Income Inequality and Populism

Highlights China’s new plan for “common prosperity” is a long-term strategic plan to bulk up the middle class that will strengthen China – if it is implemented successfully. The record on implementing reforms is mixed. Large budget deficits to provide subsidies for households and key industries are inevitable. But fiscal reforms will be more difficult. Implementation will proceed gradually and some provinces will move faster than others. Cyclically, the common prosperity plan will not be allowed to interfere with the post-pandemic economic recovery. Beijing will have to ease monetary and fiscal policy to secure the recovery. But large debt levels create a limit on the ability to push through key reforms. Macro policy easing is beneficial for the rest of the world but Chinese investors must deal with a rise in uncertainty and an anti-business turn in the policy environment. Beijing has centralized political power to move rapidly on reforms. However, centralization creates new structural problems while antagonizing foreign nations. Feature Chinese President Xi Jinping laid out a plan on August 18 for “common prosperity” in China that will help guide national policy over the coming decades. The plan seeks to reduce social and economic imbalances and hence strengthen China and reinforce the Communist Party’s rule. The plan confirms our top key view for the year – China’s confluence of internal and external risks – as well as our long-running theme that Chinese domestic political risk is greater than it looks because of underlying problems like inequality and weak governance. The market has woken up to these views and themes (Chart 1). Now Beijing is turning to address these problems, which is positive if it follows through. But investors will have to cope with new policies and laws that reverse the pro-business context of recent decades. In this report we review the new plan and its implications in the context of overall Chinese economic policy. The chief investment takeaway is that while China will push forward various reforms, Beijing cannot afford to self-inflict an economic collapse. Monetary and fiscal policy will ease over the coming 12 months. As such China policy tightening will not short-circuit the global recovery. However, Chinese corporate earnings and the renminbi will not benefit from the country’s anti-business turn. Chart 1Market Wakes Up To China's Political Risk Market Wakes Up To China's Political Risk Market Wakes Up To China's Political Risk What Is In The Common Prosperity Plan? The first thing to understand about Beijing’s new plan for “common prosperity” is that it is aspirational: it contains few specific targets or concrete policies. It builds on existing policy goals set for 2049, the hundredth anniversary of the People’s Republic. Implementation will be gradual. The plan is consistent with the Xi administration’s previous emphasis on improving the country’s quality of life and tackling systemic risks. It takes aim at social immobility, income and wealth inequality, poor public services, a weak social safety net, and other problems that did not receive enough attention during China’s rapid growth phase over the past forty years. Left unattended, China’s socioeconomic imbalances could fester and eventually destabilize the regime. From the beginning, the Xi administration has tackled the most pressing popular concerns to try to rebuild the party’s legitimacy, increase public support, and avoid crises. Crackdowns on pollution and excessive debt are prime examples. China does indeed suffer from high income inequality and low social mobility, as we have highlighted in key reports. It is comparable to the United States as well as Italy, Argentina, and Chile, all of which have suffered from significant social and political upheaval in recent memory (Chart 2). By contrast, Japan, Germany, and Australia have been relatively politically stable. Chart 2China Risks Social Unrest Like The Americas China Spreads The Wealth Around China Spreads The Wealth Around Table 1 summarizes the common prosperity plan. The key takeaways are the long 2049 deadline, the emphasis on “mixed ownership” in the corporate sphere (retaining a big role for state control and state-owned enterprises but attracting private capital), the redistribution of household income (reform the tax code), the establishment of property rights, the censorship of media/discourse, and the need to reduce rural disparity. The most important point of all is that Beijing intends to grow the size and wellbeing of the middle class – the foundation of a country’s strength. Table 1China’s “Common Prosperity” Plan For 2049 China Spreads The Wealth Around China Spreads The Wealth Around Coastal China today has reached Taiwanese and Korean levels of per capita income and has slightly exceeded their levels of wealth inequality (Chart 3). These countries witnessed social unrest and regime change in the 1980s due to such problems. The urban-rural gap is even more problematic in China due to its large rural population and territory. The Chinese public is expected to become more demanding as it evolves. Hence Beijing is pledging to redistribute wealth, grow the middle class, speed up income growth among the poorest, reduce rural disparities, expand access to elderly care, medicine, and housing, and establish a better legal framework for business. These goals are positive in principle, especially for household sentiment, social stability, and political support for the administration. But they also entail a higher tax/wage/regulation environment for business and corporate earnings. The question for investors centers on implementation. Chart 3China's Wealth Disparities Outstrip Comparable Neighbors China's Wealth Disparities Outstrip Comparable Neighbors China's Wealth Disparities Outstrip Comparable Neighbors What About Vested Interests? Table 1 above shows that the super-committee that issued the common prosperity plan also addressed China’s ongoing battle against financial risk. The financial policy statement was neither new nor surprising but it highlights something important: “preventing risks” will have to be balanced with “ensuring stable growth.” This balancing of reform and growth is essential to Chinese government and will guide the implementation of the common prosperity plan just as it has guided President Xi’s crackdown on shadow banking. This is an especially pertinent point today, as Beijing runs the risk of overtightening monetary, fiscal, and regulatory policies. While Beijing’s vision of a better regulated, more heavily taxed, and higher-wage society should not be underrated, reform initiatives will be delayed if they threaten to derail the post-pandemic recovery. Time and again the Xi administration has ruled against a rapid, resolute, and disruptive approach to reform, such as the “assault phase of reform” spearheaded by Premier Zhu Rongji in the late 1990s. In the plan’s own words: “achieving common prosperity will be a long-term, arduous, and complicated task and it should be achieved in a gradual and progressive manner.” Having said that, the pattern of reform has been a vigorous launch, a market riot, and then backtracking or delay. This means markets face more volatility first before things settle down. An initial volley of policy actions should be expected between now and spring of 2023, when the National People’s Congress solidifies the plans of the twentieth National Party Congress in fall 2022. As with the ongoing regulatory crackdown on Big Tech, the market may experience a technical rebound but the political assessment suggests government pressure will be sustained for at least the next 12 months. We do not recommend bottom feeding in Chinese equities. Will the reforms be effective over time? When the Xi administration took power in 2012-13, it issued a visionary policy document calling for wide-ranging reforms to China’s economy (“Decision on Several Major Questions About Deepening Reform”).1 Over the past decade these reforms have had mixed success. Rhodium Group maintains a reform tracker to monitor progress – the results are lackluster (Table 2). Some core principles, such as the claim that China would make market forces “decisive” in allocating resources, have been totally reversed. Table 2China’s Progress On Reforms Over Past Decade China Spreads The Wealth Around China Spreads The Wealth Around While China’s government model is absolutist, there are still social and economic limits on what the government can achieve. Beijing cannot raise a nationwide property tax, estate tax, and capital gains tax overnight just to reduce inequality. In fact, the long saga of the property tax tells a very different story. Beijing is limited in how it can tax the bubbling property sector because Chinese households store their wealth in houses and because any sustained price deflation would lead to a national debt crisis. Officials have pledged