Germany

Remain cautious and defensive overall. Stay long DM Europe over EM Europe. Look for EM opportunities in Southeast Asia and Latin America over Greater China.

Stay short Greater China assets. Stay long Japanese yen. Hold back on Brazil for now but look forward to opportunities in future.

Executive Summary Our negative view on the summer rally is coming to fruition, with equities falling back on the negative geopolitical, macro, and monetary environment. China is easing policy ahead of its full return to autocratic government this fall. Yet the Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis has only just begun. Tensions can still deal nasty surprises to global investors. It is essential to verify that relations will thaw after the US midterm and Chinese party congress is critical. Russia continues to tighten energy supply as predicted. Ukraine’s counter-offensive is pushing back the time frame of a ceasefire deeper into next year. Putin may declare victory and quit while he is ahead – but Russia will not be forced to halt its invasion until commodity prices fall significantly. Sweden’s election will not interfere with its NATO bid; Australia’s new government will not re-engage with China; Malaysia’s election will be a positive catalyst; South Africa’s political risks are reawakening; Brazil’s risks are peaking; Turkey remains a leading candidate for a negative “black swan” event. China’s Confluence Of Domestic And Foreign Political Risk Asset Initiation Date Return LONG GLOBAL DEFENSIVES / CYCLICALS EQUITIES 2022-01-20 17.4% Bottom Line: Investors should stay defensive in the short run until recession risks and geopolitical tensions abate. Feature Last week we visited clients across South Africa and discussed a broad range of global macro and geopolitical issues. In this month’s GeoRisk Update we relate some of the key points in the context of our market-based quantitative risk indicators. While we were traveling, US-Iran negotiations reached a critical phase. A deal is said to be “closer” but we remain pessimistic (we still give 40/60 odds of a deal). The important point for investors is that the supply side of global oil markets will remain tight even if a deal is somehow agreed, whereas it will get much tighter if a deal is not agreed. China’s rollout of 1 trillion yuan ($146 billion) in new fiscal stimulus and rate cuts (5 bps cut to 1-year Loan Prime Rate and 15 bps cut to 5-year LPR) is positive on the demand side and supports our key view in our 2022 annual outlook that China would ease policy ahead of the twentieth national party congress. However, it is still the case that China is not providing enough stimulus to generate a new cyclical rally. Second quarter US GDP growth was revised slightly upwards but was still negative. Russia tightened control of European energy, as expected, increasing the odds of a European recession. Europeans are getting squeezed by rising energy prices, rising interest rates, and weak external demand. China Eases Policy Ahead Of Return To Autocracy China is facing acute political risk in the short term but it is also delivering more stimulus to try to stabilize the economy ahead of the twentieth national party congress this fall (Chart 1). The People’s Bank of China cut the benchmark lending rate by (1-year LPR) by 5 basis points, while authorities unveiled fiscal spending worth 1 trillion renminbi. Chart 1China's Confluence Of Domestic And Foreign Political Risk After the party congress, the regime is likely to “let 100 flowers bloom,” i.e. continue with a broad-based policy easing to secure the recovery from the Covid-19 shock. This will include loosening social restrictions and aggressive regulations against industrial sectors like the tech sector. It should also include some diplomatic improvements, especially with Europe. But it is only a short term (12-month) trend, not a long-term theme. Related Report  Geopolitical StrategyRoulette With A Five-Shooter China’s return to autocratic government under General Secretary Xi Jinping is a new, negative, structural factor and is nearly complete. Xi is highly likely to secure another decade in power and promote his faction of Communist Party stalwarts and national security hawks. The period around the party congress will be uncertain and dangerous. The exact makeup of the next Politburo could bring some surprises but there is very little chance that Xi and his faction will fail to consolidate power. The nomination of an heir-apparent is possible but of limited significance since Xi will not step down anytime soon or in a regular, predictable manner. Larger stimulus combined with power consolidation could spur greater risk appetite around the world, as it would portend a stabilization of growth and policy continuity. However, China’s underlying problems are structural. The manufacturing and property bust can be delayed but not reversed. China’s foreign policy will continue to get more aggressive due to domestic vulnerability, prompting foreign protectionism, export controls, sanctions, saber-rattling, and the potential for military conflict. Bottom Line: Investors should use any rally in Chinese assets over the coming 12 months as an opportunity to sell and reduce exposure to China’s historic confluence of political and geopolitical risk. Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis Only Beginning The Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis has only just begun. The previous three crises ranged from four to nine months in duration. The current crisis cannot possibly abate until November at earliest. Taiwan’s political risk will stay high and we would not buy any relief rally until there is a firm basis for believing tensions have fallen (Chart 2). Chart 2Taiwan: The Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis If this year’s crisis were driven by US and Chinese domestic politics – the US midterm election and China’s party congress – then both Presidents Biden and Xi Jinping would already have achieved what they want and could proceed to de-escalate tensions by the end of the year – i.e. before somebody really gets hurt. The two leaders could hold a bilateral summit in Asia in November and agree to uphold the one China policy and status quo in the Taiwan Strait. We have given a 40% chance to this scenario, though we would still remain pessimistic about the long-term outlook for Taiwan. But if this year’s crisis is driven by a change in US and Chinese strategic thinking as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and China’s rising domestic instability, then there will not be a quick resolution on Taiwan. The crisis would grow next year, increasing the risk of aggression or miscalculation. We have given a 60% probability to this scenario, of which full-scale war comprises 20 percentage points. Bottom Line: Our geopolitical risk indicator for Taiwan spiked and Taiwanese equities rolled over relative to global equities as we expected. However, our oldest trade to capture the high long-term risk of a war in the strait – long Korea / short Taiwan – has performed badly despite the crisis. South Korea: China Stimulus A Boon But Not Geopolitics US-China rivalry – and the thawing of Asia’s once-frozen conflicts – is also manifest on the Korean peninsula, where the limited détente between the US and North Korea negotiated by President Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un has fallen apart. South Korea’s situation is not as risky as Taiwan’s but it is nevertheless less stable than it appears (Chart 3). Chart 3South Korea: Lower Geopolitical Risk Than Taiwan South Korea resumed its full-scale joint military exercise with the US, the Ulchi Freedom Shield, from August 22 to September 1. The drills involve amphibious operations and a carrier strike group. Full-scale drills were scaled down or cancelled under the Trump and Moon Jae-In administrations with the hopes of facilitating diplomacy and reducing tensions on the peninsula. North Korea was to discontinue ballistic missile tests and threats to the United States. But after the 2020 election neither Washington nor Pyongyang considered itself bound by this agreement. This year the US went forward with Ulchi Freedom even though regional tensions were sky-high because of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan and the De-Militarized Zone in Korea. The US is flagging its regional interests and power bases. North Korea is increasing the frequency of missile tests this year and is likely to conduct an eighth nuclear test. On August 17, it fired two cruise missiles towards the Yellow Sea. Pyongyang does not want to be ignored amid so many other geopolitical crises. It is emboldened by the fact that Russia and China will not be voting with the US for another round of sanctions at the United Nations Security Council due to the war in Ukraine and tensions over Taiwan. On August 11, South Korea responded to China’s insistence that the new government should abide by the “Three No’s,” i.e. three negatives that the Moon administration allegedly promised China: no additional deployments of the US’s Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, no Korean integration into US-led missile defense, and no trilateral military alliance with the US and Japan. Korea’s Foreign Minister Park Jin told reporters upon his return from China that the three no’s were “neither an agreement nor a promise.” South Korea’s new and conservative President Yoon Suk-yeol is unpopular and gridlocked at home but he is using the opportunity to reassert Korean national interests, including the US military alliance. Tension with the North and cold relations with China are coming at a time when the economy is slowing down. Korean GDP grew by 0.7% in Q2 2022 on a quarter-on-quarter basis, supported by household and government spending, while exports and investments shrank. Roughly a quarter