocation to spread product and increasing our recommended portfolio duration. Bottom Line: Bond yields will stay low until the daily number of new COVID-19 cases falls to zero, at which point a sell-off is likely. We therefore recommend maintaining below-benchmark portfolio duration on a 6-12 month horizon. Rising odds of a Bernie Sanders presidential win could prevent bond yields from rising at all this year. We may adjust our recommendations in the coming months if this risk increases. Investors should maintain an overweight allocation to spread product versus Treasuries, with a preference for junk. Though the credit cycle is far from over (see next section), we may reduce our recommended allocation to spread product versus Treasuries if Sanders’ election chances rise.  Bank Lending Standards Won’t Push Credit Spreads Wider In 2020 The net change in commercial & industrial (C&I) bank lending standards, as reported in the Fed’s quarterly Senior Loan Officer Survey, is a vitally important indicator for the credit cycle. Easing lending standards tend to coincide with a low default rate and falling credit spreads, while tightening lending standards usually coincide with spread widening and a rising default rate. With that in mind, it is mildly concerning that bank lending standards have been fluctuating around neutral levels for quite some time, and have in fact tightened in two of the past five quarters (Chart 4). In this week’s report we consider whether tighter bank lending standards could pose a risk to our overweight spread product view in 2020. Chart 4Bank Lending Standards And Monetary Variables Bank Lending Standards And Monetary Variables Bank Lending Standards And Monetary Variables Bank lending standards are such an important credit cycle variable because they tell us about the supply of credit. A corporate default only occurs when credit supply is lower than the amount required for that firm’s survival. On a macro scale, we can think of two main reasons why lenders might restrict the credit supply: They perceive the monetary environment as restrictive. That is, they worry about higher interest rates and slower growth in the future. They perceive corporate balance sheets as being in poor health. That is, they worry that firms won’t be sufficiently profitable to make good on their debts. We find that monetary indicators do a very good job of predicting when lending standards will tighten. Looking back at the past two cycles, lending standards didn’t tighten until after: The yield curve inverted (Chart 4, panel 2). The real fed funds rate was above its estimated equilibrium level (Chart 4, panel 3). Inflation expectations were at or above target levels (Chart 4, bottom panel). Presently, all three of these monetary indicators are supportive. Some portions of the yield curve have been inverted at various times during the past year. But in general, the inversion signal from the yield curve has not been as strong as it was when lending standards tightened in prior cycles. For instance, the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope has not inverted this cycle, and it currently sits at +20 bps (Chart 4, panel 2). Further, the real fed funds rate is below most estimates of its neutral level and the Fed is signaling that it will keep it there for a long time yet. This dovish posture is justified by inflation expectations that remain well below target. It is conceivable that, despite the accommodative monetary environment, banks might be so concerned about poor balance sheet health that they are becoming more cautious with their lending. However, a survey of corporate health metrics doesn’t point to an imminent tightening of bank lending standards either (Chart 5). Chart 5Bank Lending Standards And Corporate Balance Sheet Variables Bank Lending Standards And Corporate Balance Sheet Variables Bank Lending Standards And Corporate Balance Sheet Variables In past cycles, tighter bank lending standards were preceded by: A trough in gross leverage (pre-tax profits over total debt) (Chart 5, panel 2). A peak in interest coverage (Chart 5, panel 3). Negative pre-tax profit growth (Chart 5, panel 4). A peak in profit margins (Chart 5, bottom panel). Currently, gross leverage is the only one of the above four variables that is clearly sending a negative signal. As for the other three, interest coverage and profit margins are barely off their cyclical highs, and profit growth has been fluctuating around zero for three years. If global growth rebounds during the next 12 months, as we expect, then profit growth will also move modestly higher. Bottom Line: Neither monetary nor balance sheet variables point to an imminent tightening of bank lending standards. We expect that the supply of credit will remain ample in 2020, keeping the default rate low and credit spreads tight. A Note On Falling C&I Loan Demand In addition to questions about lending standards, the Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey also asks banks to report whether they are seeing stronger or weaker demand for C&I loans. In response, banks have reported weaker C&I loan demand for six consecutive quarters, ending in Q4 2019. Historically, it is unusual for C&I loan demand to fall without a concurrent tightening in lending standards (Chart 6). Chart 6Explaining Weakening Loan Demand Explaining Weakening Loan Demand Explaining Weakening Loan Demand We also see the impact of weaker loan demand in the hard data. C&I loan growth has been falling since early 2019 (Chart 6, panel 2) and net corporate bond issuance had been on a sharp downtrend since 2015, before moving higher last year (Chart 6, bottom panel). So what’s going on with C&I loan demand? We can think of two reasons why firms might seek out less credit. First, they may face a dearth of investment opportunities, or alternatively, they might perceive some benefit from carrying less debt on their balance sheets. On the first point, we find that new orders for core capital goods do a very good job explaining the swings in C&I lending (Chart 7). Specifically, we see that the global growth slowdown of 2015/16 drove both investment spending and C&I lending lower. Then, both series recovered in 2017/18 before moving down again during last year’s slowdown. Surveys about firms’ capital spending plans also dropped last year, consistent with the deceleration in C&I lending, but remain at high levels (Chart 7, bottom three panels). All of this suggests that C&I loan growth will recover this year as global growth improves and the investment landscape brightens. Capital goods new orders do a good job explaining C&I lending. Corporate bond issuance has followed a different path from C&I lending during the past few years. Specifically, bond issuance slowed in 2015/16 as investment spending dried up. But it did not recover in 2017/18 the way that investment spending and C&I lending did. This appears to be a result of the 2018 corporate tax cuts and repatriation holiday. Chart 8 shows that the Financing Gap – the difference between capex spending and retained earnings – plunged in 2018 because firms suddenly received a huge influx of retained earnings. The influx came in part from the lower tax rate, but mostly from repatriated cash that had been stranded overseas. Simply, firms didn’t need to issue bonds to finance their investment plans in 2018 because they had a lot more cash on hand. Chart 7C&I Lending Follows ##br##Investment C&I Lending Follows Investment C&I Lending Follows Investment Chart 8A Negative Financing Gap Limits The Need For Debt A Negative Financing Gap Limits The Need For Debt A Negative Financing Gap Limits The Need For Debt What about the possibility that firms are demanding less debt because they are trying to clean up their balance sheets? Beyond a few anecdotes, we don’t see much support for this idea. In fact, an equity index of firms with low debt/asset ratios has been underperforming an index of firms with high debt/asset ratios (Chart 9). This suggests that there is currently little reward for firms that are paying down debt. Chart 9Firms Not Rewarded For Healthy Balance Sheets Firms Not Rewarded For Healthy Balance Sheets Firms Not Rewarded For Healthy Balance Sheets Bottom Line: Weaker demand for C&I loans is a result of the recent global growth downturn and decline in investment spending. It is not a harbinger of the end of the credit cycle. Loan demand should improve as global growth rebounds this year. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting?”, dated February 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For further details on our Golden Rule of Bond Investing please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Provided that the coronavirus outbreak is contained, global growth should accelerate over the course of 2020. Stocks usually rise when the economy is strengthening. But could this time be different? We explore five scenarios in which the stock market could decouple from the economy: 1) The economy holds up, but stretched valuations bring down equities, especially high-flying growth stocks; 2) Bond yields rise in response to faster growth, hurting equities in the process; 3) A strong US economy lifts the value of the dollar, denting multinational profits and tightening financial conditions abroad; 4) Faster wage growth cuts into corporate profits; and 5) Redistributionist politicians seek to shift income from capital to labor. We are not too concerned about the first four scenarios, but we do worry about the fifth, especially now that betting markets are giving Bernie Sanders a nearly 50% chance of becoming the Democratic nominee. Matters should be clearer by mid-March, by which time more than 60% of Democratic delegates will have been awarded. If Bernie Sanders does emerge as the nominee at that point, we will consider trimming back our bullish cyclical bias towards stocks. Coronavirus: A Break In The Clouds? Chart 1Coronavirus Remains Mostly Contained To China Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? Investors continue to grapple with two distinct narratives about how the coronavirus outbreak is unfolding. On the pessimistic side, some contend that the true number of infections in China is much higher than the Chinese authorities are disclosing. How else, they ask, can one explain why the government has taken the extreme step of imposing some form of quarantine on 400 million of its own people? More optimistic observers argue that the Chinese government is simply being proactive. While the number of cases in Hubei province spiked yesterday, this was due to a loosening in the definition for what constitutes a confirmed infection. Whereas previously a positive laboratory test was required, now a positive imaging-based clinical examination will suffice. Under the new definition, the number of newly confirmed cases fell from 6,528 on February 11th to 4,273 on February 12th. Under the old definition, newly diagnosed cases peaked on February 2nd (Chart 1). The revised definition adopted in Hubei brought the mortality rate in the province down to 2.7%. The mortality rate observed in the rest of China is 0.5%. The share of all cases in China originating in Hubei also rose to 81%. Even before the rule change, the share of cases diagnosed in Hubei had risen from 52% on January 26th to 75% on February 11th. This suggests progress in limiting the outbreak to the province. Critically, the number of cases in the rest of the world remains low. In the US, a total of 13 cases have been confirmed as of February 12th, just two more than the 11 reported on February 2nd. The Exception To The Rule? Provided that the coronavirus outbreak is contained, global growth should bounce back forcefully in the second quarter. If that were to occur, history suggests that equities will continue to rally, while bond prices will fall (Chart 2). But could history fail to repeat itself? In this week’s report, we explore five scenarios in which that may happen. Scenario 1: Stretched valuations bring down equities, especially