to advance a nationwide property tax in the past three five-year plans with little progress. A serious effort to impose the tax in 2014 was only implemented in two provinces, notably Shanghai’s tax on second or third homes owned by the same household.2 The common prosperity plan entails that the government will revive the property tax but the rollout will still be gradual and step-by-step reform. The tax will focus on major urban areas, not minor ones where population decline could weigh on prices. The government work report in early 2023 will be a key watchpoint for where and when the property tax will be levied but there can be little doubt that it will gradually be levied for top-tier cities. Other aspects of the common prosperity plan will be implemented with provincial trial runs. It all begins with a “demonstration zone,” namely Zhejiang province, a wealthy coastal state where President Xi Jinping once served as party secretary and first army secretary. Zhejiang is expected to make some progress by 2025 and achieve most the goals by 2035 (in keeping with Xi’s 2035 strategic vision). The Zhejiang plan includes concrete numerical targets and as such sheds light on the broader national plan and how other provinces will implement it. The most important target is the desire to have 80% of the population earn an annual disposable income of CNY 100,000-500,000 ($15,400-77,000). The labor share of output should be greater than 50%, compared to a national average of 35%-40%. The urbanization rate should hit 75%, up from 72%. Urban incomes should be capped at just short of twice that of rural income. Enrollment rates in higher education will go up, life expectancy should reach above 80 years, pollution should be further controlled, and the unemployment rate should stay below 5.5%. A host of other goals, ranging from technology to fertility and the social safety net, are shown in Table 3. Table 3China: Zhejiang Province As Bellwether For “Common Prosperity” Plan China Spreads The Wealth Around China Spreads The Wealth Around Some of the plan’s intentions will be undermined by Chinese governance. It is difficult to improve social fairness and property rights in the context of autocracy because the central and local governments create distortions and cannot be held to account for their own mistakes and abuses. The immediate political context of the common prosperity plan should not be missed: the president is outlining a bright future to justify the fact that he will not step down from power as earlier term limits required in fall 2022. The president’s 2035 vision implies an important strategic window in which to accomplish ambitious goals but the lack of checks and balances suggests that the next 14 years could be very similar to the last 10 years, in which arbitrary and absolutist decisions govern policy. The problem is highlighted by China’s recent 10-point plan on government under rule of law, which is undercut by the arbitrary actions of regulators in the tech crackdown (see Appendix). In other words, while social stability may improve in many ways, the shift away from consensus rule, toward rule of a single person, will increase policy uncertainty and create new governance problems at the same time that could produce greater instability over the long run. Having said all that, it is essential to acknowledge that a comprehensive plan to grow the middle class and expand the social safety net could be very positive for China if implemented. A Global Social Justice Race? If investors are thinking that the Xi administration’s calls for “social fairness and justice” and big new investments in “elderly care, medical security, and housing supply” resemble those of US President Joe Biden in his American Families Plan, then they are right. But while the US is already at historic levels of social division after failing to deal with inequality, China is attempting to learn from the US’s problems and rebalance society before polarization, factionalization, and social unrest occur. The Communist Party tends to take major action in response to American crises. Beijing’s crackdown on extremism and domestic terrorism in the early 2000s followed from the September 11 attacks. Its crackdown on local government debt and shadow banking stemmed from the 2008 financial crisis. And its crackdown on Big Tech, social media, and inequality today responds to the rise of populism in the US and Europe. The fact that deindustrialization has led to political crises in the developed world, and that social media companies can both exacerbate social unrest and silence a sitting president, is not lost on the Chinese administration. Unfortunately, China’s approach will probably escalate conflict with the West. First, Beijing is coupling its new social agenda with an aggressive campaign of military modernization and technological acquisition. It is doubling down on advanced manufacturing as its future economic model. The liberal democracies will not only be forced to defend their own political systems and governance models but will also be pressured into more hawkish stances on foreign, trade, and defense policy toward China. So far China is still attractive to foreign investors but the combination of socialist policy, import substitution, and foreign protectionism should put a cap on investment flows over time (Chart 4). What is the net effect of social largesse at home and great power competition abroad? Larger budget deficits. Fiscal expansionism is the key mechanism for the US and China to reboot their economies, reduce social pressures, secure supply chains, and compete with other each other. And expansionary fiscal policies will boost inflation expectations on the margin. One thing is clear: China’s regime will be imperiled if instead of common prosperity and “national rejuvenation” it gets economic collapse. Beijing is already seeing capital outflows reminiscent of the crisis period in 2014-15 when aggressive reforms triggered a collapse in risk appetite and a stock market crash (Chart 5). The implication is that monetary and fiscal easing will accompany the reform agenda. Chart 4China's New Policies Will Deter Foreign Investment China's New Policies Will Deter Foreign Investment China's New Policies Will Deter Foreign Investment Chart 5Capital Flight And Capital Controls A Risk If Implementation Aggressive Capital Flight And Capital Controls A Risk If Implementation Aggressive Capital Flight And Capital Controls A Risk If Implementation Aggressive That would be marginally positive for global growth and EM countries that export to China. Investors in China, however, will have to deal with greater policy uncertainty as China attempts to redistribute wealth while waging a cold war abroad. Investment Takeaways None of Beijing’s social goals can be met if overall growth and job creation slow too much. Reforms are constantly subject to the ultimate constraint of maintaining overall stability. Already in 2021 Beijing is verging on excessive monetary and fiscal policy tightening (Chart 6). The Politburo signaled in July that it would take its foot off the brakes but policy uncertainty is still wreaking havoc in the equity market and overall animal spirits are downbeat. We expect policy to ease over the coming year to ensure stability ahead of the twentieth national party congress. This would be marginally good news for global growth, contingent on the effects of the global pandemic. Of course we cannot deny that more bad news for global risk assets may be necessary in the very near term to prompt the policy easing that we expect. Policymakers will backtrack on various policies when the market revolts or when the risk of debt-deflation rears its ugly head. Corporate and even household debt have expanded so much in recent years that Chinese policymakers have their hands tied when they try to push reforms too aggressively (Chart 7). A Japanese-style combination of a shrinking and graying population could create a feedback loop with debt deleveraging in the event of a sharp drop in asset prices. On the whole we maintain a pessimistic outlook on Chinese currency and assets. Chart 6China Runs Risk Of Overtightening Policy China Runs Risk Of Overtightening Policy China Runs Risk Of Overtightening Policy Chart 7Debt Trap Must Be Avoided - Monetary/ Fiscal Policy Will Stay Accommodative Debt Trap Must Be Avoided - Monetary/ Fiscal Policy Will Stay Accommodative Debt Trap Must Be Avoided - Monetary/ Fiscal Policy Will Stay Accommodative   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com     Appendix Table A1China: 10-Point Guidelines On Government Under Rule Of Law (2021-25) China Spreads The Wealth Around China Spreads The Wealth Around Footnotes 1     See Arthur R. Kroeber, “Xi Jinping’s Ambitious Agenda for Economic Reform in China,” Brookings, November 17, 2013, brookings.edu. 2     Chongqing’s property tax only affects luxury houses. Shenzhen and Hainan are the next pilot projects.