of Korean exports go to China, its biggest trading partner. Korean exports to China have suffered due to China’s economic woes but cold relations could bring new economic sanctions, as China has hit South Korea before over THAAD. With the Yoon administration planning to bring the fiscal deficit back to below 3% of GDP next year, and a broader backdrop of weak Chinese and global demand, it is hard to find bright corners in the Korean economy in the near term. With Yoon’s basement level approval rating, he will resort to foreign policy to try to revive his political capital. Saber rattling and tough talk with North Korea and China will increase tensions in an already hot region – geopolitical risk is bound to stay high on the back of the Taiwan crisis. Bottom Line: On a relative basis, due to the ironclad US security guarantee, South Korea is safer than Taiwan. Investors wanting exposure to Chinese economic stimulus, electric vehicles, and semiconductors should go long South Korea. But some volatility is likely because the North’s eighth nuclear test will occur in the context of high and rising regional tensions. Australia: Stimulus Is Positive But No “Thaw” With China Australia is blessed with strong geopolitical fundamentals but it is seeing a drop in national security and economic security due to the deterioration of China relations. Domestic political turmoil is one of the consequences (Chart 4). Most recently Australia has been roiled by the revelation that former Prime Minister Scott Morrison secretly ran five ministries during the pandemic: the ministries of Home, Treasury, Finance, Resources, and Health. Chart 4Australian Geopolitical Risk Limited After an investigation and review by the Solicitor General Stephen Donaghue, Morrison’s action was determined to be legal, although highly inappropriate and inconsistent with the principles of responsible governance. Morrison’s appointments to these ministries were approved by the Governor General but the announcement or publication of appointments has always been the prerogative of the government of the day. One might think that this investigation is merely politically motivated but the Solicitor General is an apolitical position unlike the Attorney General, and Donaghue had been serving with Morrison, guiding him about the constitutionality of a vaccine mandate during the pandemic. The new Labor Party government of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has vowed to be more transparent and will seek to enshrine a transparency measure into the law. Its political capital will improve, which is helpful for its ability to achieve its chief election promises. With the change of the government, it was hoped that there would be a thaw in the Australia-China relationship. China is Australia’s largest export destination and it erected boycotts against certain Australian exports in 2020 in response to Prime Minister Morrison’s inquiry into the origin of Covid-19. Hence Australia’s new defense minister, Richard Marles, met with his Chinese counterpart, General Wei Fenghe, on the sideline of the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore in June, which rekindled the hope that a thaw might happen. Yet a thaw is unlikely for strategic reasons, as highlighted by the Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis, the Biden administration’s retention of former President Trump’s tariffs, and Australia’s fears of China’s rising influence in the Pacific Islands. The US and Australia are preparing for a long-term policy of containing China’s ambitions. A few days after his election, Prime Minister Albanese flew to Tokyo to attend a meeting of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (the Quad), sending a signal that there will be policy continuity with respect to Australian foreign policy. On May 26, Chinese fighter jets flew closely to an Australian surveillance plane on its routine operation and released aluminum chaffs that were ingested by the P8’s engines. An Australian warship, the HMAS Parramatta, was tracked by a People’s Liberation Army nuclear power submarine and multiple aircrafts on its way back from Vietnam, Korea, and Japan as part of its regional presence deployment in June. Currently Australia is hosting the Pitch-Black military exercise, with 17 countries participating. This exercise will last for three weeks – focusing on air defense and aerial refueling. It will also see the German air force with 13 military aircrafts deployed to the Indo-Pacific region for the very first time. They will be stopping in Japan after the exercise. As Australia’s policy towards China is unlikely to change, geopolitical risk will remain elevated. On the economic front, Australia’s misery index is at the highest point since 2000, with an unemployment rate at 3% and inflation at 6%. GDP growth in the first quarter was 0.8% compared to 3.6% in Q4 2021, propped up by government and household consumption while investment and exports contracted. The good news for the government is that it is inheriting this negative backdrop and can benefit from cyclical improvements in the next few years. Since the Labor government lacks a single-party majority in the Senate (where it must rely on the Greens and independents), it will be difficult for the government to raise new taxes. So far, Albanese has indicated that the budget to be tabled in October will focus on pre-election promises, which includes childcare, healthcare, and energy reforms. At worst, Australian government spending will stay flat, but it is unlikely to shrink considering Labor’s narrow control of the House of Representatives. Australian equities have not outperformed those of developed market peers despite high industrial metal prices. The stock market’s weak performance is attributable to the stumbling Chinese economy (Chart 5). Australian exports to China in June are still down 14% from June of last year. Chinese economic woes will be a headwind to Aussie growth and equity markets until next year, when Chinese stimulus efforts reach their full effect. Chart 5Australian Equities Have Yet to Benefit from Industrial Metal Prices On the other hand, the value of Australian natural gas and oil exports in June grew by 118% and 211% respectively (Chart 6), compared to June of last year. Chart 6Geopolitics: A Boon and Bane to Aussie Growth​​​​​ Bottom Line: As China will continue stimulating the economy and global energy markets will remain tight, investors should look for opportunities in Aussie energy and materials stocks. Malaysia Closes A Chapter … And Opens A Better One? Rarely do we get to revisit our positive outlook on Malaysia – a Southeast Asian state with an ability to capitalize on the US break-up with China. On August 23, the embattled ex-prime minister of Malaysia, Najib Razak, lost his final appeal at the Federal Court in Putrajaya after being found guilty in 2020 for abuse of power, criminal breach of trust, and money laundering tied to Malaysia’s sovereign wealth fund, 1MDB. The high court instructed that he serves his 12-years prison sentence immediately, becoming the first prime minister to be imprisoned in the country’s 60-years plus of history. Political risk has weighed on the Malaysian economy for almost a decade starting with the contentious 2013 general election, which saw the collapse of non-Malay voter support for the ruling party. Then came the 2015 Wall Street Journal bombshell about 1MDB, and then the 2018 general election that resulted in Malaysia’s first change of government since independence. The pandemic also led to political crisis in 2020. Each crisis resulted in a successive weakening of animal spirits and ever lower investments, resulting in Malaysia’s loss of competitiveness (Chart 7). Malaysia’s cheap currency was unable to increase its competitiveness, due to the low investments in the economy, and reflected higher political risks in the country (Chart 8). Chart 7Political Risk Undermines Competitiveness​​​​​​ Chart 8Cheap Currency Reflects Political Risk​​​​​​ Nonetheless this entire saga has proved that Malaysia’s legal system is independent and that its political system is capable of holding policymakers accountable. The next general election will come in a matter of months and recent state elections bodes well for the institutional ruling party, the United Malay National Organization (UMNO), and its coalition, Barisan Nasional. The coalition is managing to claw back support from the Malay and non-Malay voters. The opposition had the bad luck of ruling during the pandemic and its rocky aftermath, which has helped to rehabilitate the traditional ruling party. We have long seen Malaysia as a potential opportunity. But we would advise investors to wait until the new election is held and a new government takes power before buying Malaysian equities. With the conclusion of its decade-long 1MDB saga, we would turn more bullish if the next election produces a sizeable and enduring majority, if the use of racial and sectarian rhetoric tones down, and if the governing coalition pursues pro-competitiveness policies. Bottom Line: Structurally, Malaysia is one of the largest exporters of semiconductors and will benefit from the US’s shift away from China and attempt to reconstruct supply chains so they run through the economies of allies and partners. Russia: Escalating To De-Escalate? Russia increased the number of active military personnel in a move that points to an escalation of the conflict with Ukraine and the West, even as Ukraine wages a counter-offensive against Russia in Crimea and elsewhere. The time frame for a ceasefire has been pushed further into next year. As long as the war escalates, European energy relief will be elusive. Our risk indicators will rise again (Chart 9). Chart 9Russia: Geopolitical Risk To Rise Again, Ceasefire Pushed Back Into Next Year Ukraine will not be able to drive Russians