high-flying growth stocks Stocks have moved up considerably since their December 2018 lows. This suggests that investors have become more confident about the economic outlook. Nevertheless, while most investors may no longer be worried about an imminent recession, they do not foresee a sharp acceleration in global growth either. This is evidenced by the fact that cyclical stocks have generally underperformed defensives (Chart 3). Oil prices have also languished, while copper prices are back near a 2.5-year low (Chart 4). Chart 2Stocks Usually Outperform Bonds When Global Growth Is Accelerating Stocks Usually Outperform Bonds When Global Growth Is Accelerating Stocks Usually Outperform Bonds When Global Growth Is Accelerating Chart 3Cyclicals Have Failed To Outperform Defensives Cyclicals Have Failed To Outperform Defensives Cyclicals Have Failed To Outperform Defensives   At the broad index level, global equities trade at 16.7-times forward earnings. Conceptually, the inverse of the PE ratio – the earnings yield – should serve as a reasonable guide for the total real return that equities will deliver over the long haul.1 At 6%, the global earnings yield still points to decent returns for global stocks. Relative to bonds, the case for owning stocks is even more compelling. The equity risk premium, which one can compute as the earnings yield minus the real bond yield, remains well above its historic average (Chart 5). Chart 4Commodity Prices Have Taken It On The Chin Commodity Prices Have Taken It On The Chin Commodity Prices Have Taken It On The Chin Chart 5Relative Valuations Favor Equities Relative Valuations Favor Equities Relative Valuations Favor Equities   That said, there are pockets where valuations have gotten stretched. US equities trade at 19.5-times forward earnings compared to 14.1-times in the rest of the world. Growth stocks, in particular, have gotten very expensive (Chart 6). The five largest stocks in the S&P 500 (Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, and Facebook) now account for 18% of the index, the same share that the top five stocks (Microsoft, Cisco, GE, Intel, and Exxon) commanded in 2000. The big risk for stocks is that wages go up not because the overall size of the economic pie is growing, but because policies are implemented that shift a bigger share of the pie from capital to labor. Despite the similarities between today and the dotcom era, there are a few critical differences – most of which make us less worried about the current state of affairs. First, while tech valuations are currently stretched, they are not in bubble territory. The NASDAQ Composite trades at 30-times trailing earnings. At its peak in March 2000, the tech-heavy index traded at more than 70-times earnings (Chart 7). Chart 6Growth Stocks Have Become Expensive Relative To Value Stocks Growth Stocks Have Become Expensive Relative To Value Stocks Growth Stocks Have Become Expensive Relative To Value Stocks Chart 7Not Yet Partying Like 1999 Not Yet Partying Like 1999 Not Yet Partying Like 1999   Second, IPO activity has also been more muted today than during the dotcom boom (Chart 8). Only 110 companies went public last year, with the gain on the first day of trading averaging 24%. In 1999, 476 companies went public. The average first day gain was 71%. Meanwhile, companies continue to buy up their shares. The buyback yield stands at 3%, twice as high as in the late 1990s. Third, there is no capex overhang like in the late 1990s (Chart 9). This reduces the odds of a 2001-recession scenario where falling equity prices prompted companies to pare back capital expenditures, leading to rising unemployment and even lower equity prices. Chart 8IPO Activity Is Muted Today Compared To The Late 1990s IPO Activity Is Muted Today Compared To The Late 1990s IPO Activity Is Muted Today Compared To The Late 1990s Chart 9No Capex Boom This Time No Capex Boom This Time No Capex Boom This Time   Scenario 2: Bond yields rise in response to faster growth, hurting equities in the process The period between November 2018 and September 2019 was an odd one for the stock-to-bond correlation. If one looks at daily data, stocks did best when bond yields were rising. Yet, for the period as a whole, stocks finished higher while bond yields finished lower (Chart 10). Chart 10Daily Changes: S&P 500 Vs. 10-Year Treasury Yield Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? How can one explain this seeming paradox? The answer is that the underlying trend in bond yields was squarely to the downside last year. While yields did rise modestly on days when equities rallied, yields fell sharply on days when equities swooned. If one zooms out, one sees the underlying trend, whereas if one zooms in, one only sees the wiggles around the trend. Bond yields trended lower last year because the Fed and most other central banks were delivering one dose of dovish medicine after another. This year, however, the Fed is on hold, and while a few central banks may still cut rates, global monetary policy is unlikely to become much looser. This means that bond yields are likely to drift higher if economic growth surprises on the upside. Will rising bond yields sabotage the stock market? We do not think so. Stocks crashed in late 2018 because investors became convinced that US monetary policy had turned restrictive after the Fed had raised rates by a cumulative 200 basis points over the prior two years. The fact that the Laubach-Williams model, one of the most widely followed models of the neutral rate, showed that real rates had moved above their equilibrium level did not help sentiment (Chart 11). Chart 11The Fed Will Keep Policy Easy For The Time Being The Fed Will Keep Policy Easy For The Time Being The Fed Will Keep Policy Easy For The Time Being Chart 12Stocks Do Well When Earnings And Growth Surprise On The Upside Stocks Do Well When Earnings And Growth Surprise On The Upside Stocks Do Well When Earnings And Growth Surprise On The Upside Today, real rates are about 100 basis points below the Laubach-Williams estimate. This will not change anytime soon, given that the Fed is likely to remain on hold at least until the end of the year. So long as rates stay put, monetary policy will remain accommodative, allowing the economy to grow at a solid pace. Granted, rising long-term bond yields will reduce the present value of future cash flows, thus potentially hurting stocks. However, as we discussed three weeks ago, the discount rate is not the only thing that affects equity valuations.2 The expected growth rate of earnings matters too. As Chart 12 shows, global equity returns are highly sensitive to earning revisions. While earnings may disappoint in the first quarter due to the economic damage from the coronavirus, they should bounce back during the remainder of this year. This should pave the way for higher equity prices. Scenario 3: A strong US economy lifts the value of the dollar, denting multinational profits and tightening financial conditions abroad The US is a fairly closed economy. Imports and exports account for only 14.6% and 11.7% of GDP, respectively. In contrast, the US stock market is very exposed to the rest of the world. S&P 500 companies derive over 40% of their sales from abroad. As such, changes in the value of the dollar tend to have a bigger impact on Wall Street than on Main Street. Estimating the degree to which a stronger dollar reduces S&P 500 profits is no easy task. Direct estimates that measure the currency translation effect on overseas profits from a stronger dollar tend to yield fairly modest results, typically showing that a 10% appreciation in the trade-weighted dollar reduces S&P 500 profits by about 2%. These estimates, however, generally do not take into account feedback loops between a strengthening dollar and global financial conditions (Chart 13). According to the Bank of International Settlements, $12 trillion of dollar-denominated debt has been issued outside the US. A stronger dollar makes it more challenging to service this debt, which can put a significant strain on borrowers. As a result, a vicious cycle can erupt where a stronger dollar leads to tighter financial conditions, which in turn lead to weaker global growth and an even stronger dollar. Chart 13A Strong US Dollar Could Tighten Global Financial Conditions, Leading To Lower Equity Prices, Especially In EM A Strong US Dollar Could Tighten Global Financial Conditions, Leading To Lower Equity Prices, Especially In EM A Strong US Dollar Could Tighten Global Financial Conditions, Leading To Lower Equity Prices, Especially In EM Such an outcome cannot be dismissed, especially if the spread of the coronavirus fuels significant foreign inflows into the safe-haven US Treasury market. Nevertheless, we continue to see it as a low-probability event given the tailwinds to global growth, including the lagged effects of last year’s decline in bond yields, an improvement in the global manufacturing inventory cycle, diminished Brexit and trade war risks, and ongoing policy stimulus out of China. In fact, one can more easily envision the opposite outcome – a virtuous cycle of dollar weakness, leading to easier global financial conditions, stronger growth, and ultimately, an even weaker dollar (Chart 14). In such an environment, earnings growth is likely to accelerate (Chart 15). Chart 14The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Chart 15The Virtuous Cycle Of Dollar Easing The Virtuous Cycle Of Dollar Easing The Virtuous Cycle Of Dollar Easing     Scenario 4: Faster wage growth cuts into corporate profits Labor compensation is the largest expense for most companies. Thus, it stands to reason that faster wage growth could depress earnings, and by extension, share prices. Although this is possible conceptually, in practice, it happens less often than one might guess. Chart 16 shows that rising wage growth is positively correlated with earnings. The bottom panel of the chart explains why: Wages tend to rise most quickly when sales are growing rapidly. Strong demand growth adds to revenues, while allowing companies to spread fixed costs over a large amount of output. The resulting improvement in “operating leverage” helps buffer profit margins from higher wages. Scenario 5: Redistributionist politicians seek to shift income from capital to labor As long as wages are rising against a backdrop of fast sales growth, equities will fare well. The big risk for stocks is that wages go up not because the overall size of the economic pie is growing, but because policies are implemented that shift a bigger share of the pie from capital to labor. Bernie Sanders has promised to do just that. The S&P 500 has tended to increase when Sanders’ perceived chances of winning the Democrat nomination have risen (Chart 17). Investors have apparently concluded that Trump would clobber Sanders in a presidential race. Hence, the better Sanders performs in the primaries, the more likely Trump is to be re-elected. Chart 16Stocks Tend To Do Best When Wage Growth Is Rising Stocks Tend To Do Best When Wage Growth Is Rising Stocks Tend To Do Best When Wage Growth Is Rising Chart 17The Sanders Effect On Stocks The Sanders Effect On Stocks The Sanders Effect On Stocks   Is this really a safe assumption? We are not so sure. Sanders has still beaten Trump in 49 of the last 54 head-to-head polls tracked by Realclearpolitics over the past 12 months. Sanders tends to appeal to white working class voters – the same demographic that propelled Trump into office. Sanders is also benefiting from a secular leftward shift in voter attitudes on economic issues. According to a recent Gallup poll, 47% of Americans believe that governments should do more to solve problems, up from 36% in 2010. Almost 40% of Americans have a positive view on socialism (Chart 18). Today’s youth in particular is enamored with left-wing ideology (Chart 19). Chart 18The US Is Moving To The Left Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? Chart 19Woke Millennials Cozying Up To