Dear client,  In addition to this abridged Strategy Report, we are sending a report written by Arthur Budaghyan, Chief Strategist of BCA’s Emerging Market Investment service. Arthur shares his thoughts on the future of Chinese TMT stocks, a subject we trust you will find insightful and beneficial. Jing Sima China Strategist Highlights Wealth and income inequality may be the most important contributors to rising populism in the past three decades. China has its share of increasing populism; reducing income inequality and improving social welfare are core principles of President Xi’s reform agenda. July’s economic data continues to indicate a softening in China’s economy. However, the magnitude of the slowdown is within policymakers’ pain threshold while the economy remains supported by strong external demand. For now, stay underweight in Chinese stocks within a global equity portfolio.  Policy stance has yet to turn reflationary. Feature Populism Takes Root BCA's China Investment Strategy has argued that China is accelerating the pace of its structural reforms; addressing income inequality is at the core of the current administration’s reform agenda. Wealth and income inequality may be the most important structural cause of rising global populism and political polarization (Chart 1). The severity of income inequality in China is illustrated in Chart 2. It is noteworthy that China, whose political and economic ideology is based on creating a classless society, has found itself not far behind the US in terms of a widening wealth and income gap. Chart 1Populism Has Been On The Rise Globally For The Past 30 Years Populism Finds Fertile Ground In China Populism Finds Fertile Ground In China Chart 2The Great Gatsby Curve Paints A Not-So-Great Equality Picture Of China Populism Finds Fertile Ground In China Populism Finds Fertile Ground In China The relationship between inequality and intergenerational income mobility is captured in the "Great Gatsby Curve" – a concept based on a research paper by economist Miles Corak and later introduced by Alan Krueger, the late professor and Chairman of the Council Economic Advisers, during his speech at the Center for American Progress in 2012.1 The US has experienced a sharp rise in wealth and income inequality since the 1980s. On the eve of the Global Financial Crisis, income inequality in the US was as sharp as it had been since the time of "The Great Gatsby” novel set in the 1920s. After three decades of rapid industrialization and economic expansion, China also faces the challenge of escalating income inequality and discontent among middle-class households. Populism, defined as political stances that emphasize the idea of "the people", often benefits middle-class households, but not big business or corporate earnings (“the elite”). An increase in populist governments is usually positively correlated with rising number of antitrust investigations, since populist leaders tend to pander to popular outcries against big corporations by limiting or breaking up the corporations. In the US, the rise of Reaganism/neoliberalism in the 1980s led to a big drop in antitrust cases – a trend that was sustained for nearly three decades as the free-market Washington Consensus pushed against antitrust and other populist stances (Chart 3). However, the tide turned in 2016 when the US elected a populist president for first time, and antitrust threats started reemerging (Chart 4). Chart 3Antitrust Reinforcement In The US Has Been On A Secular Decline In The Past Two Decades… Populism Finds Fertile Ground In China Populism Finds Fertile Ground In China Chart 4...But Antitrust Noise Is Getting Louder In The US (And Lately In China) ...But Antitrust Noise Is Getting Louder In The US (And Lately In China) ...But Antitrust Noise Is Getting Louder In The US (And Lately In China) Both China and the US have transitioned towards larger government involvement in the economy.  More restrictions on private enterprise and a greater redistribution of wealth will be forthcoming. In the US, there has been a shift towards a larger share of labor compensation versus capital in the country’s national income (Chart 5). In China, the “dual circulation” economic goal set by the 14th Five Year Plan, coupled with an economic divorce between the Middle Kingdom and the US, requires that China expands its domestic market. However, that expansion is constrained by its relatively low labor share (Chart 6). The external and internal challenges are fertile ground for rising and sustaining populism. Thus, reforms that promote the bargaining power of workers at the expense of corporate earnings will likely become a secular trend in China. Chart 5Labor Makes A Comeback Versus Capital In The US... Labor Makes A Comeback Versus Capital In The US... Labor Makes A Comeback Versus Capital In The US... Chart 6...And In China Too ...And In China Too ...And In China Too Checking In On The Data China’s economic data continues to soften as evidenced by a slew of new numbers published last weekend. On the growth front, the contraction in the volume of imports in the past two months reflects the sagging domestic economy, despite elevated commodity prices supporting the value of total imports (Chart 7). Global demand for Chinese goods, on the other hand, remains strong compared with the historical norm, and continues to offset weaknesses in China’s old economy sectors. Meanwhile, Chinese producers face persistent inflationary pressures stemming from elevated global commodity prices and a broken price transmission to pass on inflation to domestic consumers (Chart 8). Instead of stimulating demand in the near term, Chinese policymakers will likely address supply-side issues by releasing strategic reserves and curbing raw material exports, and relaxing domestic production restrictions. Chart 7Strong External Demand Continues To Offset Domestic Economic Weaknesses Strong External Demand Continues To Offset Domestic Economic Weaknesses Strong External Demand Continues To Offset Domestic Economic Weaknesses Chart 8Inflationary Pressures On Producers Remains Elevated Inflationary Pressures On Producers Remains Elevated Inflationary Pressures On Producers Remains Elevated We expect that Beijing will need greater economic pain before it decides to stimulate the economy more substantially. Monetary conditions have eased since earlier this year on the back of rising inflation, falling real interest rates and recently a breather in the RMB’s ascent (Chart 9). Nonetheless, as we noted in a previous report, a decisive rebound in the rate of credit expansion requires clear easing signals from China’s top leadership for local governments and corporates to ramp up leverage again. The July Politburo meeting pledged more fiscal support for the economy this year. Meanwhile, policymakers have intensified their tough regulatory stances on private-sector businesses and oversight on the public-sector’s balance sheet. Hence, the current policy backdrop does not suggest any imminent or meaningful reflationary measures. Chart 9A Meaningful Rebound In Credit Growth Requires More Than Monetary Easing A Meaningful Rebound In Credit Growth Requires More Than Monetary Easing A Meaningful Rebound In Credit Growth Requires More Than Monetary Easing Chart 10War Against Delta-Variant Remains A Risk War Against Delta-Variant Remains A Risk War Against Delta-Variant Remains A Risk The COVID-19 Delta-variant remains the biggest risk to our view. The mutated virus has spread to 14 provinces in China and triggered the strictest pandemic-control measures since Q1 last year. The drag on the service sector’s activities and employment will be substantial if measures are maintained for more than a month (Chart 10). In this case, the leadership may need to step in with policy supports to stabilize the economy and sentiment. For now, the pullback of stimulus and ongoing regulatory tightening since Q4 last year continue to dominate China’s financial assets. Thus, investors should maintain an underweight allocation to Chinese equities within a global equity portfolio.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1Krueger, Alan (12 January 2012). "The Rise and Consequences of Inequality in the United States" (PDF).  Market/Sector Recommendations Cyclical Investment Stance

Highlights With geopolitical risks increasing around China, India is attracting greater attention from global investors. India’s youthful demographics also mark a stark contrast with China. While this demographic dividend is real, its benefits should not be overstated. India is young but socially complex, which will create unique social conflicts and policy risks. In particular, the country faces structurally large budget deficits. Regional political differences could slow down reforms. Lastly, competition with China will increase India’s own geopolitical risks. Macroeconomic and (geo)political factors, not youth alone, will determine India’s equity market returns. The bullish long-term view faces near-term challenges. Feature Map 1 PreviewIndia’s Demographic Dividend Can Be Overstated India’s Demographics: The Devil Is In The Details India’s Demographics: The Devil Is In The Details “Independence had come to India like a kind of revolution; now there were many revolutions within that revolution … All over India scores of particularities that had been frozen by foreign rule, or by poverty or lack of opportunity or abjectness, had begun to flow again.” – Sir VS Naipaul, India: A Million Mutinies Now (Vintage, 1990) What is well known is that India is populous, young, and boasts a high GDP growth rate. India is also largely free of internal conflicts. Its democratic framework is seen as a pressure valve that can release social tensions. India’s hefty 58% cross-cycle premium to Emerging Markets (EM) is often attributed to the fact that India is younger than its peers, especially China. In this report we highlight that India’s demographic advantage is real but should not be overstated. For instance, India’s northern region can be likened to a demographic tinderbox. It accounts for about 45% of India’s population and is also younger than the national average. However, per capita incomes in this region are lower than the national average and to complicate matters, this region is crisscrossed by several social fault lines. This heterogeneity and economic backwardness in India’s population is the reason why the trend-line of India’s demographic dividend will not be linear. Its diverse population’s attempt to break out of its poverty will spawn unique policy risks. The North Is A Demographic Tinderbox, The South Is Prosperous But Ageing India will soon be the most populous country in the world (Chart 