out of territory in which they are entrenched. It would need a coalition of western powers willing to go on the offense, which will not happen. Russia is also threatening to cut off the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, ostensibly removing one-fifth of Ukraine’s electricity. Once the Ukrainian counter-offensive grinds to a halt, a stalemate will ensue, incentivizing ceasefire talks – but not until then. The Europeans will have to support Ukraine now but will become less and less inclined to extend the war as they get hit with recession. Russia says it is prepared for a long war but that kind of rhetoric is necessary for propaganda purposes. The truth is that Russia does not have great success with offensive wars. Russia usually suffers social instability in the aftermath. The best indicator for the duration of the war is probably the global oil price: If it collapses for any reason then Russia’s war machine will fall short of funds and the Kremlin will probably have to accept a ceasefire. This what happened in 2014-15 with the Minsk Protocols. Putin will presumably try to quit while he is ahead, i.e. complete the conquest and shift to ceasefire talks, while commodity prices are still supportive and Europe is economically weak. If commodity prices fall, Russia’s treasury dries up while Europe regains strength. So while military setbacks can delay a ceasefire, Russia should be seen as starting to move in that direction. The deal negotiated with Turkey and the United Nations to ship some grain from Odessa is not reliable in the short run but does show the potential for future negotiations. However, a high conviction on the timing is not warranted. Also, the US and Russia could enter a standoff over the US role in the war, or NATO enlargement, at any moment, especially ahead of the US midterm election. Bottom Line: Ukraine’s counteroffensive and Russia’s tightening of natural gas exports increases the risk to global stability and economic growth in the short run, even if it is a case of “escalating tensions in order to de-escalate” later when ceasefire talks begin. Italy: Election Means Pragmatism Toward Russia Italy’s election is the first large crack in the European wall as a result of Russia’s cutoff of energy. The party best positioned for the election – the right-wing, anti-establishment party called the Brothers of Italy – will have to focus on rebooting Italy’s economy once in power. This will require pragmatism toward Russian and its natural gas. Regardless of whether a right-wing coalition obtains a majority or the parliament is hung, Italian political risk will stay high in the short run (Chart 10). Chart 10Italy: Election Brings Uncertainty, Then Economic Stimulus Although the center-left Democratic Party (PD) is narrowing the gap with the Brothers of Italy in voting intentions, it is struggling to put together an effective front against the right-wing bloc. After its alliance with the centrist Azione party and +Europa party broke down, PD’s chance of winning has become even slimmer. Even if the alliance revives, the center-left bloc still falls short of the conservative parties. Together, the right-wing parties account for just 33% of voting intentions (Democrats at 23%, Greens and Left Alliance at 3%, Azione and +Europa at 7%). By contrast, the right-wing bloc has a significant lead, with 46% of the votes (Brothers of Italy at 24%, Lega at 14%, Forza Italia at 8%). They also have the advantage of anti-incumbency sentiment amid a negative economic backdrop. Unless some sudden surprises occur, a right-wing victory is expected, with Giorgia Meloni becoming the first female prime minister in Italy’s history. This has been our base case scenario for the past several months. But what does a right-wing government mean for the financial markets? In an early election manifesto published in recent weeks, the conservative alliance pledged full adhesion to EU solidarity and dropped their previous euroskepticism. This helps them get elected and is positive for investors. However, there are also clouds on the horizon: In the same manifesto, the right-wing parties pledged to lower taxes for families and firms, increase welfare, and crack down on immigration. These programs will add to Italy’s huge debt pile and eventually lead to conflicts with the ECB and other EU institutions. In the manifesto, they stated that if elected, they would seek to amend conditions of Italy’s entitlement to the EU Recovery Fund, as the Russia-Ukraine war has changed the context and priorities significantly. This could potentially put the EU’s grants and cheap loans at risk. Under the Draghi government, Italy has secured about 67 billion euros of EU funds. According to the schedule, Italy will receive a further 19 billion Euros recovery funds in the second half of 2022, if it meets previously agreed upon targets. The new government will try to accept the funds and then make any controversial policy changes. On Russia, the conservative parties claimed that Italy would not be the weak link within EU. They pledged respect for NATO commitments, including increasing defense spending. Both Meloni and her Brothers of Italy have endorsed sending weapons to support Ukraine. Still, we think that due to Italy’s historical link with Russia and the need to secure energy supplies, the new government would be more pragmatic toward Russia. On China, Meloni has stressed that Italy will look to limit China’s economic expansion if the right-wing alliance wins. She stated that “Russia is louder at present and China is quieter, but [China’s] penetration is reaching everywhere.” China will want to use diplomacy to curb this kind of thinking in Europe. Meloni also stated that she would not seek to pursue the Belt and Road Initiative pact that Italy signed with China in 2019. In short, we stand firm on our recommendation of underweighting Italian assets at least until a new government is formed. Europe Gets Its Arm Twisted Further The United Kingdom is going through a severe energy, water, and inflation crisis – on top of the long backlog at the National Health Service – as it stumbles through the aftermath of Covid-19 and Brexit. The Conservative Party’s leadership contest is a distraction – political risk will not subside after it is resolved. The new Tory leader will lack a direct popular mandate but the party will want to avoid an early election in the current economic context, creating instability. The looming attempt at a second Scottish independence referendum will also keep risks high, as the outcome this time may be too close to call (Chart 11). Chart 11UK: Tory Leaders A Sideshow, Risks Will Stay High Germany saw Russia halt natural gas flows through Nord Stream 1 as the great energy cutoff continues. As we have argued since April, Russia’s purpose is to pressure the European economies so that they are more conducive to a ceasefire in Ukraine. Germany will evolve quickly and will improve its energy security faster than many skeptics expect but it cannot do it in a single year. The ruling coalition is also fragile, even though elections are not due anytime soon (Chart 12). Chart 12Germany: Geopolitical Risk Still Rising France’s political risk will also remain high (Chart 13), as domestic politics will be reckless while President Emmanuel Macron and his allies only control 43% of the National Assembly in the aftermath of this year’s election (Chart 14). Chart 13France: Lower Geopolitical Risk Than Germany Chart 14Macron Will Focus On Foreign Policy Spain is likely to see its coalition destabilized and early elections, much like Italy this year (Chart 15). Chart 15Spain: Early Elections Likely Sweden, along with Finland, will be joining NATO, which became clear back in April. In this sense it is at the center of Russia’s conflict with the West over NATO enlargement, so we should take a quick look at the Swedish general election on September 11. Currently the left-wing and right-wing blocs are neck and neck in the polls. While the current Social Democrat-led government may well fall from power, Sweden’s new pursuit of NATO membership is unlikely to change. The right-wing parties in Sweden are in favor of joining NATO. The two parties that oppose NATO membership are the left-wing Green and Left Party. The Social Democrats were pro-neutrality until the invasion of Ukraine and since May have spearheaded Swedish accession to NATO. The pro-neutrality bloc currently holds 43 seats in the 349-seats Riksdag. It has a supply-and-confidence arrangement with the current government and is currently polling at 13%. If it was willing and able to derail Sweden’s NATO bid, it would already have happened. So the general election in Sweden is unlikely to stop Sweden from joining. However, Russia does not want Sweden to join and the entire pre- and post-election period is ripe for “black swan” risks and negative surprises. One thing that could change with the election is Sweden’s immigration policy. The Social Democrats are pro-immigration (albeit pro-integration), while the right-wing bloc is less so. Sweden has received a great many asylum seekers since the Syrian refugee crisis in 2015 and will be receiving more from Ukraine and Russia (Chart 16). Chart 16Asylum Seekers to Surpass 2015 Refugee Crisis Our Foreign Exchange Strategist Chester Ntonifor points out that the increase in asylum seekers could augment Swedish labor force and increase its potential growth in the long run, while in the short run it could increase demand in the domestic economy. But an increase in demand could also exacerbate inflation in Sweden, especially considering how much the Riksbank is behind the curve vis-à-vis the ECB. Our European Investment Strategy recommends shorting EUR/SEK as Sweden is less vulnerable to Russian energy sanctions. Sweden produces most of its energy from renewable sources. Relative to Europe, Canada