Socialism Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? It’s not just the Democratic voters who are trending left. Some prominent Republicans are having second thoughts too. Tucker Carlson is probably the best leading indicator for where the Republican Party is heading. His attacks on “woke capitalism” have become a staple of his popular evening show.3 It is not surprising why many Republicans are having a change of heart. For decades, the Republican Party has been a cheap date for corporate interests: It has given businesses what they want – lower taxes, less regulation, etc. – without asking for much in return (aside from campaign contributions, of course). This has allowed corporations to focus on appealing to left-wing interests by taking increasingly strident positions on a variety of social issues. The fact that some of these positions – such as support for open-border immigration policies – are a boon for profits has only increased their appeal. The risk for corporations is that they end up with no real political support. If the Democrats move further to the left, “soak the rich” policies will become popular no matter how much virtue signaling corporate leaders deliver. Likewise, if Republicans abandon big businesses, today’s fat profit margins will become a thing of the past. When The Music Ends The current market climate resembles a Parisian ball on the eve of the French Revolution. The music is still playing, but the discontent among the commoners outside is growing. The question is when will this discontent boil over? Trump’s victory in 2016 represented a shot across the bow of the political establishment. Fortunately for corporate interests, aside from his protectionist impulses, Trump has been on their side. Bernie Sanders would not be so friendly. Matters should be clearer by mid-March. Super Tuesday takes place on March 3rd. By March 17th, more than 60% of Democratic delegates will have been awarded. If Bernie Sanders emerges as the likely nominee at that point, we will consider trimming back our bullish cyclical 12-month bias towards stocks. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “TINA To The Rescue?” dated August 23, 2019. 2  Please see Global investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Bond Yields: How High Is Too High?” dated January 17, 2020. 3  Ian Schwartz, “Tucker Carlson: Elizabeth Warren's "Economic Patriotism" Plan "Sounds Like Donald Trump At His Best," realclearpolitics, June 6, 2019. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? Will The Stock Market Decouple From The Economy? Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Geopolitical sparks in the Mediterranean point to the revival of realism or realpolitik in places where it has long been dormant. Europe is wary of Russia but will keep buying more of its natural gas. This will be a source of tension with the United States. Turkey is wary of Russia but will continue choosing pragmatic deals with Moscow that fly in the face of Europe and the United States. Turkey’s intervention in Libya is small but symbolic. Increases in foreign policy aggressiveness are negative signs for Turkey as they stem from domestic economic and political instability. Short Turkish currency, equities, and local government bonds. The recent increase in immigration into Europe will fuel another bout of populism if it goes unchecked. Feature “Multipolarity,” or competition among multiple powerful nations, is our overarching geopolitical theme at BCA Research. The collapse of the Soviet Union did not lead to the United States establishing a global empire, which might in theory have provided a stable and predictable trade and investment regime. The United States lashed out when attacked but otherwise became consumed by internal struggles: financial crisis and political polarization. Under two administrations the American public has demanded a reduced commitment to international affairs. Europe is even less likely to project power abroad – particularly after being thrown on the defensive by the Syrian and Libyan revolutions and ineffectual EU responses. Turkey’s aggressive foreign policy is a symptom of global multipolarity – which makes the world less predictable for investors. Emerging markets have risen in economic and military power relative to their developed counterparts. They demand a redistribution of global political power to set aright historical grievances and address immediate concerns, such as supply line insecurities, which increase alongside a rapidly growing economy. Multipolarity is apparent in Russia’s resurgence: pushing back on its borders with Europe and NATO, seeking a greater role in the Middle East and North Africa, interfering in US politics, and cementing its partnership with China. Multipolarity is equally evident when medium-sized powers – especially those that used to take orders from the US and Europe – seek to establish an independent foreign policy and throw off the shackles of the past. Turkey is just such a middle power. Strongman President Recep Tayyip Erdogan initially sought to lead Turkey into a new era of regional ascendancy. The Great Recession and Arab Spring intervened. Domestic economic vulnerabilities and regional instability have driven him to pursue increasingly populist and unorthodox policies that threaten the credit of the nation and security of the currency. A coup attempt in 2016 and domestic political losses in 2019 drove Erdogan further down this path, which includes aggressive foreign policy as well as domestic economic stimulus. The Anatolian peninsula has always stood at the crossroads of Europe and Asia, as well as Russia and Africa. Turkey’s efforts to change the regional status quo to its favor, increase leverage over its neighbors in Europe and the Middle East, and deal with Russia’s Vladimir Putin from a position of strength, are causing the geopolitics of the Mediterranean to heat up. It has now intervened in the Libyan civil war. In this special report, we focus on this trend and ask what it means for global investors. Unfinished Business In Libya Chart 1Haftar Is Weaponizing Libya’s Oil The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean As the Libyan conflict enters its sixth year this spring, the battle for control of the western bastion of Tripoli rages. Multiple efforts to mediate the conflict between Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar of the Libyan National Army (LNA) and Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj of the UN-recognized Government of National Accord (GNA) have failed. Ceasefire talks in Moscow, Rome, and Berlin have fizzled. Instead, fighting has finally hit oil production, with the state-run National Oil Corp (NOC) declaring force majeure on supplies on January 18. Tribal leaders who support Haftar have blockaded eastern ports (Chart 1). Previously the mutual dependence of the rival factions on oil revenues ensured production and exports went mostly undisturbed. LNA forces control nearly all key oil pipelines, fields, ports, and terminals in Libya. The exceptions are the Zawiyya and Mellitah terminals and offshore fields (Map 1). However the National Oil Company (NOC), headquartered in the GNA-controlled Tripoli, is the sole entity controlling operations and the sole marketer of Libyan oil. Map 1Libya’s Oil And Natural Gas Infrastructure: Monopolized By Haftar The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean General Haftar’s blockade – which has ground oil production to a halt – displays his ability to weaponize oil to obtain concessions from the Tripoli-based government. Tribal leaders behind the blockade are calling for a larger share of oil revenues, for which they are at the mercy of the LNA and NOC. With little progress in Haftar’s push to gain control of Tripoli, and Libya more generally, the conflict has reached a stalemate. Not one to back down, Haftar’s decision to cut off oil sales from the Tripoli government, which also cuts off revenues to his own parallel administration, is a brute attempt to force a settlement. Haftar’s gambit follows Turkey’s decision to intervene in Libya on behalf of Sarraj and the GNA. Turkey has deployed roughly 2,000 Syrian fighters, as well as 35 Turkish soldiers in an advisory capacity. Turkey apparently feared that Haftar, who has substantial backing from Egypt and the Gulf Arabs as well as Russia and France, was about to triumph, or at least force a settlement detrimental to Turkish interests. Bottom Line: Turkey’s decision to intervene in the Libyan civil war – while limited in magnitude thus far – raises the stakes of the conflict, which involves the EU, Russia, and the Arab states. It is a clear signal of the geopolitical multipolarity in the region – and a political risk that is flying under the radar amid higher profile risks in other parts of the world. Political Interests: Islamist Democracy Versus Arab Dictatorship The Libyan civil war is a proxy war between foreign nations motivated by conflicting economic and strategic interests in North Africa and the Mediterranean. But there is an ideological and political structure to the conflict that explains the alignment of the nations: Turkey is exporting democracy while the Arab states try to preserve their dictatorships. Haftar’s primary supporters include Egypt, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Saudi Arabia. These states see monarchy as the way to maintain stability in a region constantly on the edge of chaos. Islamist democracy movements, such as Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, pose a threat to their long-term authority and security. They try to suppress these movements and contain regimes that promote them or their militant allies. They are willing to achieve one-man rule by force and thus support military strongmen like Egypt’s Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and Libya’s General Haftar. On the other side of the conflict stand the backers of the GNA – Turkey and Qatar – which support political Islam and party politics (Chart 2). Turkey’s Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party (AKP) are sympathetic to Hamas in the Palestinian territories and Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood. They want to ensure a lasting role for Islamic parties in the region, which strengthens their legitimacy. They do not want Libya’s Islamists to suffer the same fate as their affiliates in the Muslim Brotherhood – removal via a military coup. Chart 2Turkey Sees A Place For Political Islam Turkey Sees A Place For Political Islam Turkey Sees A Place For Political Islam Chart 3Turkey Steps In Amid Qatar Embargo The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The political conflict is mirrored in the Persian Gulf in the form of the air, land, and sea embargo imposed on Qatar in 2017 at the hands of the Saudis, Egyptians, and Emiratis. The Qatar crisis followed a 2014 diplomatic rift and the 2011 Arab Spring, when Qatar supported protesters and democracy movements against neighboring regimes. The embargo strengthened Turkey-Qatar relations, as Turkey stepped in to ensure that Qataris – who are heavily dependent on imports – would continue to receive essentials (Chart 3). Bottom Line: The alliances forged in the Libyan conflict reflect differing responses to powerful forces of change in the region. Established monarchies and dictatorships are struggling to maintain control of large youth populations and rapidly modernizing economies. Their response is to fortify the existing regime, suppress dissent, and launch gradual reforms through the central government. Their fear of Islamist movements makes them suspicious of Tripoli and the various Islamist groups allied with the GNA, and aligns them with Khalifa Haftar’s attempt to impose a new secular dictatorship in Libya. Meanwhile Turkey, with an active Islamist democracy, is seeking to export its political model, and Muslim Brotherhood-esque political participation, to gain influence across the region, including in Libya and North Africa. Economic