1). India’s median age is a decade lower than that of China to boot (Chart 2). Some emerging market investors fret about India’s low per capita income but India holds the promise of lifting individual incomes over time. This is because its GDP growth rate has been higher than that of its peers (Chart 3). Chart 1India Will Soon Be The Most Populous Country India’s Demographics: The Devil Is In The Details India’s Demographics: The Devil Is In The Details Chart 2India Is A Decade Younger Than China India’s Demographics: The Devil Is In The Details India’s Demographics: The Devil Is In The Details Chart 3India’s Per Capita Income Is Low, But GDP Growth Rate Is High India’s Demographics: The Devil Is In The Details India’s Demographics: The Devil Is In The Details However, the “demographic dividend” narrative oversimplifies India’s investment case. India is young but also socially heterogenous and its median voter is poor. This complicates India’s development process and makes its demographic dividend trend-line non-linear. India’s social complexity is best understood if India is characterized as an amalgamation of three major regions: the North, the South (which we define to include the western region), and the East. Each of these parts are unique and have distinctive socio-demographic identities. India hence is more comparable to a continent like Europe than a country like the US. Like the European Union, India is a union of multiple social, religious, and ethnic groups. It straddles a vast geography and represents a very wide spectrum of interests. India’s South is more like a middle-income Asian country such as Sri Lanka or Vietnam whilst India’s East is more like a poor Latin American economy with latent social unrest. Understanding the heterogeneity of India’s vast populace is key to get a better sense of why an investment strategy for India must be nuanced and tactical in its approach, even if the overarching strategic view is constructive. The key features of each of these three regions can be summarized as follows: Region #1: The North This region comprises the triangular area between Jammu & Kashmir, Rajasthan and Jharkhand. This is the largest landmass in India stretching from the Himalayas to the fertile Gangetic plains of central India. Ethnically most of the population here is of Indo-Aryan descent. A lion’s share of this region’s population remains engaged in agriculture and allied activities. The North accounts for about 45% of the nation’s total population and is a demographic tinderbox. Per capita incomes are low and one in five persons falls in the age group of 15-24 years. To complicate matters, wage inflation in the farm sector, which employs a large majority of the populace in this region, has been slowing. If job creation in the non-farm sector stays insufficient then it will fan fires of social instability. The North includes states like Uttar Pradesh and Punjab which have seen a steady increase in small but notable socio-political conflicts in the recent past. Issues that triggered social conflict ranged from inter-religious marriages to resistance to amending farmer-friendly laws. Region #2: The South India’s South constitutes the large inverted-triangular region on the map and spans the area between Gujarat, Kerala, and West Bengal. We include India’s western region in this category because of its socio-economic similarities with the southern peninsula. Together the South and West account for the entirety of India’s peninsular coastline and for about 40% of total population. Historically, the South has seen far fewer external invasions and its social fabric is more homogenous than that of the North. This region is characterized by high per capita incomes, balanced gender ratios (Chart 4), and higher literacy ratios (Chart 5). Socio-political conflicts in this region are less common as compared to the North. Chart 4India’s South Has Healthy Gender Ratios Compared To North India’s Demographics: The Devil Is In The Details India’s Demographics: The Devil Is In The Details Chart 5India’s South Is More Educated Than The Rest Of India India’s Demographics: The Devil Is In The Details India’s Demographics: The Devil Is In The Details The state of Kerala is an exception in this region. The social fabric in this state is unusual, with Hindus accounting for only 55% of its population (versus the national average of 80%). The high degree of religious heterogeneity in this southern Indian state could perhaps be the reason why the state has lately seen a rise of small but significant incidences of social conflict. Unlike India’s young North, the median age of the population in India’s South is likely to be higher than the national average. Whilst India’s South is clearly young by global standards, this region will have to deal with problems of an ageing population before India’s North or East. The Southern region in India even today relies on migrant workers from India’s North. Region #3: The East This region is the youngest and the smallest of the three, as it accounts for the remaining 15% of India’s population. The region is young but must contend with low per capita incomes and very high degrees of religious diversity. Muslims, Christians, and other religions account for 20% of India’s population nationally but +50% of the population in India’s East. By virtue of sharing borders with countries like Bangladesh, Nepal, and Myanmar, this region is often the entry point for migration into India. It is historically the least stable of the three regions owing to its heterogeneity and the steady influx of migrants. To conclude, India is young but is also socially complex. Whilst a youthful population yields economic advantages, if this young population lacks economic opportunity then social dissatisfaction and associated risks can be a problem. Furthermore, history suggests that if a region’s populace is young but poor and diverse, then it often spawns the rise of identity politics, which takes policymakers’ attention away from matters of economic development. Social Complexity Index To better represent India’s demographic granularities, we created a Social Complexity Index (SCI), as shown in Map 1. Map 1India’s North Is A Demographic Tinderbox; South Is Prosperous But Ageing India’s Demographics: The Devil Is In The Details India’s Demographics: The Devil Is In The Details The SCI for Indian states is created by adding a layer of socio-economic data over the demographic data. It uses three sets of variables: Economic well-being of a state as proxied by state-level per capita incomes. The lower the incomes, the greater the risk of social instability. This is because India’s per capita income is low to start with and if pockets have incomes that are substantially lower than the national average then the associated economic duress can be significant. Religious diversity in a state as measured by creating a Herfindahl-Hirschman Index of religious diversity in the state. The greater the religious diversity the greater the social complexity is expected to be. Youthfulness of a state as measured by population in the age group of 15-24 years relative to the total population. The greater the youth population ratio, the more complex are the social realities likely to be. If a state is exposed unfavorably to all three of the above stated parameters then such a state is deemed to have a high degree of social complexity and hence could be exposed to a higher risk of social conflicts and/or policy risks. Our Social Complexity Index (SCI) (Map 1) shows how parts of India are young but also socially complex. Why does this matter? This matters because a diverse, young and vast population’s attempt to develop will create policy risks. Policy Impact: Left-Leaning Economics, Right-Leaning Politics To be sure, governments in India will stay focused on creating large-scale jobs, a big concern for India’s median voter (Chart 6). However, given the time involved in building consensus for any major reform, progress on economic reforms (and hence job creation) will remain slow. India’s large population and democratic framework render the reform process more acceptable, but also less nimble. This contrasts with the speed of reforms executed by East Asian countries in the 1970s-90s, which turned them into export powerhouses. Two recent examples illustrate the problem of slow reform in India: Implementation of GST: Goods and services tax (GST) was a major reform that India embraced in 2017. However, the creation of a nation-wide GST was first mooted in 2000 and it took seventeen years for this reform to pass into law. Even in its current form India’s GST does not cover all products. It excludes large categories like petroleum products and electricity owing to resistance from state governments. Industrial sector growth: Despite India’s consistent efforts to grow its industrial sector as a source of large-scale, low-skill jobs, the share of this sector in India’s GDP has remained static for three decades (Chart 7). The services sector has grown rapidly in India over this period but its ability to absorb low-skill workers on a large scale is fundamentally restricted since (1) the sector needs mid-to-high skill workers and (2) the sector generates fewer jobs per unit of GDP owing to high degrees of productivity in the sector. Chart 6India’s Median Voter Worries Greatly About Job Creation India’s Demographics: The Devil Is In The Details India’s Demographics: The Devil Is In The Details Chart 7India’s Industrial Sector Stuck In A Rut, India’s Workforce Is Connected And Aware India’s Demographics: The Devil Is In The Details India’s Demographics: The Devil Is In The Details India’s inability to reform rapidly and create jobs on a large-scale will trigger policy risks. This factor is more relevant now than ever. In the 1990s, India was a small, closed economy that was just opening up. Hence slow reforms were acceptable as they yielded high growth off a low base. By contrast India’s masses today are at the forefront of connectivity (Chart 7). Slow job growth in a young country with high degrees of connectivity will have to be managed in the short term by responding to other needs of India’s median voter. This process might delay painful structural reforms necessary to improve productivity and hence create policy risks in the interim. What policy-risks is India exposed to? We highlight three policy risks that investors must brace for: Policy Risk #1: Structurally Large Budget Deficits Despite being young, India’s fiscal deficit has been large and as such comparable to that of countries that have an older demographic profile (Chart 8). Chart 8Despite India’s Youth, Its Fiscal Deficit Has Been Comparable To That Of Older Countries