faces a much more benign political and geopolitical environment (Chart 17). However, within its own context, it will continue to see more contentious domestic politics as interest rates rise on a society with high household debt and property prices. The post-Covid-19 period will undermine the Justin Trudeau government over time, though it is not facing an election anytime soon. Canada continues to benefit from North America’s geopolitical advantage, though quarrels with China will continue, including over Taiwan, and should be taken seriously. Aside from any China shocks we expect Canadian equities to continue to outperform most global bourses. Chart 17Canada: Low Geopolitical Risk But Not Happy South Africa: The Calm Before The Storm South Africa’s economy remains in a low growth trap, which is contributing to rising political risk (Chart 18). Electricity shortages continue to dampen economic activity. Other structural issues like 33.9% unemployment, worsening social imbalances, and a split in the ruling party threaten to cause negative policy surprises. Chart 18South Africa: Institutional Ruling Party At Risk The South African economy has failed to translate growth outcomes into meaningful economic development, leaving low-income households (the median voter) increasingly disenfranchised, burdened, and constrained. Last year’s civil unrest was fueled by economic hardships that persist today. Without a significant and consistent bump to growth, social and political risks will continue to rise. Low-income households remain largely state dependent. Fiscal austerity has already begun to unwind, well before the 2024 election, in a bid to shore up support and quell rising social pressures (Chart 19). Chart 19South Africa: Fiscal Easing Ahead Of 2024 Vote The fact that the social scene is relatively quiet for now should not be seen as a sign of underlying stability. For example, two of the largest trade unions led a nationwide labor strike last week – while we visited clients in the country! – but failed to “shut down” the country as advertised. Labor union constituents noted the ANC’s economic failures, demanded immediate economic reform, and advocated for a universal basic income grant. This action blew over but the election cycle is only just beginning. Looking forward to the election, President Cyril Ramaphosa’s ANC is still viewed more favorably than the faction led by ex-President Jacob Zuma, but Ramaphosa has suffered from corruption allegations recently that have detracted attention from his anti-corruption and reform agenda and highlighted the party’s shortcomings once again. The ANC’s true political rival, the far-left Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), have so far failed to capitalize on the weak economic backdrop. The EFF is struggling with leadership battles, thus failing to attract as many soured ANC voters as otherwise possible. If the Economic Freedom Fighters refocus and install new leadership, namely a leader that better reflects the tribal composition of the country, the party will become a greater threat to the ANC. But the overall macro backdrop is a powerful headwind for the ANC’s ability to retain a parliamentary majority. Global macro tailwinds that supported local assets in the first half of the year are experiencing volatility due to China’s sluggish growth and now stimulus efforts. Cooling metals prices and slowing global growth have weighed on the rand and local equity returns. But now China is enacting more stimulus. China is South Africa’s largest trading partner, so the decision to ease policy is positive for next year, even though China’s underlying structural impediments will return in subsequent years. This makes it hard to predict whether South Africa’s economic context will be stable in the lead-up to the 2024 election. As long as China can at least stabilize in the post-pandemic environment in 2023, the ANC will not face as negative of a macro environment in 2024 as would otherwise be the case. Investors will need to watch the risk of political influence on the central bank. Recently the ANC resolved to nationalize the central bank. Nationalization is mostly about official ownership but a change in the bank’s mandate was also discussed. However, to change the bank’s mandate from an inflation target to an unemployment target, the ANC would need to change the constitution. Constitutional change requires a two-thirds vote in parliament, a margin the ANC does not hold. Constitutional change will become increasingly difficult if the ANC sheds more support in the 2024 general election, as expected. Bottom Line: Stay neutral on South Africa until global and Chinese growth stabilize. Political risk is rising ahead of the 2024 election but it is not necessarily at a tipping point. Brazil And Turkey: Election Uncertainty Prevails We conclude with two brief points on Brazil and Turkey, which both face important elections – Brazil immediately and Turkey by June 2023. Both countries have experienced different forms of instability as emerging middle classes face economic disappointment, which has led to political challenges to liberal democracy. Brazil – President Jair Bolsonaro’s popular support is rallying into the election, as expected, but it would require a large unexpected shift to knock former President Lula da Silva off course for re-election this October (Chart 20). Brazil’s first round vote will be held on October 2. If Lula falls short of the 50% majority threshold, then a second round will be held on October 30. Bolsonaro faces an uphill battle because his general popularity is weak – his support among prospective voters stands at 35% compared to Lula at 44% today and Lula at 47% when he left office in 2010. Meanwhile the macroeconomic backdrop has worsened over the course of his four-year term. Bolsonaro will contest the election if it is close so Brazil could face significant upheaval in the short run. Chart 20Brazil: Risk Will Peak Around The Election Turkey – President Recep Erdogan’s approval rating has fallen to 41%, while his disapproval has risen to 54%. It is a wonder his ratings did not collapse sooner given that the misery index is reaching 88%, with headline inflation at 78%. Having altered the constitution to take on greater presidential powers, Erdogan will do whatever it takes to stay in power, but the tide of public opinion is shifting and his Justice and Development Party is suffering from 21 years in power. Erdogan could interfere with NATO enlargement, the EU, Syria and refugees, Greece and Cyprus, North Africa and Libya, or Israel in a way that causes negative surprises for Turkish or even global investors. Turkey will be a source of “black swan” risks at least until after the general election slated for June 2023 (Chart 21). Chart 21Turkey: A Source Of 'Black Swans' We will revisit each these markets in greater detail soon. Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor Jesse.Kuri@bcaresearch.com Guy Russell Senior Analyst GuyR@bcaresearch.com ​​​​​​​Yushu Ma Research Analyst yushu.ma@bcaresearch.com Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix Geopolitical Calendar

Special Report

Listen to a short summary of this report.     Executive Summary US Lead On Mega-Sized Firms: Is A Peak Nigh? The US has been the star protagonist of global equity markets for decades. It offers investors the rare combination of a big economy and a large universe of mega-sized listed companies. In fact, the overwhelming majority of the top 20 largest firms globally by revenue today are American. But can the US maintain this degree of presence on this list over the next decade? We think that this is unlikely. For starters, a decline in the US’s footprint could be driven by the fact that there is a peculiar stagnation in the works in the middle tier of American firms. Given that this tier acts as a talent pool for big firms, a stagnation here could mean that the US spawns fewer super-sized firms. The high market share commanded by big American firms could also end up being a liability. This dominance could bait regulatory attention, thereby affecting these firms’ growth prospects. Finally, slowing GDP growth in the US, as compared to its Asian peers, will prove to be another headwind that American firms must contend with. What should strategic investors do to prepare for this tectonic shift? We recommend reducing allocations to US equities over the long run since the US’s weight in global indices will peak soon (or may have already peaked). Bottom Line: Irrespective of what the Fed does (or does not do), the US’s footprint in the global league tables of big firms by revenue will weaken over the next decade. Strategic investors can profit from this change by reducing allocations to US equities while increasing allocations to China as well as a basket of countries including Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Germany.   