Interests: The Scramble For Energy Sources Chart 4Europe Addicted To Russian Gas The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Libyan proxy war is also about natural resources, for all the powers involved. Turkey’s intervention reflects its supply insecurity and desire to carve a larger role for itself in the east Mediterranean economy. Turkey needs to secure cheap energy supplies, and also wants to make itself central to any emerging east Mediterranean natural gas hub that aims to serve Europe. Europe’s increasing dependency on natural gas imports to meet its energy demand, and Russia’s outsized role – supplying the EU with 40% of its needs – have encouraged a search for alternative suppliers (Chart 4). Israel is attempting to fill that role with resources discovered offshore in the eastern Mediterranean. Given its strategic location, Turkey hopes to become an energy hub. First, it is cooperating with the Russians. Presidents Putin and Erdogan inaugurated the Turkish Stream pipeline (TurkStream) at a ceremony in Istanbul on January 8. The pipeline will transport 15.75 billion cubic meters (Bcm) of Russian natural gas to Europe via Turkey. This is part of Russia’s attempt, along with the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, to bypass Ukraine and increase export capacity, strengthening its dominance over Europe’s natural gas market (Map 2). Map 2Russia’s Latest Pipelines Bypass Ukraine The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean Europe and its allies are wary of Russian influence, but the EU is not really willing to halt business with Russia, which is a low-cost and long-term provider free from the turmoil of the Middle East. Despite the significant growth in US natural gas supplies, the relatively higher cost makes Russian supplies comparatively more attractive (Chart 5). Chart 5Russian Gas Is Competitive In European Markets … The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean Chart 6… As US Attempts To Gain Market Share The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The result will be tensions with the United States, which expects the Europeans to honor the security relationship by buying American LNG (Chart 6) and will always abhor anything resembling a Russo-European alliance. American legislation signed on December 20 would impose sanctions on firms that lay pipes for Nord Stream 2 and TurkStream. Second, Turkey wants to become central to eastern Mediterranean energy development. A series of offshore discoveries in recent decades has sparked talk of cooperation among potential suppliers (Table 1). There is a huge constraint on developing the fields quickly, as there is no export route currently available for the volumes that will be produced. While the reserves are not significant on a global scale, their location so close to Europe, and growing needs in the Middle East, has generated some interest. Table 1Recent East Mediterranean Discoveries Are Relatively Small, But Geopolitically Attractive The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean However, Europe and Israel – the status quo powers – threaten to marginalize Turkey in this process: A meeting of the energy ministers of Egypt, Cyprus, Greece, Israel, Italy, the Palestinian territories, and Jordan in Cairo last July resulted in the creation of the Eastern Mediterranean Gas Forum to promote regional energy cooperation. Turkey – along with Lebanon and Syria – was excluded. Turkey seeks access to natural resources – and to prevent Israel, Egypt, and Europe from excluding it. The EastMed Pipeline deal – signed by Greece, Cyprus, and Israel on January 2 – envisages a nearly 2,000 km subsea pipeline transporting gas from Israeli and Cypriot offshore fields to Cyprus, Crete and Greece, supplying Europe with 9-12 Bcm per year (Map 3). The project enjoys the support of the European Commission and the US as an attempt to diversify Europe’s gas supplies and boost its energy security.1 But it would also be an alternative to an overland pipeline on Turkish territory. Map 3The Proposed EastMed Pipeline Would Marginalize Turkey The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean Egypt has two underutilized liquefied natural gas plants – in Idku and Damietta – and has benefited from the 2015 discovery of the Zohr gas field. Egypt has recently become a net exporter of natural gas (Chart 7). It signed a deal with Israel to purchase 85.3 Bcm – $19.5 billion – of gas from Leviathan and Tamar fields over 15 years. Egypt sees itself as an energy hub if it can re-export Israeli supplies economically. Note that Russia and Turkey have some overlapping interests here. Russia does not want Europe to diversify, while Turkey does not want to allow alternatives to Russia that exclude Turkey. Thus maintaining the current trajectory of natural gas projects is not only useful for Russia’s economy (Chart 8) but also for Turkey’s strategic ambitions. Chart 7Egypt Also Aims To Become East Mediterranean Gas Hub The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean Of course, while Russian pipes are actually getting built, the EastMed pipeline is not – for economic as well as geopolitical reasons. Europe is currently well supplied and energy prices are low. At an estimated $7 billion, the cost of constructing the EastMed pipeline is exorbitant. Chart 8Maintaining Energy Dominance Advances Russia’s Strategic Ambitions Too The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean Still, Turkey must make its influence known now, as energy development and pipelines are necessarily long-term projects. The chaos in Libya presents an opportunity. Seizing on the Libyan GNA’s weakness, Turkey signed an agreement to provide for offshore maritime boundaries and energy cooperation as well as military aid. The EastMed pipeline, of course, would need to cross through Turkish and Libyan economic zones (see Map 3 above).2 Turkey is incapable of asserting its will militarily in the Mediterranean against powerful western naval forces. But short of war, it is capable of expanding its claims and leverage over regional energy and forcing the Israelis and Europeans to deal with it pragmatically and realistically rather than exclude it from their plans. Part of Turkey’s goal is to cement an alliance with Libya – at least a partitioned western Libyan government in any ceasefire brokered with Haftar and the Russians. Bottom Line: While Turkey and Russia support opposing sides in the Libyan conflict, both benefit from dealing directly with each other – bypassing the western powers, which are frustrated and ineffectual in Libya. Both would gain some direct energy leverage over Europe and both would gain some influence over any future eastern Mediterranean routes to Europe. In Libya, if either side triumphs and unites the country, it will grant its allies oil and gas contracts almost exclusively. But if the different foreign actors can build up leverage on opposing sides, they can hope to secure at least some of their interests in a final settlement. Turkey Needs Foreign Distractions The foregoing would imply that Turkey is playing the game well, except that its foreign adventures are in great part driven by domestic economic and political instability. After all, Turkey’s maritime claims are useless if they cannot be enforced, and offshore development and pipeline-building are at a low level given weak energy prices and slowing global demand. Economically, in true populist fashion, Erdogan has repeatedly employed money creation and fiscal spending to juice nominal GDP growth. The result is a wage-price spiral, currency depreciation, and current account deficits that exacerbate the problem. The poor economy has mobilized political opposition. Over the past year, for the first time since Erdogan rose to power in 2002, his Justice and Development Party is fracturing. Former Turkish deputy prime minister Ali Babacan, a founding member of the AKP, as well as former prime minister Ahmet Davutoglu, have both announced breakaway political parties that threaten to erode support for the AKP. Local elections in 2019 resulted in a popular rebuke in Istanbul. Thus Erdogan is distracting the public with hawkish or nationalist stances abroad that are popular at home. Turkey has taken a strident stance against the US and Europe, symbolized by its threats to loose Syrian refugees into Europe and its purchase of S400 missile defense from Russia despite being a NATO member. Military incursions in Syria aim to relocate refugees back to Syria (Chart 9). Chart 9Erdogan Is Distracting Turks With Popular Foreign Stances The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean Chart 10No Love Lost Toward The West The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean The Geopolitics Of The Mediterranean Turkish public opinion encourages close cooperation with Russia and a more aggressive stance against the West (Chart 10). This is a basis for Russia and Turkey to continue cutting transactional deals despite falling on opposite sides of conflicts in Syria, Libya, Iran, and elsewhere. Erdogan’s pretensions of reviving Ottoman grandeur in the Mediterranean fall in this context. Elections are not until 2023, but we expect Erdogan to continue using foreign policy as a distraction. The opposition is trying to unite behind a single candidate, which could jeopardize Erdogan’s grip on power. The insistence on stimulus at all costs means that Erdogan is not allowing the economic reckoning to occur now, three years before the election. He is trying to delay it indefinitely, which may fail. Libya may not get resolved, however. Allies of Haftar’s LNA – specifically Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE – will be motivated to intensify their support of him for fear that a loss would revive domestic interest in political Islam. Egypt especially fears militant proxies being unleashed from any base of operations there. The LNA currently serves as a buffer between Egypt and the militant actors in Libya. If Haftar is defeated, Egypt’s porous western border would provoke a harsh reaction from Cairo. The threat of a revival of Islamic State in Libya has united the Egyptian people – a critical variable in the administration’s vision of a stable country. That has provided Egypt’s Sisi an excuse to flex his muscles through military exercises. Neither Russia nor NATO will be moved to bring a decisive finish to the conflict, as neither wishes to invest too heavily in it. Bottom Line: Erdogan has doubled down on populism at home and abroad. His assertive foreign policy in Syria and now Libya may end up exacerbating economic and political pressures on the ruling party. What Is The Endgame In Libya? There are three possible scenarios to end the current stalemate between the Haftar’s forces and the internationally recognized GNA: Military: An outright military victory by either Haftar or Sarraj is highly unlikely. While Haftar’s forces enjoy military and financial support from the UAE, he lacks popular support in Tripoli – which has proved to be challenging to takeover. Similarly, Sarraj’s army is not strong enough to confront the eastern forces and reunify the country. The merely limited involvement of foreign actors – including Turkey – makes a military solution all the more elusive. The most likely path to a quick military victory comes if foreign actors disengage. This will only occur if they are punished for their involvement, and thus it requires a major neutral power, perhaps the United States, to change the calculus of countries involved. But the US is eschewing involvement and the Europeans have shown no appetite for a heavy commitment. Diplomatic: A negotiated settlement is eventually likely, given the loss of oil revenues. A ceasefire would assign some autonomy to each side of the country. Given Haftar’s ambitions of conquering the capital and becoming a strongman for the country as a whole, the diplomatic route will be challenging unless his Gulf backers grow tired of subsidizing him. Financial: Haftar could