India’s Demographics: The Devil Is In The Details India’s Demographics: The Devil Is In The Details Chart 9Unlike China, The Majority Of India’s Citizenry Lives On Less Than US$10 A Day India’s Demographics: The Devil Is In The Details India’s Demographics: The Devil Is In The Details Whilst India’s fiscal deficit will rise and fall cyclically, it will remain elevated on a structural basis as India’s median voter is young but poor (Chart 9). This median voter will keep needing government support to tide over her economic duress. These fiscal transfers are likely to assume the form of transfer payments, food subsidies and a large interest burden on the exchequer who will need to borrow funds in the absence of adequate tax revenue growth. Two manifestations of this fiscal quagmire that India must contend with include: Revenue expenditure for India’s central government accounts for 85% of its total expenditure, with only 15% being set aside for more productive capital expenditure. Within central government revenue expenditure, 40% is foreclosed by food-subsidies, transfer payments, and interest payments. Can India’s fiscal deficit be expected to structurally trend lower? Only if India embraces big-ticket tax reforms. This appears unlikely given that India’s central tax revenue to GDP ratio has remained static at 10% of GDP for two decades owing to its inability to widen its tax base. Policy Risk #2: Foreign Policy Will Turn Rightwards India’s northern states are known to harbor unfavorable views of Pakistan. These are more unfavorable than the rest of India (Map 2). Geopolitical tension will persist due to a confluence of factors. Map 2Northern India Views Pakistan Even More Unfavorably Than Rest Of India India’s Demographics: The Devil Is In The Details India’s Demographics: The Devil Is In The Details India may be forced to adopt a far more aggressive foreign policy response and shed its historical stance of neutrality. This will be done to respond to tectonic shifts in geopolitics as well as the preferences of India’s north that accounts for about 45% of India’s population. China’s active involvement in South Asia will accentuate this phenomenon whereby India tilts towards abandoning its historical foreign policy stance of non-alignment. An aggressive foreign policy stance will engender fiscal costs as well as diverting attention away from internal reform. The adoption of a more aggressive foreign policy stance will necessitate the maintenance of high defense spending when these scarce resources could be used for boosting productivity through spends on soft as well as hard infrastructure. Despite having low per capita incomes, India already is the third largest military spender globally. In 2022, India’s central government plans to allocate ~15% of its budget for defense, which is the same allocation that productivity-enhancing capital expenditure as a whole will attract. Since it will be politically untenable to cut social spending, defense spending will simply add to the budget deficit. Policy Risk #3: Regional Differences Could Get Amplified Over Time India’s northern states typically lag on human development indicators (Charts 4 and 5). Owing to their large population, these states have also lagged smaller states in the east more recently on vaccination rates, which could be a symptom of deeper problems of managing public services in highly populous states (Chart 10). Chart 10India’s Northern States Lagging On Vaccinations, Smaller Eastern States Are Leading India’s Demographics: The Devil Is In The Details India’s Demographics: The Devil Is In The Details Whilst such differences between India’s more populous and less populous states are commonplace, these tensions could grow over the next few years. In specific, it is worth noting that a delimitation exercise in India is due in 2026. Delimitation refers to the process of redrawing boundaries for Lok Sabha seats to reflect changes in population. India’s Northern states are likely to receive an increased allocation of seats in India’s lower house (i.e. the Lok Sabha) beginning in 2026, despite poor performance on human development indicators. This is because India’s North accounted for 40% of seats in India’s lower house and accounted for 41% of its population in 1991. Owing rapid population growth, this region’s population share rose to 44% by 2011 and the ratio could rise further. Given that a review of the allocation of Lok Sabha seats is due in 2026, it is highly likely that India’s northern states get allocated more seats at this review. A change in political influence of different regions will have two sets of implications. Firstly, reforms that require a buy-in from all Indian states (such as GST implementation in 2017) could become trickier to implement if states that have delivered improvements in human development have to contend with a decline in political influence. Secondly, the rising political influence of India’s more populous states in the North could reinforce the trend of a less neutral and more aggressive foreign policy stance that we expect India to assume. Investment Conclusions Indian equity markets have historically traded at a hefty premium to Emerging Markets (EMs). This premium is often attributed to India’s youthful demographic structure. However academic literature has shown that realizing benefits associated with a youthful demographic structure is dependent on a country’s institutions and requires the productive employment of potential workers. It has also been shown, both theoretically and empirically, that there is nothing automatic about the link from demographic change to economic growth.1 Country-specific studies have also shown that it is difficult to find a robust relationship between asset returns on stocks, bonds, or bills, and a country’s age structure.2 An analysis of equity market returns generated by young EMs confirms that a youthful demographic structure can aid high equity returns but the geopolitical setting and macroeconomic factors matter too. Moreover, history confirms that each young country spawns a new generation of winners and losers. Fixed patterns in terms of top performing or worst performing sectors are not seen across young and populous EMs. The rest of this section highlights details pertaining to these two findings. Investment Implication#1: Youth Does Not Assure High Equity Market Returns China in the nineties, Indonesia & Brazil in the early noughties and India over the last decade had similar demographic features (see Row 1, 2 and 3 in Table 1). Table 1Leader And Laggard Sectors Can Vary Across Young, Populous Countries India’s Demographics: The Devil Is In The Details India’s Demographics: The Devil Is In The Details However, it is worth noting that these four EMs delivered widely varying returns even when their demographic features were similar (see Row 5, 6 and 7 in Table 1). In real dollarized terms equity returns ranged from a CAGR of -22% to 8% for these four countries. The variation in returns can be attributed to differences in macroeconomic and geopolitical factors. Brazil’s period of political stability in the early 2000s along with its relatively high per capita incomes were potentially responsible for Brazil’s youthful demography translating into high equity market returns. At the other end of the spectrum, equity returns in China were the lowest despite a young demography owing to low per capita incomes and economic restructuring prevalent in the nineties. Investment Implication#2: Each Young Country Spawns A New Generation Of Winners And Losers Given that a young populace is expected to display a higher propensity to consume, sectors like consumer staples, consumer discretionary, and financials are expected to outperform in young countries. However, a cross-country analysis suggests that a young country does not necessarily throw up any consistent patterns of sector performance. Sectoral performance patterns too appear to be affected by demographics along with macroeconomic and geopolitical factors. Similarities in the profile of top performing sectors in India, China, Brazil and Indonesia when these countries were young are few and far between (see Row 9, 10 and 11 in Table 1). No patterns or similarities are evident even in the profile of worst performing sectors in India, China, Brazil and Indonesia when they had similar demographic features (see Row 12, 13 and 14 in Table 1). Even India’s own experience confirms that: There exists no correlation between India’s equity market returns and its demographic structure. India was at its youngest in the nineties and yet its peak equity market returns were achieved in the subsequent decade (see Row 4, 5 & 6 in Table 2). High domestic growth combined with the emergence of political stability potentially allowed India’s youth to translate into high equity market returns over 2000-2010. Table 2Youth Is Not A Sufficient Condition For A Market To Deliver High Returns India’s Demographics: The Devil Is In The Details India’s Demographics: The Devil Is In The Details There exists no pattern in terms of top or worst performing sectors in India as it has aged over the last three decades (see Row 8 to 13 in Table 2). Healthcare for instance was the top performing sector in India in the 1990s when India’s median age was only 21 years. Industrials as a sector have featured as one of the worst performing sectors in India in the 1990s as well as the late noughties despite India’s youthful age structure. This could be attributed to the fact that India’s growth model pivoted off service sector growth while industrial sector development has lagged. Bottom Line: History suggests that a youthful demographic structure is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for an emerging market like India to deliver high equity market returns. Besides demographics, domestic macroeconomic and regional geopolitical factors create a deep imprint on equity returns’ patterns too. India faces a geopolitical tailwind as its economy develops and China’s risks increase. Nevertheless, owing to India’s heterogeneity and poverty, its road to realizing its demographic dividend will be paved with policy risks. Even as India’s lead on the demographic front is expected to continue, tactical underweights on this EM too are warranted from time to time.   Ritika Mankar, CFA Editor/Strategist ritika.mankar@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 David Bloom et al, "Global demographic change: dimensions and economic significance", NBER Working Paper No. 10817, September 2004, nber.org. 2 James M Poterba, "Demographic Structure and Asset Returns" The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 83, No. 4, November 2001, The MIT Press.