Dear Client, This week, we are sending you a Special Report by Ritika Mankar, CFA, who will be writing occasional special reports for the Global Investment Strategy service on a variety of topical issues. Ritika makes the case that the US economy’s ability to spawn mega-sized companies may become increasingly compromised over the next decade. We will return to our regular publishing schedule next week. Best Regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist US: Home To The Largest Number Of Big Listed Firms 2022 has been a turbulent year for US markets so far. But it is worth bearing in mind that the US has been the star protagonist of global equity markets for decades. This is because the US has offered investors a near-perfect trifecta constituting of: (1) A mega-sized economy; (2) A large universe of mega-sized listed companies; and (3) A track record of market outperformance. Specifically: Largest Economy: For over a century now, the US has been the largest economy in the world – a title it is expected to defend over the next few years (Chart 1). Large Listed Companies: The US’s high nominal GDP has also translated into high sales growth for its listed space. This, in turn, powered a great rise in the American equity market’s capitalization (Chart 2). In fact, the US’s market cap is so large today that it exceeds the cumulative market cap of the next four largest economies in the world, by a wide margin. So unlike Germany or China (which have large economies but small markets), the US has a large economy and is also home to some of the largest, most liquid stocks globally. Chart 1The US Will Remain The World’s Largest Economy For The Next Few Years Chart 2The Listed Universe In The US Has Grown From Strength To Strength Chart 3Growing Sales In The US Have Powered Its Outperformance Over The Past Decade Long History of Outperformance: And most importantly, the US market has a strong track record of outperformance. US markets have outperformed global benchmarks over the past decade thanks largely to the rapid sales growth seen by American firms (Chart 3). Notwithstanding the US’s star role in global markets thus far, in this report we highlight that the US’s heft will likely decline over the next decade. The Fed may or may not administer recession-inducing rate hikes in 2022. But irrespective of what the Fed does over the next 12-to-24 months, the US’s loss of influence in global equity markets appears certain because it will be driven by structural forces. Chart 4US Lead On Mega-Sized Firms: Is A Peak Nigh? Firstly, while behemoths such as Apple and Amazon have been attracting record investor attention, it is worth noting that the next tier of mid-sized American companies is no longer thriving as it used to. The reason why this matters is because history suggests that the pool of mid-sized companies acts as a superset for the big companies of tomorrow. So, if this talent pool is not booming today in the US, then there is likely to be repercussions tomorrow. Secondly, the US’s largest firms will have to contend with two structural headwinds over the next decade, namely increased regulatory attention and slowing growth. To complicate matters for American firms, competitors in Asia will not have this albatross around their neck. Hence, the US may remain the largest economy of the world a few years from now but is unlikely to be home to as many big, listed companies as it is today (Chart 4). The rest of this report quantifies the strength of these forces, and then concludes with actionable investment ideas.   Trouble In The Talent Pool Chart 5The US Is Home To Nearly A Dozen Mega-Sized Firms Today 2021 produced a special milestone for the American economy. This was the first year that ten listed American firms1 surpassed $200 billion in annual revenues (firms we refer to as ‘Big Shots’ from here on) (Chart 5). The US has been a global leader when it came to the size of its economy for decades, but last year it also became home to the largest number of big, listed corporations (Table 1). American Big Shots were striking both in terms of their number as well as their scale. In fact, such was their scale that the combined revenue of these ten Big Shots now exceeded the nominal GDP of major economies like India (Chart 6). Table 1The US Today Dominates The Global List Of Top 20 Firms Chart 6The Revenues Of US Big Shot Firms Are Comparable To India’s Nominal GDP! While the world has been captivated by the size that the US’s Big Shots have achieved (as well as the ideas of their unconventional founders), few have noticed that the talent pool for tomorrow’s Big Shots is no longer burgeoning. History suggests that most Big Shot firms tend to emerge from firms belonging to a lower revenue tier.  For instance, Amazon and Apple, which have revenues in the range of $350-to-$500 billion today, were mid-sized firms a decade ago with revenues in the vicinity of $50-to-$100 billion (Chart 7). Chart 7Most Big Shots Today Were The Mid-Sized Firms Of Yesterday This is why it is worrying that all is not well in the US’s ecosystem of mid-sized firms. If we define firms with annual revenues of $50-to-$200 billion as ‘core’ firms, then their share in the total number of American firms has stagnated over the past decade (Chart 8). Even the revenue share accounted for by core firms has been fading (Chart 9). This phenomenon contrasts with the situation in China, where the mid-sized firms’ cohort has been growing over the last decade (Charts 10 and 11). Chart 8Share Of Mid-Sized Firms In The US Has Stagnated Chart 9The Revenue Share Of US Mid-Sized Firms Is Also Falling Chart 10Share Of Mid-Sized Firms In China Is Expanding Chart 11The Revenue Share Of Chinese Mid-Sized Firms Is Rising Japan’s experience also suggests that when the mid-sized firms’ ecosystem weakens, the pipeline of future potential mega-cap companies get affected. In Japan, the proportion of core firms (Chart 12), as well as their revenue share (Chart 13), has not been growing as is the case, say, in China. And this is perhaps why, despite being the third-largest economy in the world today, Japan is home to only one listed mega-sized corporation with revenues of over $200 billion (Toyota). Chart 13The Revenue Share Of Japanese Mid-Sized Firms Has Plateaued The US May Have Hit Peak Oligopolization The fact that ten Big Shot firms (i.e., firms with annual revenues of over $200 billion) exist in the US today is remarkable. After all, the number of Big Shot firms in the US today exceeds the total number of Big Shots in the next four largest economies of the world combined (Chart 14). Chart 14The US Today Is The Global Hub For Mega-Sized Companies So why will the US’s leadership in this area come under pressure going forward? One reason is that the large size of American firms could itself become a liability. Specifically: Public Backlash Against The US’s Big Shots: The ten Big Shot firms of the US today account for more than a fifth of the revenue generated by all firms that constitute the MSCI US index (Chart 15). Also, the number of Big Shot firms, as a share of total firms, is high in the US (Chart 16). Chart 15Big Shots Account For More Than A Fifth Of Revenues Generated By The US Listed Space Chart 16A Large Proportion Of Firms In The US Are Very Big Notably, market leaders across a range of key sectors in the US account for an unusually large chunk of the sector’s revenues. Financials, Information Technology, and Consumer Discretionary together account for about half of the US equity market index’s weight. The dominant firm in each of these three sectors (as defined by MSCI) accounts for 15%-to-25% of that sector’s revenue (Chart 17). Market power usually benefits investors. But too much market power can be a problem. The growing oligopolization of the US economy has caused public dissatisfaction over the influence of corporations in the US to hit a multi-year high (Chart 18). Over 60% of Americans want major US corporations to have less influence. It is for this reason that the record scale acquired by American firms could prove to be an issue. American mega-scaled firms’ high market shares will provide them with pricing power, but this very power will end up baiting regulatory attention and anti-trust lawsuits which, in turn, will restrict their future growth rates. The fact that the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) today is headed by a leader who wants to return the FTC to its trust-busting origins, and made her name by writing a paper arguing for Amazon to be broken up,2 is indicative of which way the wind is blowing. Chart 17Market Leaders In The US Are Too Big Chart 18Public Dissatisfaction With US Big Shot Firms Is High And Rising Interestingly, the speed at which the US restricts the market power of big firms will determine how quickly the US’s mid-sized firms begin to flourish again, thereby setting the stage for the US to spawn a new generation of big firms. Besides the growing regulatory risks for the US’s big firms, three other technical factors will end up slowing the pace at which the US can generate large firms, namely: Slowing GDP Growth: Since the US is a large and mature economy, the pace of its growth is bound to slow (Chart 19). Besides the deceleration in the US’s growth rate relative to its own past, it is projected to end up being lower than that of major economies like China. Chart 19US GDP Growth Is Set To Slow Big Business ≠ Big GDP Growth: While GDP growth receives a fillip when small firms grow, the high pricing power that very large firms command can end up constraining an economy’s growth rate. This is because large firms can charge monopolistic prices, thereby restraining demand. Secondly, mega-sized firms may actively invest in manipulating institutions to block upstarts,3 a dynamic that can restrict productivity growth as well. Chart 20The Revenue-To-Nominal GDP Ratio Is Already Elevated In The US Approaching Revenue Saturation: A cross-country comparison suggests that the revenue-to-nominal GDP ratio in the US is high1 (Chart 20). Only Japan has a superior ratio, which is likely to be an aberration rather than the norm (owing to Japanese firms’ unique tendency to prioritize revenues over profitability). Given that the US revenue-to-nominal GDP ratio is already elevated, it is likely that even as the US’s nominal GDP keeps growing, the pace of conversion of this GDP into revenues will stay the same or may even diminish over the coming decade.   