win by breaking the NOC’s monopoly on oil. In the past, the LNA failed at selling the oil extracted from infrastructure under its control. If Haftar manages to market the oil without the aid of the NOC then he will be able to guarantee a stream of revenue for his forces and at the same time starve the Tripoli government of financing. This would pose an existential risk for the GNA. The key challenge in this scenario is to obtain international backing for LNA sales of Libyan crude supplies. Libya’s partition into two de facto states is the likeliest outcome. Bottom Line: Unless one of the constraints on a military, diplomatic, or financial end to the conflict is broken, the current stalemate in the Libyan conflict will endure. A partition of Libya will be the practical consequence. Turkey hopes to boost its regional influence through Tripoli, and thus increase its leverage over Europe, but a heavy investment could result in fiscal losses or spiral into a broader regional confrontation. Investment Implications While it is not clear how long the current blockade on Libyan ports will last – or the associated over 1 million barrels per day loss of production – oil supplies will remain at risk so long as the conflict endures. However, unlike supplies in the Gulf or in Venezuela, Libyan crude is of the light sweet grade. There is enough global spare capacity – from US shales – to make up for the Libyan loss, at least over the short term. The fall in Libyan supplies is occurring against the backdrop of oil markets that have been beaten down by the decline in demand on the back of the coronavirus impact (Chart 11). The OPEC 2.0 technical panel recommended additional output cuts of 600 thousand barrels per day last week, and is waiting on a final decision by Russia. We expect the cartel to tighten supplies to shore up prices. The instability in Libya could also affect Europe through immigration. The conflict re-routes migrants through the western route and thus could result in an increased flow to Spain and Portugal, rather than Italy which was previously their landing pad (Chart 12). A meaningful pick up would have a negative impact on European domestic political stability, especially with Germany in the midst of a succession crisis and incapable of taking a lead role. Chart 11Libyan Blockade Comes Amid Demand Shock Libyan Blockade Comes Amid Demand Shock Libyan Blockade Comes Amid Demand Shock Chart 12Refugees Will Favor Western Route Across The Mediterranean Refugees Will Favor Western Route Across The Mediterranean Refugees Will Favor Western Route Across The Mediterranean Erdogan’s foreign adventurism, and aggression against the West, poses a risk for Turkish markets. We remain underweight Turkish currency and risk assets. Our Emerging Markets strategists expect foreign capital outflows from EM to weigh on Turkey’s currency, local fixed-income and sovereign credit relative to EM benchmarks. Go short the Turkish lira relative to the US dollar. Bottom Line: Historically, the Mediterranean was the world’s most important waterway. It was the “life line” of the British empire. The US succeeded the British as the guarantor of Suez and corralled both Turkey and Greece into a single alliance under the Truman Doctrine. This status quo held until the twenty-first century. Since 2000, Russia has revived, US foreign policy in the Middle East has become erratic, and the Europeans have lost clout. Turkey is seeking to carve a space for itself and challenge the settlements of the past, all the way back to the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. Yet in the wake of the Great Recession its economy is unstable and its populist leaders are taking greater risks abroad. The result will be greater friction with Europe, or the Arab states, or both. Given Turkey’s mismanagement at home, and limited gains to be made in Syria or Libya, Turkish assets will be the first to suffer from negative surprises.   Roukaya Ibrahim Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 The Eastern Mediterranean Security and Energy Partnership Act of 2019 is an American bi-partisan bill the lends full support for the East Med pipelines and greater security cooperation with Israel, Cyprus, and Greece. The US Senate also passed an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act last June which ended the arms embargo on Cyprus. 2 Turkey has also been engaging in drilling activities in disputed waters near Cyprus – which Ankara argues it is undertaking in order to protect Turkish-Cypriot claims – motivating EU economic sanctions in the form of travel bans and asset freezes on two Turkish nationals.

Highlights The coronavirus is likely to cut global growth in half (from 3.3% to 1.7%) during the first quarter of 2020. Investors should brace for a slew of profit warnings over the coming weeks from companies with significant operations in China. The near-term economic data is also likely to disappoint. Provided the virus is contained (admittedly a big if), economic activity should recover quickly in the second quarter, leaving global growth about 0.3 percentage points lower for the year as a whole. We should have a better sense of who the Democratic presidential candidate will be by mid-March, by which time more than 60% of the delegates will have been awarded. We continue to recommend an overweight stance on global equities over a 12-month horizon, but do not have a strong conviction about the near-term direction of global bourses given the risks around the virus and the Democratic nomination. Green Shoots Delayed Coming into 2020, we expected global growth to accelerate thanks to the lagged effects of last year’s decline in bond yields, an improvement in the global manufacturing inventory cycle, diminished Brexit and trade war risks, and ongoing policy stimulus out of China. Consistent with this prediction, the manufacturing ISM surged this week, with the forward-looking new orders-to-inventories ratio rising to the highest level in 10 months. The non-manufacturing ISM also surprised on the upside, as did factory orders in December. To top it off, ADP employment rose by 291k in January, well above the consensus estimate of 157k. In the euro area, the manufacturing and services PMIs were both revised higher in January. The future output component of the euro area manufacturing PMI rose to 59.8, the highest level since August 2018. The Swedbank Swedish manufacturing PMI jumped to 51.5, easily topping the consensus estimate of 47.6. We have generally found that the Swedish manufacturing PMI leads the global PMI by one or two months. Meanwhile, the UK composite PMI hit a 16-month high. The Coronavirus: Gauging The Economic Impact Unfortunately, the outbreak of the coronavirus is likely to depress global growth over the next couple of months, and possibly longer if the brewing crisis is not contained. During the SARS epidemic in 2003, Chinese growth fell from 10.8% in Q1 to 5.5% in Q2 on a seasonally-adjusted quarter-over-quarter annualized basis – a decline of 5.3 percentage points – only to snap back to 14.7% in Q3. Given that trend growth in China is currently about 5%-to-6%, growth could grind to a halt in the first quarter of this year, if the SARS experience is any guide. This would bring the year-over-year GDP growth rate down to 4%-to-4.5%. While zero growth on a quarter-over-quarter basis in Q1 may sound dire, keep in mind that this would simply leave real output at the same level as in Q4 of last year. Considering the disruptions presently facing the Chinese economy, a prediction of zero quarterly growth could actually prove to be too optimistic. The outbreak of the coronavirus is likely to depress global growth over the next couple of months, and possibly longer if the brewing crisis is not contained. China now accounts for 16% of global GDP on a US dollar basis, compared to 4% in 2003. Thus, a 5.5 percentage-point decline in Chinese growth would arithmetically shave about 0.16*5.5=0.9 percentage points off of global growth. In addition, there will be spillovers from weaker Chinese growth to the rest of the world. Global goods exports to China stand at about 2.5% of world GDP compared to 0.9% of GDP in 2003 (Chart 1). Chinese import growth is about twice as volatile as GDP growth (Chart 2). Thus, a 5.5 percentage-point decline in Chinese GDP in Q1 would reduce global exports to China by 2*0.055*2.5=0.27% of GDP. Chart 1Chinese Demand Has Expanded Over The Years Chinese Demand Has Expanded Over The Years Chinese Demand Has Expanded Over The Years Chart 2Imports Are More Volatile Than Domestic Production Imports Are More Volatile Than Domestic Production Imports Are More Volatile Than Domestic Production China’s service imports will also decline, mainly due to a sharp drop in Chinese tourists travelling abroad. Overseas spending by Chinese residents rose from 0.05% of world GDP in 2007 to 0.33% of GDP in 2018. If tourist arrivals end up falling by 70% during the first quarter, this would shave a further 0.7*0.33=0.23 percentage points from global growth.   On top of all this, there will probably be some multiplier effects from weaker Chinese growth on domestic spending. For example, a decline in Chinese tourism will reduce the income of hotel proprietors and their employees, leading to lower outlays by local residents. For an economy such as Thailand, where Chinese tourist spending accounts for over 3% of GDP, this effect is likely to be substantial. We subjectively pencil in an additional 0.2 percentage-point hit to Q1 global growth from this multiplier effect. As Chart 3 shows, this gives a total hit to growth of 1.6% in Q1. Going into this year, the IMF expected global growth to average 3.3% in 2020. This implies that growth could fall by half the IMF’s projected pace in the first quarter before recovering during the rest of the year. Chart 3Chinese GDP Growth Will Plunge In Q1, But Should Recover In The Remainder Of 2020 Provided The Coronavirus Outbreak Is Contained From China To Iowa From China To Iowa Uncertainties Abound These estimates are subject to a large margin of error. On the positive side, the impact on global growth might be mitigated by the fact that most of the categories (aside from tourism) in which the Chinese are cutting back spending are in the service sector, and hence have relatively low import content. In addition, China is likely to further bolster policy stimulus in response to the crisis. The People’s Bank of China has injected additional liquidity into money markets, cut the 7-day repo rate, and indicated that it will further lower lending rates. Regulators have delayed the introduction of new rules and regulations in the financial sector. We also expect the authorities to boost fiscal spending, especially on health care, where China lags behind most other countries (Chart 4). Chart 4China: Public Spending On Health Care Has Room To Catch Up From China To Iowa From China To Iowa On the negative side, the rising share of services in the Chinese economy means that some of the spending lost in Q1 will not be recouped during the rest of the year (unlike in the case of durable goods, there is little pent-up demand for say, restaurant meals). There is also a risk that spending outside China will decline if confidence drops and people begin to hunker down and save more. This is a particular risk in Japan where at least 30 people have contracted the virus (compared to zero during the SARS outbreak) and consumer confidence remains weak following the consumption tax hike. Lastly, global supply chains that rely on Chinese-produced components could be severely disrupted, leading to a downdraft in global manufacturing output. Needless to say, the impact of the outbreak depends critically on how long the epidemic lasts and how broad-based it ends up being. Our baseline assumption is that the outbreak will subside by the end of March. If that happens, growth will rebound in the remainder of the year, as occurred during the SARS episode. This will limit the overall hit to growth in 2020 