The inflation/deflation debate has been dominating the news flow and we are compelled to offer our thoughts in two-part series of Special Reports on this widely discussed, but also widely misunderstood topic. Over the past year, we have been inundated with countless questions about our outlook on inflation given the dual monetary and fiscal stimuli that have been ongoing since Covid-19 hit (Chart 1). We take this opportunity to provide detailed answers on everything inflation in this series of Special Reports. Specifically, in this first report we focus on the long-term and structural forces behind US core CPI inflation. We go in depth into the drivers behind the current deflationary trend and also examine what other variables might break that trend in the future. We also try to ignore the medium-term outlook because the inflation story is well-known as the financial media is littered with charts that slice and dice the ISM manufacturing release in every possible way showing that inflation will rebound. Hence, there is no disagreement about the medium-term path for the core CPI inflation. Chart 12020 Stimuli 2020 Stimuli 2020 Stimuli The important question that we look to answer in this Special Report is whether this rebound is a paradigm shift that will push the US into a new era of consistently high (i.e. above 3%/annum) core CPI inflation, or is it a merely counter trend inflationary spike within the broader deflationary megatrend? Laying The Groundwork Before we wrestle with the structural forces behind inflation, first we must get the question of quantitative easing (QE) and its effects on the real economy and inflation out of the way. Undoubtedly, QE is an integral part of any discussion about the real-word and/or financial asset price inflation, and while it tickles the public’s imagination with hyperinflationary fears, the reality is that those fears are largely misplaced (Chart 2). In fact, pundits have established a consensus: “QE only affects the financial economy as it increases bank reserves that can never escape in the real economy. On the other hand, fiscal stimulus affects the real economy and can cause genuine inflation.” There clearly hasn’t been any material inflation since the GFC, so the argument of “QE only affecting the financial economy” appears to be correct, but at closer look there is room for a different interpretation. What is important to understand is that QE is nothing but a tool, sometimes a signaling tool, in the Fed’s arsenal, and like any tool, it can be used in different ways. Chart 2Boogeyman? (Part I) Tinkering With Inflation: Outlook (Part I) Tinkering With Inflation: Outlook  The fact that there has not been any material real-world inflation since the housing bubble is neither because QE is structurally deflationary nor because it “cannot touch” the real economy, but because policy makers chose to use the QE tool to rescue creditors (the financial sector) rather than debtors (the real economy) during the GFC. Delving deeper in the Great Recession, the banks were largely undercapitalized with cash accounting for a tiny portion of overall assets and Treasury holdings being at historic lows (Chart 3). The rest of the assets were tied to loans and other risky securities. Once NINJA loans and other subprime loans along with the derivative CLOs/CDOs house of cards began imploding, the banking sector could not stomach the losses owing to the nonexistent cash buffer, and the entire system went into insolvency mode. This is when the Fed stepped in with QE (and the Treasury with TARP in order to recapitalize the banks) to bail out the nervous system of the US economy by boosting reserves and giving freshly printed money to the banks in exchange for their Treasurys, MBS and other risky securities. By providing support to the banking system, the Fed was counterbalancing a deflationary financial industry shutdown (the Richard Koo balance sheet type recession) rather than injecting an inflationary real economic stimulus. As a result, nearly all of the newly created money was stuck in the financial system in the form of new reserves, and as far as the real economy was concerned, no new money entered directly into the real world. This is how the consensus of “QE only affecting the financial economy” was formed, and why we did not observe a long-lasting rise in CPI despite all of the GFC-brought about stimuli. Chart 3Banks Were Well-capitalized Banks Were Well-capitalized Banks Were Well-capitalized Fast-forward to today, and the backdrop could not be more different. The banking sector was well capitalized, so doing an aggressive QE to boost reserves and to stimulate the financial sector would have only provided marginal benefits. The deflationary shock came through the real economy, not the financial economy, meaning that a real (i.e. fiscal) stimulus was needed. Once again, the QE tool comes to the rescue. This time however, QE was also used to finance Main Street stimulus programs as the Fed bought long dated Treasury (and other) securities that pushed interest rates to rock bottom levels and helped facilitate government stimulus spending. Consequently, a more meaningful fraction of QE money reached Main Street and had an effect on the real economy and was not just locked in new reserves. As a reminder, when rates fall to zero and the Fed embarks on QE, the lines between monetary and fiscal policies get blurred. When QE (instead of the foreign or private sectors) is used to facilitate government expenditures, which later on gets distributed into the real economy, QE can provide inflationary support and can reach the real economy. Chart 42008 Versus Today 2008 Versus Today 2008 Versus Today Perhaps the best way to illustrate the difference between 2008 and 2020 is by showing M2 money supply data. The spike in M2 data in 2020 dwarfs the one in 2008; in 2020 QE money reached the real economy and ended up in private sector’s bank accounts (thus contributing to M2 growth), whereas in 2008 QE money was mainly locked in bank reserves. True the money multiplier and M2 money stock velocity are still in hibernation, and were we to see a sustainable inflationary impulses both of these indicators would have to show signs of life (Chart 4). So does this mean that there are grounds for longer-term inflationary concerns since in 2020 QE actually reached the real economy? To answer this question, we now dig deeper into the secular inflation forces and split them in two camps: pro-inflationary and anti-inflationary. Pro-Inflationary Driver #1: The Buenos Aires Consensus Our view since last June has been that fiscal deficits are here to stay as far as the eye can see and the shift from the Washington to the Buenos Aires Consensus1 is a paradigm shift with staying power. The most important long-term consequence of the Buenos Aires Consensus will be higher inflation. And we are not talking just the asset price kind – which investors have enjoyed over the past decade – but of the more traditional flavor: consumer price inflation. Crudely put, as long as fiscal support remains in place (proverbial helicopter drop, Chart 5) after the pandemic is long forgotten it can serve as a meaningful catalyst for structural inflation, instead of being a one-off counterbalancing short-term boost. To reiterate just how much more powerful fiscal spending is outside of a recession, we conduct a labor market analysis and show that a large percentage of the present-day stimulus is being used to counterbalance the deflationary pandemic shock, rather than contributing to driving inflation higher. Table 1 shows our proxy for total payroll losses incurred by America households as a direct result of the pandemic. Our estimate is $501 billion from March 2020 until today. Chart 5Helicopter Checks Helicopter Checks Helicopter Checks The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget also publishes detailed statistics on the dollar flow of every pandemic stimulus program to a specific economic sector. As of today, US households received $1,400 billion, but some of the stimulus categories simply defer a payment that households still have to make in the future, instead of injecting brand-new money. After stripping those categories out, we arrive to a cleaner number of roughly $1,000 billion – that is how much new money US households received. Next, we subtract our total payroll loss proxy resulting into a net inflow of approximately $500 billion or 2.3% of 2020 US GDP. This is a respectable sum and 2.3% is significant. However, it