Prepare For A Brave New World “German judges…first read a description of a woman who had been caught shoplifting, then rolled a pair of dice that were loaded so every roll resulted in either a 3 or a 9. As soon as the dice came to a stop, the judges were asked whether they would sentence the woman to a term in prison greater or lesser, in months, than the number showing on the dice…On average, those who had rolled a 9 said they would sentence her to 8 months; those who rolled a 3 said they would sentence her to 5 months; the anchoring effect was 50%.” – Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011)   The US has been the largest economy in the world and has also been able to nurture some of the largest mega-scaled companies of today. Such is the might and size of these firms that it is impossible to imagine a world where American firms’ leadership could be disrupted. Moreover, it is mentally easier to extrapolate the US’s lead today into the future. It may even seem like there is no other alternative to the US since Japan’s economy has been stagnating, Europe lacks innovation, and the political environment in China is contentious. Also, it is true that the US today is the undisputed leader when it comes to qualitative factors such as the ability to attract top global talent, its education system, and its legal system. However, the case can be made that this belief (that the US’s lead on mega-sized companies will spill into the next decade) runs the risk of becoming a Kahneman-esque anchoring bias. This is because: History Suggests That Upsets Are The Norm: History suggests that the evolution of the top 20 global firms (by revenue) has been a story of upsets. For instance, Europe’s hold over this list in the 2000s was striking by all accounts (Chart 21). Back then, it would have been almost blasphemous to question Europe’s lead (Chart 22). But today firms from three Asian island-countries account for more companies on this list than all of pre-Brexit Europe put together. Chart 21In The 2000s, Europe Was The Epicenter Of Global Mega-Sized Firms Chart 22How The Mighty Can, And Do, Fall ​​​​​​​China’s Disadvantages < Its Competitive Advantages: Despite its political baggage, China has the most formidable capability today to displace the US’s leadership position on the league tables of top 20 global firms by revenue. This is because China has a thriving ecosystem of core firms (Chart 11) and is set to grow at a faster clip than the US over the next five years (Chart 19). Moreover, while the Chinese government’s tolerance for large tech giants could remain low, the establishment could be keen to grow firms in the industrials as well as financials space for the sake of common prosperity. EM Listed Space Can Catch Up: The listed space in the US has developed at an exceptionally fast pace relative to its peers. The gap between US nominal GDP and listed space parameters is low (Chart 20), while the gap is wider for countries like Germany, China, and several other EMs. Even in a ceteris paribus situation where nominal GDPs were to stay static, an increase in the size of the listed universe in other countries can adversely affect the US’s current footprint. So, what can investors do to prepare for this coming tectonic shift? We recommend reducing allocations to US equities since the US’s weight in global indices will peak soon. It is worth noting that this strategic investment recommendation dovetails nicely with our earlier view that strategic investors should rotate out of US stocks. Currently, about half of the 20 largest firms globally by revenue are American (Map 1). Owing to the dynamics listed above, the number of American firms in the global league of top 20 could fall from this high level to 7 or 8 over the coming decade. Given that this change is indicative of things to come, we would urge investors to reduce allocations to US equities in a global portfolio over a strategic horizon. A confluence of micro and macro factors is likely to result in the US’s weight in global indices to crest sooner rather than later. Map 1Could The Global Epicenter Of Big Firms Drift Eastwards Over The Next Decade? In fact, US equities’ weight in a global index like the MSCI ACWI could have already peaked (Chart 23) and could fall by 500-to-600bps over the next decade if the last year’s trend is extrapolated into the future. As regards to sectors, health care appears to be the key industry where the US’s footprint could weaken (Table 2). Chart 23Loss Of US Influence Will Create Space For Underrepresented Markets To Grow Table 2China’s Weight In Top 20 Firms Is Set To Grow As the US cedes its leadership position, we expect the global epicenter of mega-sized listed corporates to drift eastwards (Map 1). Specifically: China: Currently, less than a quarter of the 20 largest firms globally by revenue are Chinese (Map 1). It is highly likely that the number of Chinese firms in the global list of top 20 firms will increase. China should be able to spawn more mega-sized companies since it already has a cache of promising large and mid-sized companies. Chinese companies will also benefit from the high growth rate of China’s domestic economy. From a sectoral perspective, financials and industrials appear to be two sectors where China’s footprint could grow the most (Table 2). Asia Ex-China: Asian countries like Korea, Taiwan, and Japan could potentially end up growing their weight in global equity indices by becoming home to more than one company that makes it to the global league tables of large companies. Besides the high GDP growth rate on offer in their domestic markets (Chart 20), firms in these countries could increase scale by feeding a stimulus-fueled industrial boom in the US. Additionally, these Asian countries have a competitive advantage when it comes to high-tech manufacturing capabilities (Chart 24). This will ensure that they will accrue any offshore opportunities that arise. Taiwan has the potential to grow its presence in the Information Technology space, given its innate competitive advantages (Chart 24) and the positive structural outlook for global semiconductor demand. In the case of India, it is worth noting that the country’s influence in the world economy will be ascendant over the next decade as its growing middle class flexes its muscles. Despite this, the probability of an Indian firm making an appearance among the largest firms of the world is low given the unusually small size of Indian companies today. Europe: Distinct from the Asian countries listed above, Germany could benefit from the industrial boom in the US given its capabilities when it comes to high-end manufacturing (Chart 24). ​​​​​​​Even as we believe that oil faces a bleak future on a structural basis, if a commodities supercycle were to take hold over the next decade, then the UK and France could improve their presence in global equity benchmarks given that Europe is home to some large firms in the energy sector. A commodities supercycle will also end up benefiting China and the US, since some large energy producers are also located in these countries. Chart 24Korea, Japan, And Germany Have An Edge In Manufacturing, While Taiwan, Japan, And China Have An Edge In Semiconductors ​​​​​​​Appendix The Methodology The starting point for most country-level economic analyses tends to be a country’s nominal GDP. But as market economists we realized that some key advantages could be unlocked by focusing on ‘revenues’ generated by the listed universe of a country. These advantages include: Investment Focus: As compared to nominal GDP which ends up picking up signals about the health of the listed ‘and’ unlisted firms in any country, focusing on listed firms’ revenues allows us to home-in on the health of the listed space. This is a valuable merit since the listed space is what public equity investors can buy into. For example, India is the fifth largest economy of the world and is also one of the fastest growing economies globally. But India is also characterized by a listed space where the largest companies have revenues of only around $100 billion. This makes India less investable than countries like Taiwan or South Korea that have far smaller nominal GDPs as compared to India but are home to firms with revenue of around $200 billion. Taking note of this difference - between the size of a country’s nominal GDP and the size of investable firms in a country - is key for our clients. Focus On Cause, Not Effect: It is fashionable today in the financial press to focus on the daily changes in market capitalization of assets (and non-assets too). But it is critical to note that the market cap of a stock or the price of a security is a dependent variable. Revenue, on the other hand, is a key independent variable that influences prices. So, a focus on forecasting movement in revenues of companies in a country ten years down the line, can be a more fruitful exercise for strategic investors. Steady And Stable: Revenue generated by a firm, is also a superior measure as compared to the market capitalization of a firm because the latter can be volatile. Whilst it could be argued that earnings of a company as a variable also offer stability and influence prices, earnings suffer from one drawback which is that it is a function of revenues as well as costs. Revenues of companies on the other hand have a direct theoretical link to the nominal GDP of a country. So, to rephrase a popular adage - market cap is vanity, nominal GDP is sanity, but revenue is king. This is the reason why in this Special Report, we analyze investment opportunities through the lens of revenues generated by listed firms in some of the largest economies of the world. We do so by focusing on the constituents of MSCI Country Indices (Equity) for major world economies in 2021. ​​​​​​​ Ritika Mankar, CFA Editor/Strategist ritika.mankar@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Based on MSCI ACWI data for 2021. 2  Kiran Stacey, “Washington vs Big Tech: Lina Khan’s battle to transform US antitrust,” ft.com, August 2021. 3  Kathy Fogel, Randall Morck, and Bernard Yeung, “Big Business Stability And Economic Growth: Is What’s Good For General Motors Good For US?”, NBER Working Paper No. 12394, nber.org, July 2006.