to about 0.3 percentage points. As of now, the news is mixed. While the total number of new infections has dipped over the past two days in Hubei, where the outbreak originated, the trend in the province still appears to be on the upside. More encouragingly, the number of new infections seems to be stabilizing elsewhere in China and remains at very low levels in the rest of the world (Chart 5). From a markets perspective, tracking the number of new infections is important because it helped mark a bottom in stocks during the SARS outbreak (Chart 6). Chart 5The Number Of New Cases Seems To Be Stabilizing Outside Of The Epicenter From China To Iowa From China To Iowa Chart 6Stocks Bottomed As The SARS Infection Rate Was Peaking Stocks Bottomed As The SARS Infection Rate Was Peaking Stocks Bottomed As The SARS Infection Rate Was Peaking If the coronavirus follows a limited transmission path like MERS did, which did not spread much beyond the Middle East and South Korea, then worries about a pandemic will quickly abate. However, it is too early to make such a confident pronouncement, especially since this particular virus appears to be spreading more easily than either MERS or SARS. As such, we regard the risks to our GDP growth projection as tilted to the downside. Meanwhile, another potential risk is rising to the fore… The Democrats' B-List The Democratic presidential nomination is turning out to be a battle among four B’s: Bernie, Biden, Buttigieg, and Bloomberg. The big story from the Iowa caucus is how well Pete Buttigieg did and how poorly Joe Biden performed. Both Biden and Buttigieg are moderates. However, Biden fares much better in head-to-head polls against Trump than other Democratic challengers, including Buttigieg (Chart 7). Hence, anything that hurts Biden helps Trump. Chart 7For Now, Biden Is Trump’s Biggest Threat From China To Iowa From China To Iowa The impact on the stock market would be small if either Biden or Buttigieg were to end up in the White House next year. While both of these Democrats have expressed an interest in reversing at least part of the Trump tax cuts, neither would be as hawkish on trade as Trump. For investors, this makes it a bit of a wash. What would clearly hurt the stock market is if Bernie Sanders were to become the next US president. Sanders brings a lot of baggage to the race, including having campaigned for the far-left Socialist Workers Party in the 1980s, while also honeymooning in Moscow at a time when Soviets had thousands of nuclear missiles pointed at the US. Yet, despite his checkered past, the Vermont senator has still beaten Trump in 48 of the last 53 head-to-head polls tracked by Realclearpolitics over the past 12 months. The reality is that the US is moving leftward on a variety of cultural and economic issues (Chart 8). This is unlikely to change anytime soon given the firm grip the left has over academia and most of the media (Charts 9A & B). All this benefits leftist candidates such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Chart 8The US Is Moving To The Left From China To Iowa From China To Iowa Chart 9AMany More Democrats Than Republicans In US Colleges From China To Iowa From China To Iowa Chart 9BThe Vast Majority Of Journalists Are Left-Leaning From China To Iowa From China To Iowa Battle Of The Billionaires This brings us to Mike Bloomberg. According to PredictIt, Bloomberg is now the second most likely candidate to emerge as the Democratic nominee after Bernie Sanders (Chart 10). Bloomberg’s nationwide polling numbers are quite poor, but unlike the other candidates, he has enough wealth to stay in the race for as long as he wants to. Chart 10Bloomberg As The Dark Horse? Bloomberg As The Dark Horse? Bloomberg As The Dark Horse? Bloomberg can also do something the other candidates cannot: stage an independent bid for the White House. Bloomberg’s allegiance to the Democratic Party is fairly tenuous. He governed New York City as a Republican, after all. If Bernie Sanders emerges as the Democratic nominee, Bloomberg could try to run up the middle as the “moderate choice.” Granted, Bloomberg has promised to support whoever the Democratic nominee ends up being. But here is the irony: the best thing that Bloomberg could do for Sanders is run as an independent. According to BCA’s geopolitical team, Bloomberg would take more voters from Trump than he would from Sanders.1 Whether Bloomberg will try to sabotage Trump in order to help Sanders remains to be seen. Ideologically, Bloomberg is probably closer to Trump than he is to Sanders. However, the two billionaires hate each other, and this could ultimately prove to be the deciding factor. Investment Conclusions The short-term outlook for risk assets remains murky. It is too early to relax about the coronavirus. Even if the outbreak is contained, a lot of economic damage has already been done. Investors should brace for a slew of profit warnings over the coming weeks from companies with significant operations in China. The near-term economic data is also likely to disappoint. Then there are the US elections. We bucked the consensus view in 2015/16 by predicting that Donald Trump would become President. At the moment, however, we do not have a strong feeling about the outcome of this year’s contest. This is in contrast to many market participants who see a Trump victory as a foregone conclusion. At a recent Goldman conference, 87% of attendees expected President Trump to be re-elected.2  Our conversations with clients have revealed a similar bias. The S&P 500 has moved in lockstep with Trump’s chances of being re-elected (Chart 11). If Trump’s prospects begin to fade, while Bernie Sanders wins in New Hampshire and Nevada and outperforms in South Carolina, risk assets could suffer. Chart 11An Uncanny Correlation An Uncanny Correlation An Uncanny Correlation Why, then, not turn bearish on stocks now? One reason, as noted above, is that global growth should pick up later this year provided the coronavirus is contained. Stocks generally outperform bonds when growth is accelerating (Chart 12). Equity risk premia also remain quite high, which gives stocks a cushion of support (Chart 13). Chart 12Stocks Usually Outperform Bonds When Global Growth Is Accelerating Stocks Usually Outperform Bonds When Global Growth Is Accelerating Stocks Usually Outperform Bonds When Global Growth Is Accelerating Chart 13Relative Valuations Favor Stocks Relative Valuations Favor Stocks Relative Valuations Favor Stocks All this leaves us in the somewhat uncomfortable position of continuing to advocate an overweight stance towards equities over a 12-month horizon, without having a strong view about the short-term direction for global bourses.   Matters should be clearer by mid-March. Super Tuesday takes place on March 3rd. By March 17th, more than 60% of the Democratic delegates will have been awarded (Appendix Table 1). There should also be more clarity on the coronavirus outbreak by then too. At that point, we will reassess both our short-term and medium-term views on equities and other assets. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table 1Next Stops For The Democrat Caravan From China To Iowa From China To Iowa     Footnotes 1    Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road,” dated February 7, 2020. 2   Theron Mohamed, “A Goldman Sachs client poll finds 87% expect Trump to win the next election,” Business Insider (January 17, 2020). Global Investment Strategy View Matrix From China To Iowa From China To Iowa MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores   From China To Iowa From China To Iowa Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Trump's odds are still only around 55%. Biden remains the frontrunner in the Democratic primary election, albeit a weak one. Sanders brings forward the risk to this view. Evidence does not suggest that Trump would beat Sanders in a landslide. Bloomberg’s “moment” is arriving but Biden and Buttigieg must fall for him to win. The Democrats will likely avoid a contested convention. If they don’t, Trump benefits. Expect equity volatility in the near term. The market must clear the coronavirus and Democratic primary hurdles before it can rally sustainably. Feature Chart 1China: Bad News, Then Stimulus Boost China: Bad News, Then Stimulus Boost China: Bad News, Then Stimulus Boost Over the past week we visited clients in New York and Toronto and debated a range of intriguing questions. The coronavirus impact was top of mind. The outbreak will delay the Chinese economic rebound we expected in the first quarter. It also reinforces one of our key geopolitical views on Chinese policy: bad news will be followed by good news in the form of increased stimulus (Chart 1). The problem is that this is good news for the second half of the year at best, while the near term is extremely murky. After the virus, the US election cycle was clearly the greatest source of policy uncertainty. Because clients asked so many questions on this topic, we devote this report to the election. We still expect US equity volatility in the near term. Aren’t Trump’s Odds Of Reelection Better Than 55%? No. Clients hardly raised an eyebrow this time when we argued that President Trump was favored to win reelection – a stark turnaround from just three months ago, when many believed that his goose was cooked. So much has the climate changed that many clients now argue that Trump’s odds have reached 70% and he is likely to win by a landslide. But that is going too far – according to the data. Certainly Trump is coming off a string of successes. So far this year he has deterred Iran, struck trade deals with the US’s top trading partners – China, Canada, and Mexico – and been acquitted of impeachment articles (Chart 2). The Republican-led Senate resisted a last-ditch effort to admit witnesses and prolong the impeachment trial, and few Republicans defected in the final vote.1 Chart 2Trump Acquittal: Political Constraints In Action After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road Chart 3Trade Deals, Impeachment Boosted Trump Approval After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road Trump’s approval rating hit its all-time high just as the Senate voted to acquit (Chart 3). The impeachment process backfired on the Democrats, a point corroborated by the recent shift in the public’s party identification that puts the Republicans right alongside the Democrats after a period in which they trailed (Chart 4). Just before his acquittal, the president delivered a State of the Union Address in which he rattled off a catalogue of record-setting, late-cycle economic statistics. Meanwhile the Democrats suffered a debacle at their first primary election, the Iowa caucus, when a rushed attempt to improve their digital savvy in the electoral process resulted in a software malfunction that delayed the announcement of election tallies. Nevertheless, the ballot is nine months away and the path to reelection is fraught with danger. First, President Trump has not yet proven that he can keep his approval rating in the upper 40s, let alone over 50%. A true game changer would be cracking 50% on a sustainable basis. If Trump slips beneath the 46% of the vote he received in 2016 his odds fall back toward 50%. Assuming the economy rebounds he cannot afford to slip much below his stable range of 43% and still win, according to the model. Second, the manufacturing sector is only just poking its head out of the woods, leaving the critical swing states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin hanging in the balance, albeit with positive news (Chart 5). Chart 4More Voters Identify As Republican Post-Impeachment More Voters Identify As Republican Post-Impeachment More Voters Identify As Republican Post-Impeachment Chart 5US Manufacturing Rebounding, But Watch For Virus Hit US Manufacturing Rebounding, But Watch For Virus Hit US Manufacturing Rebounding, But Watch For Virus Hit Our quantitative election model suggests the election is too close to call. Technically