has one major drawback. The 2.3% GDP stimulus number assumes that every single dollar was actually spent into the real economy, which we know is not true. Table 1The Counterbalancing Effect (Part I) Tinkering With Inflation: Outlook (Part I) Tinkering With Inflation: Outlook A recent New York Fed study on how American households used their stimulus money concluded that: “36.4% of the stimulus money was used to boost savings, 34.5% to paydown debt, 25.9% was spent on essentials and non-essentials, and finally the rest of the money (3.2%) was donated”. It is worth noting that this study also looked at the expected spending patterns for the new round of stimulus checks, and the results were generally the same. To obtain a more realistic number of how much of the net $500 billion inflow actually entered the economy, we multiply it by 25.9% (how much money was used on spending according to the NY Fed) and arrive at a better estimate of $130 billion or 0.6% of 2020 US GDP, which is by no means an astronomical number that will shatter into pieces the current deflationary megatrend. This empirical exercise demonstrated how a large percentage of the present-day stimulus is being used to counterbalance the deflationary pandemic shock. However, if our thesis of a Buenos Aires Consensus in which governments spend even outside of recessions pans out, then there will not be the aforementioned counterbalancing effect, and all the fiscal dollars will go straight to contributing to rising inflation until the deflationary megatrend is broken. Pro-Inflationary Driver #2: Demographics In the long run, inflation tends to oscillate alongside a country’s demographics. More specifically, it is the relative size of the three age cohorts (young, working-age, and old) that plays a key role in driving inflation. People who are in the working-age cohort are at their peak productivity, which implies that their contribution to the production of goods and services is greater than the demand for new credit they generate, meaning that they produce a deflationary pull. The opposite is true for the other two age cohorts (the young and the old). Neither one is contributing to the production of goods & services, while both still generate new credit in the economy (for example student loans), and the end result is an inflationary pull. Hence, it is the interplay between these three age cohorts that serves as a structural force behind inflation. To put some numbers behind this conceptual framework, we turn our attention to a paper “The enduring link between demography and inflation” written by Mikael Juselius and Előd Takáts. In the paper, the authors conduct rigorous cross-country analysis and find that indeed, people 30-60 years of age (the working-age cohort) exert deflationary pressure, while the other two cohorts contribute to rising inflation. Chart 6 plots the age-structure effect for the US against inflation. The authors also quantified that over the 40-year period (1970-2010) the increase in the working-age population (due to baby-boomers) has lowered inflationary pressures by almost five percentage points in the US (Chart 7). Meanwhile, by extrapolating the likely path of demographic data by 40 years (2010-2050), the authors observed a shift from deflationary to inflationary age pressure mainly due to the incoming increase in the proportion of the old cohort. Their estimate of the expected pull on inflation in the US will be approximately two and a half percent (Chart 8). Chart 6Demographics Are A Mighty Force Demographics Are A Mighty Force Demographics Are A Mighty Force Chart 7From Deflationary... (Part I) Tinkering With Inflation: Outlook (Part I) Tinkering With Inflation: Outlook Chart 8...To Inflationary (Part I) Tinkering With Inflation: Outlook (Part I) Tinkering With Inflation: Outlook Going forward, US demographics will be more inflationary than deflationary. Pro-Inflationary Driver #3: De-Globalization The “apex of globalization” or “de-globalization” is our third pro-inflationary driver. We have written about this theme extensively at BCA Research and it is the mega-theme of our sister Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) service. Odds are high that countries will continue looking inward as the US sustains its aggressive trade policy, China’s trend growth slows, and US-China strategic tensions intensify. Chart 9 shows that we are at the conclusion of a period of tranquility. Pax Americana underpinned globalization as much as Pax Britannica before it. The US is in a relative decline after decades of geopolitical stability allowed countries like China to rise to “great power” status and rivals like Russia to recover from the chaos of the 1990s. Chart 9The Tide Is Turning The Tide Is Turning The Tide Is Turning De-globalization has become the consensus since the election of Donald Trump. But Trump is not the prophet of de-globalization; he is its acolyte. And now, President Biden is continuing in Trump’s footsteps. Globalization is ending because of structural factors, not cyclical ones. And its decline was pre-written into its “source code.” Three factors stand at the center of this assessment, first outlined in a 2014 GPS Special Report, “The Apex Of Globalization – All Downhill From Here”: multipolarity, populism and protectionism. Events have since confirmed this view. The three pillars of globalization are the free movement of goods, capital, and people across national borders. We expect to see marginally less of each in the future and this should prove inflationary. Pro-Inflationary Driver #4: US Dollar Bear Market The path of least resistance is lower for the US dollar and it represents our final pro-inflationary driver. Chart 10 highlights the ebbs and flows of the trade-weighted US dollar since it floated in the early-1970s. The DXY index has moved in six-to-ten year bull and bear markets. The most recent trough was during the depths of the Great Recession, while the peak was in early-2020. If history repeats, eventually the dollar will mean revert lower in the 2020s, especially given the fiscal profligacy (Buenos Aires Consensus) of the current administration that may continue into 2024. Chart 10Time For A Downcycle? Time For A Downcycle? Time For A Downcycle? True, the US dollar remains the global reserve currency, but that exorbitant privilege is clearly fraying on the edges as the balance-of-payments dynamics are heading in the wrong direction. While the US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) expects some normalization in the US budget deficit over the next 4 years since the pandemic shock will be over, looking further into the future the CBO forecasts a further reacceleration in deficit spending. Assuming a stable to grinding lower current account deficit in the next several years, the path of least resistance is lower for the currency. BCA’s US dollar model also corroborates the twin deficit message and suggests ample structural downside for the USD (Chart 11).  The apex of globalization will also hurt the greenback in a reflexive manner. In a world where all the markets are integrated, borrowers in EM nations often use the reserve currency to issue liabilities at a lower cost. This boosts the demand by EM central banks for US dollar reserves to protect domestic banking systems funded in USD. Moreover, some countries like China implement pegs (both official and unofficial) to the US dollar in order to maintain their competitiveness and export their production surpluses to the US. To do so they buy US assets. If the global economy becomes more fragmented and the Sino-US relationship continues to deteriorate structurally as we expect, then these sources of demand for the dollar will recede. Overlay the widening US current account deficit, and you have the perfect recipe for a depreciating trade-weighted US dollar. Importantly, the 1970s is an interesting period to examine in more detail. As the Nixon administration floated the greenback this aggravated the inflationary pressures (Chart 12) that were building all along the 1960s when the US adopted the Mutually Assured Destruction Doctrine along with the Cold War space race that eventually saw the US landing on the moon in 1969. Chart 11A Bearish Outlook A Bearish Outlook A Bearish Outlook Chart 12The Greenback In The 1970s The Greenback In The 1970s The Greenback In The 1970s A lower greenback is synonymous with rising commodity and import prices and given that the US is the consumer of last resort (70% PCE), the commodity/import price pendulum