Special Report

Executive Summary The ECB finally exited negative interest rates last week. In exchange for higher rates, the doves received an ambitious anti-fragmentation tool, the TPI. The ECB deposit rate is likely to reach between 1% and 1.5% by the summer of 2023. The ECB’s number one problem remains the widely different neutral rates across the Eurozone’s largest economies. Our r-star estimates suggest that the German neutral rate is significantly above that of Spain, Italy, and even France. This divergence in r-star means that the TPI will be activated, but its presence alone is not enough to tame the peripheral bond markets when the ECB hikes rates. While the near-term remains fraught with risks, BTPs are increasingly attractive for long-term investors. The TPI also creates a bullish long-term backdrop for the euro. Many R-Star In The European Sky Bottom Line: Diverging neutral rates across the Eurozone’s main economies will impair the ECB’s ability to normalize interest rates over the next twelve months without also activating the new anti-fragmentation tool, the TPI. BTPs have become attractive for long-term rather than short-term investors.   Last week, the European Central Bank (ECB) increased interest rates by 50bps, the first hike in eleven years and the third time in its history that it has tightened policy by such a large increment. In exchange for this abrupt end to negative interest rates, the doves on the Governing Council (GC) extracted the creation of the Transmission Protection Instrument (TPI), a new facility designed to limit fragmentation risk on sovereign bond yields in the Eurozone. These two moves raise three key questions: Will the ECB continue to increase rates this aggressively in the coming months? Have peripheral spreads peaked? Will the threat of TPI buying be enough to put a ceiling on spreads, or will the ECB actually need to activate the program in the coming months? To answer these questions, we evaluate where r-star (the neutral real rate of interest) stands in the four largest Euro Area economies. While there is scope for the ECB to push policy rates higher, the wide differences in r-star across European nations indicate that the TPI will need to be activated to stabilize peripheral bond markets, most importantly, Italian government debt. This makes BTPs attractive for long-term investors, although near-term volatility will remain elevated as the markets test the ECB’s resolve. What Happened? Related Report  European Investment StrategyLooking Beyond Europe’s Inflation Peak In terms of interest rates, the most important conclusion from last’s week policy meeting was that forward guidance has been abandoned. The ECB is now fully data dependent, and each policy meeting will be a live one. Another rate hike is certain for the September meeting, ranging from 25bps to potentially 75bps if the ECB wishes to further “front-load” tightening. The single guiding principle will be the outlook for inflation.   ​​​​​​​ Chart 1Incoming Inflation Peak We do expect inflation to peak soon in the Eurozone, mostly because of the decline in the commodity impulse and slowing food inflation (Chart 1).  Additionally, the one-month impulse of our Trimmed-Mean CPI is weakening. However, as of June, headline and core inflation stand at 8.6% and 3.7%, respectively. Inflation is unlikely to slow enough by the September meeting to prompt the ECB to forecast inflation falling below its 2% target by 2024.  In this context, our base case remains that the GC will opt for a 50bps hike in September. Beyond September, we expect the ECB to revert to 25bps rate hikes and the policy rate to settle between 1% and 1.5% by the summer of 2023, which is broadly in line with the current pricing of the €STR curve (Chart 2). We are somewhat less hawkish than the market for the month of October, because we expect inflation to roll over this fall. Moreover, the European economy continues to decelerate, as highlighted by the declines in the ZEW growth expectations and the PMIs (Chart 3). This deceleration will allow the ECB to revise down its inflation outlook over time. Chart 2Appropriate Pricing Chart 3Growth Is Slowing The announcement of the TPI was the other crucial development from the last ECB meeting. The TPI was unanimously supported. In addition, its asset purchases will be unlimited, and the GC will have much discretion with respect to its implementation. These are three important features that give it ample credibility. However, the program has yet to be activated. Chart 4PEPP Reinvestment Doing Little We do not share the optimism of the GC members who believe that the TPI’s existence alone will narrow peripheral spreads without the ECB having to purchase a single bond. The market will have to figure out what the GC deems as “unwarranted” and “disorderly” moves, especially in a context in which the Draghi government has collapsed and Italy’s commitment to reform will be challenged exactly as interest rates begin to rise. Moreover, the flexible re-investment of PEPP redemptions has not prevented BTP/Bund spreads from widening (Chart 4). As a result, we expect the market to test the ECB’s resolve over the coming weeks, which is likely to result in volatility and wider spreads until the TPI is activated. Bottom Line: Last week’s ECB meeting was a seminal moment. The ECB not only abandoned eight years of negative rates in one go, but it also implemented an ambitious program that aims to restrict peripheral spreads, albeit with some near-term volatility. European policy rates are set to rise to between 1% and 1.5% by the summer of 2023. In Search Of A Neutral Rate During Thursday’s press conference, President Christine Lagarde refused to respond to a question about the neutral rate of interest in Europe. We have sympathy for her predicament. The ECB’s biggest problem is that there is not one neutral interest rate for the entire euro area, but nineteen individual neutral rates for each Eurozone country, with wild differences among them.1  The differences between the neutral rates across the Eurozone are the key factor limiting how far and how fast the ECB may increase rates. It is also the main reason why the ECB resorts to an alphabet soup of non-interest rate policy measures (APP, PEPP, LTRO and, now, TPI) to maintain appropriate monetary conditions across the bloc. But exactly how wide are the differences between the neutral rates? To answer this question, we expand on the methodology developed by Holston, Laubach and Williams (HLW) from the San Francisco Fed  to estimate the neutral real interest rate – or “r-star” - in Germany, France, Italy, and Spain. These are the four largest economies in the Euro Area, accounting for 70% of its GDP. Specifically, we run regressions between the real interest rates in those countries versus trend GDP growth and current account balances, which approximates the savings-investment balance. Mimicking the HLW methodology, the inflation expectations used to extract real interest rates from nominal short rates reflect an adaptative framework whereby inflation expectations are a function of the ten-year moving average core CPI. Our methodology produces estimates of r-star that range from 0% in Germany, to -0.8% in Italy, or a GDP-weighted average of -0.3% for the Eurozone (Table 1). When incorporating last week’s ECB rate hike, Europe’s real deposit rate falls to -1.2% if we use the smoothing procedure from HLW to compute inflation expectations, or -3.7% if we use current core CPI. In either case, policy remains accommodative for everyone. Table 1Many R-Star In The European Sky We also ran a second set of estimates for r-star, which includes total nonfinancial debt-to-GDP. The logic reflects the notion that adverse debt dynamics was a key force behind the 2011/12 European sovereign debt crisis, which obligated the ECB to reverse course after pushing up the repo rate twice in 2011. Moreover, heavy debt loads not only constrain the ability of various countries to withstand higher rates, but they are also linked to misallocated capital and are therefore likely to depress trend GDP growth over time compared to countries with lighter debt loads. This adjustment changes the picture considerably. While Germany’s real neutral rate of interest remains around 0%, those of Italy and Spain plunge to -1.8% and -2.4%, respectively. France has also experienced a large decline in its r-star to -2.1% in response to the heavy debt load carried by its private and public sectors. Using this method, the GDP-weighted Euro Area r-star falls to -1.4% (Table 1). So which version of the model is more accurate? We believe the most realistic estimate for r-star in each of the four countries is the simple average of both the unadjusted and the debt-adjusted r-star. This implies that the inflation-adjusted neutral rate is close 0% in Germany, -1.2% in France, -1.2% in Spain and -1.3% in Italy (Table 1). Are those results consistent with reality? A country-by-country evaluation suggests that this ranking is correct. To arrive at this judgment, we evaluated each country based on the following four dimensions: Private sector debt accumulation since 2010. If policy is particularly easy for one country, the private sector will be incentivized to take on debt at a more rapid pace than if monetary conditions were tighter. House price appreciation since 2010. Housing is the part of the economy most sensitive to monetary conditions. Larger real estate price gains will materialize in economies where monetary policy is particularly loose. Profit growth since 2010. Easy monetary policy will subsidize corporate profitability, either through faster domestic activity or a cheaper exchange rate (or both). Unemployment rate. The unemployment rate is a crude measure of slack in the economy. An easier policy setting in one country will reduce the unemployment rate compared to a country where policy rates are high