the model shows Trump slipping beneath the threshold for victory for the first time since we unveiled it in November (Chart 6). The reason is that the leading economic indicators in Wisconsin and especially Pennsylvania took a turn for the worse in December. These indicators are forward-looking – they predict the 6-month growth rate of the state coincident indexes, which include nonfarm payroll employment, average hours worked in manufacturing by production workers, the unemployment rate, and wage and salary disbursements deflated by the consumer price index. Chart 6Quantitative Election Model Shows Election A Toss Up After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road Chart 7Pennsylvania Job Growth A Risk To Trump Pennsylvania Job Growth A Risk To Trump Pennsylvania Job Growth A Risk To Trump Of course, the state leading indicators also tend to be heavily revised in subsequent prints, which can make our model volatile. Month-on-month total employment growth from the Bureau of Labor Statistics corroborates the shaky status of Pennsylvania, but not Wisconsin (Chart 7). This slight shift in our model from a Trump win to a Trump loss does not change our overall election forecast, which has a qualitative overlay. The point is that Trump is still skating on thin ice, the US manufacturing sector.2 Going forward, the US and global economy should continue improving, especially in the second half of the year. The demand shock emanating from the coronavirus outbreak in China should be temporary. The eventual rebound in Chinese demand combined with the lagged effect of China’s new stimulus measures will benefit US manufacturing states. The manufacturing sector’s woes are still a clear and present danger for Trump. Bottom Line: Trump is still favored but his odds of winning are still only 55% qualitatively. The election will remain a major source of uncertainty throughout the year. Investors need to be prepared for either outcome. Volatility is also frontloaded due to the coronavirus shock to the global economy. Is Biden Still The Frontrunner? Yes. Former Vice President Joe Biden bombed in the Iowa caucus, the first of the Democratic Party’s primary elections, coming in fourth place behind South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. He barely beat the sensible but uninspiring Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar (Chart 8). Chart 8Iowa: Buttigieg Surged, Biden Slumped After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road Chart 9Biden Still The Democrats’ Frontrunner After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road Traditionally Iowa delivers a polling boost to the victor, since it goes first and attracts attention disproportionate to its size. But this year the first-comer effect is largely moot because of the reporting debacle. Both Buttigieg’s win and Biden’s loss have been drowned out. This is consolation for Biden because he is far more competitive in later states than Buttigieg – he is in fact still the (weak) frontrunner in national polling (Chart 9). Biden also continues to lead our back-of-the-envelope projection of the delegates who will be pledged to candidates at the end of the primary election season on June 6 in Washington, DC. True, Biden is lined up for a plurality at best, not a majority. There are still plenty of “other” delegates to be redistributed, which could leave Biden in the dust if his polling breaks down due to a loss of momentum in the early states (Chart 10A). Nevertheless the centrist “lane” now has a commanding lead over the progressive lane for the first time in the race, creating our base case in which Biden wins a plurality of votes that translates into winning the nomination (Chart 10B). Chart 10ABiden Leads Back-Of-Envelope Delegate Count For Democratic Nomination After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road Chart 10BCentrists Lead Back-Of-Envelope Delegate Count For Democratic Nomination After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road If Biden continues to underperform his polling in New Hampshire and Nevada then he could stumble into a huge disappointment in South Carolina, his bulwark, on February 29 (Chart 11). As the first southern state, South Carolina is the bellwether for Super Tuesday, March 3, when about 35% of the delegates are up for grabs, 54% of which are southern (Chart 12). Anything that shakes Biden’s substantial lead in South Carolina sets him up for failure overall and pushes Sanders into the frontrunner position. Chart 11Biden’s Bulwark Is South Carolina After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road Chart 12Biden’s ‘Southern Strategy’ Should Pay On Super Tuesday After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road Sanders would then face an emerging centrist in the shape of Buttigieg or Bloomberg. (Or Warren will pivot to the center.) Aside from Biden’s lead in the national polling, and many of the southern and Midwestern states, he continues to benefit from a tailwind in that he is the more “electable” or competitive candidate against Trump. Head-to-head polls continue to bear this out (Chart 13). These polls will congeal around almost any candidate once he or she becomes the de facto nominee, but over the past year Biden has performed far better than any of the others. Chart 13Biden Beats Trump Head-To-Head In Every Swing State (So Far) After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road Bottom Line: Anyone who wants to show their electability against Trump must first prove it by dethroning Biden. This could happen in February if Bernie Sanders generates runaway momentum in the early primaries, so the equity market faces major election risk imminently. Is A Sanders Nomination Suicide For The Democrats? Not Necessarily. Chart 14Sanders Generating Momentum In Early Primaries After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road Sanders is only slightly less likely to win the Democratic nomination than Biden. He is clearly capable of doing so – he rivals Biden in the nationwide polling and surpasses him in the early states. Strong finishes in New Hampshire and Nevada are expected and could generate momentum that lasts through Super Tuesday and beyond (Chart 14). Ideologically Sanders is not unthinkable for most Democrats – the average Democrat is shifting to the left of the political spectrum (Chart 15). Most Biden supporters say Sanders is their second choice (Chart 16). Voters are interested in electability, so if Sanders can prove that he is more electable than Biden, voters will flock to him. Chart 15Democrats More Liberal Than In The Past After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road Chart 16Biden Voters Support … Sanders! After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road Thus the question of Sanders is more about the general election than the primary. “Movement candidates” like Alf Landon, Barry Goldwater, and George McGovern have racked up some of the most humiliating defeats in the history of US elections. The self-described democratic socialist Bernie Sanders has some of the defining traits – he has a movement, he is ideologically “pure” and outside the mainstream, and his nomination is a gamble on whether his youthful supporters’ enthusiasm will carry over to the general public. It is plausible that the Democratic Party could choose Sanders out of a desire to fight populist fire with fire, only to find that Trump overwhelmingly benefits from the stigma of socialism in the swing states. Sanders could still win the nomination and even the White House. So far, however, the evidence does not bear out this interpretation. The aforementioned Chart 13 shows that Sanders is second only to Biden against Trump. It is notable that he outperformed Hillary Clinton versus Trump in 2016 (Chart 17). He is specifically competitive against Trump in the Midwest swing states because of his ability to compete for the vote of the blue-collar worker. Thus he has a viable path to winning the Electoral College: the Clinton 2016 states plus Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Biden’s primary advantage, by this measure, is that he is also competitive in Florida as well as the Midwest, which broadens his Electoral College options. And while Sanders captivates the youth, Biden appeals to African Americans and moderates who turn out to vote more reliably (Chart 18). Chart 17Sanders Outperformed Hillary Versus Trump After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road Chart 18Biden’s Supporters Have Higher Turnout After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road Ultimately presidential elections are referendums on the incumbent party. Since World War II, incumbent parties have lost because of major shifts in the economic, social, or international context that discredit the current administration and drive voters to demand “regime change.” Sitting presidents strengthen the incumbent party and have only lost in a recessionary environment (1980, 1992) or a massive scandal (1976). And Trump’s scandal has been neutralized, for now, due to his acquittal in the Senate. Unless Trump suffers from a faltering economy, a policy humiliation at home or abroad, or a third party candidate who splits the Republican vote, he is unlikely to be discomfited. By the same token, if major changes occur, Sanders will be as good as or even better than Biden at riding the wave of disenchantment with the ruling party and its figurehead. PredictIt, the online betting site, currently puts Sanders at 29% chance of winning the White House, while Biden stands at 7%. Both are underrated given our assessment that Trump’s odds of election still stand at 55% and that he is only likely to fall as a result of economic weakness or an unforeseen policy humiliation. As things stand, either Biden or Sanders would see their chance of winning the White House rise toward 45% if they won the nomination. If Sanders wins the nomination, yet events all play to Trump’s favor such that he wins resoundingly, Sanders will forever after be seen as confirming the curse of the “movement candidate.” Yet under those circumstances Biden would likely have met the same fate. Bottom Line: Investors would be wrong to buy risky assets on a Sanders nomination in the belief that it guarantees Trump’s victory. Clinching the nomination sharply – and mathematically – increases any candidate’s chance of winning the White House. A Sanders White House in turn would be a paradigm shift in US politics: the first left-wing populist president. He would threaten a major increase in economically significant regulation even if no legislation were passed and as such would weigh on corporate profits and animal spirits. As a result, we expect volatility in the near term, since Sanders’s best hope is to build momentum now, unseat Biden, and then fend off Biden’s centrist replacements. Even if Sanders is only successful for a brief period in Q1, the market will have to discount the higher probability of a progressive populist in the Oval Office. What About Mayor Bloomberg? Show Us The Votes, Not Just The Money. Billionaire former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is a notable challenger both to other Democrats and to Trump based on the fact that his aggressive advertising campaign is producing some results in opinion polling – as it would for anyone given the volume! He is polling just ahead of Buttigieg and thus is first in line to benefit if Sanders knocks off Biden (Chart 19). Chart 19Bloomberg Benefits If Biden Falls After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road Chart 20Biden Beats Bloomberg In Big Primaries After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road However, Bloomberg’s attempt to pole-vault over the early states and rack up big wins in March is untested. Moreover the data do not yet reflect the elite optimism about Bloomberg’s chances. First, Biden will be harder to knock off than the consensus holds. He has a strong base in the South, he still leads in many Midwestern