relative to r-star. Germany Chart 5Loosest Monetary Conditions In Germany Germany exhibits all the evidence of monetary policy being much more accommodative for that country than the other four countries, for the following reasons: Since 2010, German private debt has been expanding much faster than the average of the four countries (Chart 5, top panel). Germany is experiencing the fastest house price appreciation (Chart 5, second panel). Germany’s profits have grown much faster (Chart 5, third panel). Germany’s unemployment rate stands at only 3%, compared to an average rate of 8% for the four nations together (Chart 5, bottom panel). France Chart 6French Monetary Conditions Are Tighter France is a mixed bag. Monetary policy has been easy for France, but the French economy lags Germany on three of the four aforementioned dimensions: Since 2010, French private debt is growing at the fastest pace of the four economies studied, outpacing even that of Germany (Chart 6, top panel). While French house prices have grown slightly faster than the average of the four nations, they lagged German real estate prices (Chart 6, second panel). While French profits have also bested the average of the four nations, they nonetheless trail German profits (Chart 6, third panel). France’s unemployment rate is in line with the average of the four countries under observation (Chart 6, bottom panel). Spain For most of the period following 2010, Spain has suffered from the scars of the disastrous deleveraging that was required in the wake of the sovereign debt crisis. Its trend growth collapsed, and the ECB’s common policy was never as accommodative as it was for its northern neighbors. However, in recent years, the Spanish economy seems to be catching up, a result of the impact of previous structural reforms and the improved competitiveness brought about by collapsing real unit labor costs: Chart 7Spain Still Grapples With Problems Since 2010, Spanish private debt has contracted by 20% compared to a 33% expansion for the European average (Chart 7, top panel). Spanish real estate prices have also lagged far behind those of the other countries put together (Chart 7, second panel). However, since 2015, Spanish house prices have begun to recover, and they are now moving at the same pace as the Euro Area average. Spanish profit growth remains weak compared to the average of the four countries studied in this report (Chart 7, third panel). The Spanish unemployment continues to tower at 13%, well above the average of the four largest Euro Area economies (Chart 7, bottom panel). Italy Italy has a similar profile to that of Spain. While its worst performance is solidly in the rear-view mirror, the recent period of easy monetary policy has allowed for some recovery. Nonetheless, Italy still lags far behind other Eurozone countries, which suggests that policy in Italy is not nearly as accommodative as in the rest of the Eurozone. Chart 8Italy Shows Little Improvements Burdened by very large nonperforming loans, the Italian banking sector has been unable to provide adequate credit to the Italian private sector, which already had a limited appetite for debt. As a result, since 2010, Italian private credit has lagged far behind the European average (Chart 8, top panel). Italian real estate prices have not recovered meaningfully from their contraction between 2011 and 2019. Consequently, Italian housing prices lag substantially behind the average of the largest Euro Area countries (Chart 8, second panel). Italian profits remain weak (Chart 8, third panel). While not as elevated as the Spanish unemployment rate, at 8%, Italy’s rate is comparable to the four-country average (Chart 8, bottom panel). Generalizations These observations about individual countries confirm that Germany’s r-star is significantly higher than those of Spain and Italy. When compared to France, the German r-star is also higher, but the gap is much narrower than that between Germany and the two southern nations. The recent ECB Euro Area Bank Lending Survey confirms that France’s r-star is well below that of Germany. French lending standards are tightening as fast as those in Italy (Chart 9). In effect, France’s heavy private sector debt load is proving to be a burden as the ECB begins to tighten policy, which implies a lower French r-star. Chart 9Lending Standard Are Tightening Most In France And Italy​​​​​​​ Bottom Line: Among the four largest economies in the Eurozone, a modeling exercise based on the HWL approach reveals that there is a large gap in neutral real interest rates, with Germany on one side around 0%, and Italy, Spain, and even France on the other side with r-star estimates ranging between -1.2% and -1.3%. A survey of current economic activity in these four nations confirms the results from the modeling exercise. Investment Implications The main consequence of the differing r-star across the Eurozone is that the ECB will need to remain an active player in the sovereign bond market. The German, Dutch, and Baltic economies are overheating, and policy needs to be tightened. This means that the ECB will continue to hike rates over the coming months. However, it cannot raise rates much more before they become problematic in Italy, Spain, and even France. Thus, the ECB will activate the TPI in the coming months in order to ease monetary conditions in those economies relative to the stronger group by limiting policy-induced increases in bond yields. In fact, using the r-star estimates adjusted for the debt-to-GDP ratios, the ECB would need to absorb roughly 30% of the Italian total debt to bring Italy’s r-star closer to Germany’s levels. This will not happen, which means that in the foreseeable future, Italy will not be able to withstand the levels of interest rate needed to cool down the German economy. Nonetheless, the TPI can help the ECB in fine-tuning monetary conditions across the Eurozone as it hikes policy rates. For now, Italian bonds are likely to remain volatile until the TPI is activated, especially considering the political situation in Italy, where the outlook for structural reform seems compromised by political uncertainty. This volatility will result in the activation of the TPI before year-end. Once the TPI is activated, BTP/Bund spreads are likely to move back toward 100bps, the level historically consistent with the ECB’s involvement in the sovereign debt market during the APP/PEPP era. The activation of the TPI will also be a positive development for the European corporate bond market, especially investment grade bonds. In last week’s post-conference press release, the ECB revealed that the TPI will also be able to buy private issuer securities. Thus, the ECB is likely to return as a potential buyer in this market. Moreover, investment grade bonds already price in a European recession and therefore offer a large value cushion with 12-month breakeven spreads trading in their 79th historical percentile (Chart 10). We especially like European investment grade corporate bonds relative to US ones on a USD-hedged basis. Relative valuations are in favor of Europe, and the ECB is not tightening policy as much as the Fed. Related Report  European Investment StrategyTo Parity And Beyond The euro will ultimately benefit from the activation of the TPI. The narrowing of both sovereign and corporate spreads resulting from the program represents a very bullish development for EUR/USD (Chart 11), especially because the ECB will likely sterilize the bonds purchased under the program (i.e. the ECB’s balance sheet will not expand because of the TPI). The TPI will also allow the ECB to deliver higher interest rates, which further supports the euro. Nonetheless, we continue to see substantial (roughly 20%) odds of a break below parity in the near-term, especially if wider BTP-Bund spreads in the coming three months are the key catalyst behind the TPI’s activation.  Chart 10Eurozone IG Debt Is Attractive Chart 11The TPI Will Help The Euro, Eventually Finally, last week’s policy development is unlikely to affect the absolute performance of European stocks. European equities remain mostly impacted by the fluctuations in global stock prices and the shifting probability of a recession in Europe this winter in response to the evolving energy crisis on the continent. European equities are inexpensive, and the probability of a recession is declining as a result of the resumption of natural gas flows from Russia. Crucially, the broadening trend toward coal utilization this winter and the growing list of deals that Europe is striking to secure non-Russian gas supplies suggest the impact of Russian cutoffs this winter could be more limited than once feared. Moreover, we expect European governments to hose their economies with stimulus if a crisis does emerge, which would both limit the depth of the crisis and prompt a rapid rebound in activity once winter ends. However, the inattention of the ECB to recession risks suggests that European equities could lag US equities in the near term. Bottom Line: The differences in r-star across Europe mean that the ECB will be forced to activate the TPI before year-end in order to hike interest rates further. Practically, this means that medium- to long-term investors should overweight Italian bonds at the current level of spreads. Short-term investors should remain on the sidelines; the political situation in Italy is still dangerous, and speculators are likely to test the ECB’s resolve. This also means that the euro is attractive as a long-term play, but it still carries large left-tail risk in the near term. While investors should favor European investment-grade bonds in USD-hedged terms relative to the US, European equities are likely to continue to suffer headwinds compared to US stocks.   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes   1     In fact, it will soon be 20 r-star since Croatia will join the euro on January 1, 2023.