states, unlike Iowa, while Bloomberg’s base is the Northeast, where he has to split votes with most of the other candidates (including Biden). Looking ahead to March, Biden is beating Bloomberg in all of the key states where Bloomberg’s strategy requires a win (Chart 20). While Biden beats Trump head-to-head in the swing states, Bloomberg loses to Trump in most of them. This reflects Biden’s electability, a tailwind in the primaries (Chart 21). Bloomberg also has the worst favorability among voters – although admittedly Trump once held that distinction (Chart 22). Chart 21Trump Beats Bloomberg In Swing States After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road Chart 22Trump And Biden More Favorable Than Bloomberg After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road Hence Bloomberg can emerge as the leading centrist or establishment candidate if Biden crumbles, and Buttigieg fails to replicate his Iowa success, but not before then. Otherwise his significance lies in that he could become a dark horse candidate at a contested Democratic National Convention in July – say if the leading progressive candidates prove capable of blocking Biden’s nomination but not securing their own. Bloomberg may be waiting in the wings for just such a moment. Bloomberg could also act as the grand spoiler of the election should he decide to run as an independent candidate in November. Ostensibly his candidacy would hurt the Democrats, especially if they choose a candidate who suffers from the taint of socialism. However, contrary to popular wisdom, a strong third party candidate is historically a negative sign for the incumbent.3 Third party candidacies are only strong if the general public is dissatisfied – and when the public is dissatisfied it swings heavily against the incumbent party. Thus on the whole a large third party vote would tend to hurt Trump in 2020, just as it helped him in 2016 (by hurting the incumbent party). The fact that Bloomberg was formerly a Republican reinforces his risk to Trump – like the independently wealthy Ross Perot in 1992, he could produce a Democratic victory by splitting the conservative vote.4 Remember that 9-10% of Republicans believed that Trump should have been removed from office, according to impeachment polls over the past six months. If the economy holds up, this third party challenge is less likely to succeed, but it is still a risk. Such an outcome is far from assured and the Democratic Party would vilify Bloomberg for fear of him stealing votes from the Democratic candidate, especially if the occasion of his independent run were the nomination of a “socialist” like Sanders. Thus far Bloomberg claims he and his billions will support the Democratic Party’s nominee. Bottom Line: If Bloomberg’s intention were solely to unseat Trump, then he should have spent, or will spend, his billions waging a vigorous third party candidacy. On the contrary, by seeking the nomination of one of the two major parties, he apparently seeks to become president of the United States. In doing so he may weaken Biden and thus help Sanders. But we will not know the effect until we can observe his performance in actual elections, which he starts contesting in March. Nevertheless the big surprise of 2020 could well be an independently wealthy candidate capable of stealing enough votes from Trump to erase his very fine margins in the swing states. Bloomberg or someone else could play this role. Will There Be A Contested Convention? Probably Not. A contested convention – or its cousin, the “brokered convention” – is a situation in which the Democratic Party must decide its presidential nominee at its national convention, having failed to do so through the primary elections. Democratic delegates are awarded proportionately to the popular vote, unlike the Republican primary system which features many winner-take-all states. Several candidates each earning less than a third of the popular vote can continue struggling without any one of them hitting the “jackpot” and surging ahead. If none of the candidates has a majority of pledged delegates – or even a strong plurality – at the conclusion of the primaries on June 6 then the candidates will have to negotiate a solution. Otherwise they will show up in Milwaukee on July 13 for a chaotic four days in which the party delegates would have to hold a series of votes, on live television, to determine the nominee. The last time the Democrats had a contested convention was 1952, when they voted for three rounds; the Republicans saw a shorter-lived contest in 1976. In today’s context, in which a left-wing populist could win the nomination, such an unpredictable and arcane process would present a source of uncertainty for investors throughout June and July. A contested convention is more likely than usual because the party has four, possibly five viable candidates if we count Bloomberg. Biden, Bloomberg, and Sanders all have the financial ability to persist over the long haul. Yet with Buttigieg having won in Iowa and polling well in New Hampshire, he remains in the race, as does Warren, assuming they keep meeting the minimum threshold of 15% of the vote needed to receive delegates. So why isn’t a contested convention likely? Because there is a clear constraint: it would be a train wreck for the party. It would prolong divisions over ideology, it would exhaust everyone’s coffers (except Bloomberg’s), it would send a picture of a party in disarray to the general public (much like the Iowa caucus debacle), and it would deprive the party of months in which the de facto nominee could challenge President Trump. The bad press and divisiveness would actually increase Trump’s chances of winning. In the wake of the impeachment backfire, the candidates will be more attuned to these risks. Instead, with a common enemy, it is more likely that candidates will be pressured to drop out of the race once it is clear they cannot win. Democrats will bind together to pick a nominee – a contested convention helps Trump. Chart 23Iowans Want A Winner, Not A Platform After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road Democratic voters are primarily concerned with beating President Trump – this has been confirmed in polling at the Iowa caucus (Chart 23). Therefore several candidates have a basis for sacrificing their own presidential bid. In exchange those who drop out will be offered cabinet positions, which they will sell as a political “dream team” against Trump’s small circle of loyalists and family members. The risk is that insurgent progressive candidates defy the party leadership and refuse to bow out. While Buttigieg is young and can live to fight another day, neither Sanders nor Warren will drop out easily if they think they still have a chance of winning the presidency. These two are also unlikely to cooperate with each other to consolidate the left-wing bloc. Bottom Line: Multiple competitive candidates make it possible that instead of bandwagoning around the candidate with a plurality – likely Biden – no candidate will have a commanding plurality of pledged delegates by June 6. If that is the case then expect the candidates to negotiate a solution prior to the convention. If a solution cannot be found, a contested convention will reflect a deeply divided party and hence imply higher odds of President Trump’s reelection, other things being equal. Investment Conclusions Investors can look at the three options as follows. Biden, Buttigieg, or Bloomberg would be a “known known,” a moderate Democratic whose policies would largely seek to restore and solidify those of the Obama administration. However, we still see this as negative for equities because of the increase in regulation that would ensue plus the high chance that victory would also bring the Senate and thus give rise to a more progressive policy shift than the consensus expects. Chart 24Centrists Outperformed In Iowa After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road Trump is a “known unknown,” an unorthodox and aggressive president whose tactics have become familiar but whose approach is globally disruptive and would be more so in a second term relatively free of electoral constraints. We expect any melt-up in equities before or after a Trump win to be a sell signal given our base case that Trump’s reelection means Trade War II. Sanders or Warren would be an “unknown unknown,” the first-ever left-wing populist to take the White House. Above we show this is not at all improbable if one of them wins the nomination – which itself is about a 35% probability. The same odds apply to the Senate as under Biden, although moderate Democrats there would act as a constraint on a progressive pushing revolutionary legislation. Still, a progressive populist would be a generational paradigm shift in US policy and would justify a bear market. Where is the median voter? In the primary election, the Iowa caucus results reinforce the national trend suggesting that the median voter prefers a centrist or establishment candidate (Chart 24). If Biden falters, either Buttigieg or Bloomberg will take up the slack. Nevertheless the risk of a Sanders success is imminent and therefore we expect volatility to be frontloaded this year, especially in February but also possibly in March if Sanders does a bang-up job on Super Tuesday. In the general election, polling consistently shows that the economy is the most salient issue for voters in 2020. This plays to President Trump’s favor. Health care is usually ranked second, which plays to the Democrats’ favor. However, a recent open-ended poll by Morning Consult suggests that security issues have supplanted health care as the second-highest voter concern, which would reinforce Trump’s position (Chart 25). Further economic deterioration would not only undermine Trump’s approval on his handling of the economy but would also increase concern over health care, since insurance is tied to employers. So this is a critical risk to Trump in wobbly swing states like Pennsylvania. Chart 25Median Voter Focused On Economy, Trump’s Strong Suit After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road After Iowa And Impeachment? Questions From The Road We maintain that Trump is slightly favored with 55% odds. But our mathematical model highlights how close of a call the election is, at least until the manufacturing sector and broader economy durably rebound. Investors need to be prepared for either electoral outcome, which means hedging against sectors under bipartisan scrutiny such as Big Pharma and Big Tech. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, no fan of President Trump, voted to convict him of the charge of abuse of power but not of obstruction of Congress. 2 This is the second time Wisconsin has switched across the threshold in our model since November – all else equal, a 0.01% increase in the state’s leading index would move it back to the Republicans. 3 See Allan J. Lichtman, Predicting The Next President (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016), 30-31. 4 Alternately he could ensure a Trump victory by producing an Electoral College tie! Demographic projections of the US electorate in 2020 by Robert Griffin, Ruy Teixeira, and William H. Frey show that a 2020 election in which voters behave exactly as they did in 2016, except that the third party vote normalizes from 5.7% (2016) to 1.7% (2012), would produce an Electoral College tie of 269-269 votes. Obviously this would be a Black Swan event. And the fact that electors in the college can be “faithless” to the candidate that their state elected complicates such projections. Nevertheless the result would be an extraordinary House of Representative vote according to state delegations in which Trump would emerge as the victor and the legitimacy of the election would be contested and debated once again. See "America’s Electoral Future: Demographic Shifts and the Future of the Trump Coalition," April 2018, brookings.edu.

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