will swing from a deflationary to an inflationary force. Anti-Inflationary Driver #1: Technology’s Creative Destruction Schumpeter’s “creative destruction” forces dominate technology companies in general and Silicon Valley in particular, and represent our fist anti-inflationary driver. These creative destruction forces in the tech industry are inherently deflationary. As a result, tech business models have evolved to thrive during disinflationary periods. Chart 13 shows the software sector deflator derived from national accounts, and since the mid-1980s more often than not it has been mired in deflation. US semiconductor prices, computer hardware prices, and almost any tech related category from the PCE, PPI and CPI releases looks more or less the same as software, underscoring that this is a technology sector wide modus operandi. More recently, Uber Technologies and Airbnb, to name a few, continually bring existing capacity online and that adds another layer of deflation forces at work in select industries they operate in. Tack on technology infiltrating finance and soon the extremely opaque health care services industry that comprises almost 20% of US GDP or $4tn and a deflationary impulse will likely reverberate across these large segments of the US economy that have managed to sustain high pricing power over the decades. Chart 13Technological Progress Is Deflationary Technological Progress Is Deflationary Technological Progress Is Deflationary Thus, these creative destruction processes remain alive and well in tech land and will continue to exert deflationary/disinflationary pressure (of the good kind) on the US economy. Anti-Inflationary Driver #2: Income & Wealth Inequality The growing trend in income and wealth inequality is our second anti-inflationary force. We first want to focus on the issue of income inequality as it leads to wealth inequality. Income inequality refers to the distribution of wages and profits generated by the economy. It is the proverbial “share of the pie” that households from different socioeconomic brackets receive. The link with inflation comes through the marginal propensity to save statistic of those different brackets. Lower income households have nearly nonexistent propensity to save as they live paycheck to paycheck. Therefore, any additional income inflow they receive gets immediately syphoned into the real economy. In contrast, the top 10% have a high propensity to save as all of their living expenses are well covered, so any additional income they receive is stashed away into savings and does not enter the real economy. This is why following the Trump’s tax cut that benefitted the top 10% there has not been a durable spike in CPI inflation. The fact that in the US the income share of the top 10% is growing at stratospheric rates at the same as time as the bottom 90% are struggling to cover even a $400 unexpected expense needs no introduction. The exact reasons as to why that happened would require a separate Special Report, but one of the main reasons is the multi-decade suppression of unions, which does not allow employees to bargain effectively for a larger slice of corporate profits. Given that profits are an exact mirror image of labor expenses, it is not surprising that the union movement is being marginalized (Charts 14 & 15). Staying on the topic of inflation, as we already outlined, when the lower and medium socioeconomic brackets receive more income, it does not disappear in the savings accounts, but instead it is redirected into the real economy causing a healthy inflationary uptick. Chart 14No Power = No Money No Power = No Money No Power = No Money Chart 15The Tug Of War The Tug Of War The Tug Of War ​​​​​​​ Chart 16 shows the wealth share of the top 10% of American households on inverted scale. Since the 1920s, inflation and the wealth share of the top 10% has moved in opposite directions. There were two distinct periods when the wealth share of the bottom 90% rose: from the early 1930s until the early 1950s, and from the mid-1960s until the mid-1980s. Both of these periods were accompanied by rising CPI inflation. Chart 16Wealth Equality Is Inflationary Wealth Equality Is Inflationary Wealth Equality Is Inflationary At the same time, when looking at any other period outside of those golden days for the bottom 90%, US inflation was anemic. This empirical evidence further underscores the importance of income and wealth distribution in the economy, and given the current US political and economic realities, we do not expect any material changes in labor dynamics to take root. The top 10% will continue benefitting at the expense of the bottom 90%, which will keep US CPI inflation suppressed. Concluding Thoughts In this Special Report our goal was to look beyond the already known medium term inflation outlook, and present both sides of the argument about the long-term inflation trend. We took a deep dive into six structural forces behind inflation that we identified. Four of those forces were pro-inflationary, while the remaining two were anti-inflationary (Table 2). We also assigned a value on our subjective strength scale for each force. Each value incorporates how quickly a particular force will come to fruition, and how strong it will be over the next 5-to-10 year period. Based on our analysis, we conclude that there are rising odds that the deflationary megatrend has run its course and has reached an inflection point of turning inflationary. Table 2Inflation Dots (Part I) Tinkering With Inflation: Outlook (Part I) Tinkering With Inflation: Outlook In the next Special Report from our Tinkering With Inflation series, we will conduct a thought experiment and explore a world in which our forecasts prove to be accurate, and a new inflationary paradigm engulfs the US economy. Under such a backdrop what will the US equity sector winners and losers, especially given the related shift in the stock-to-bond correlation? Stay tuned.   Arseniy Urazov Research Associate ArseniyU@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     Buenos Aires Consensus is our catchall term for everything that is opposite of the Washington Consensus: less globalization, fiscal stimulus as far as the eyes can see, erosion of central bank independence, and a dirigiste (as opposed to laissez-faire) approach to economics that seeks to protect “state champions,” stifles innovation, and ultimately curbs productivity growth.

Highlights Even though bonds have cheapened relative to stocks, the equity risk premium remains elevated. The end of the pandemic and supportive fiscal and monetary policies should buoy economic activity in the second half of the year, lifting corporate earnings in the process. Some critics charge that low interest rates and QE have exacerbated wealth and income inequality. The evidence suggests the opposite: Rising inequality since the early 1980s has depressed aggregate demand, forcing central banks to loosen monetary policy. The tide of inequality may be turning, however. Ongoing fiscal and monetary stimulus, increasingly aggressive income distribution policies, heightened anti-trust enforcement, and waning globalization could all shift the balance of power from capital back to labor. Investors should overweight global equities for now but prepare for a more stagflationary environment later this decade. Market Overview We continue to favor global equities over bonds on a 12-month horizon. While bonds have cheapened relative to stocks, the global equity risk premium is still quite wide by historic standards (Chart 1). The distribution of vaccines over the coming months should pave the way for a strong rebound in economic activity in the second half of 2021. This will lift corporate earnings. The macro policy mix will also remain supportive. Thanks to the combination of increased fiscal transfers and subdued spending last year, US households have accumulated $1.5 trillion in savings – equivalent to 10% of annual consumption – over and above the pre-pandemic trend (Chart 2). Chart 1Equity Risk Premia Remain Elevated Equity Risk Premia Remain Elevated Equity Risk Premia Remain Elevated Chart 2Households Have Accumulated Lots Of Savings, Which Should Help Propel Future Spending Households Have Accumulated Lots Of Savings, Which Should Help Propel Future Spending Households Have Accumulated Lots Of Savings, Which Should Help Propel Future Spending   US household balance sheets are set to improve further. Congress passed a $900 billion stimulus bill in December, which provides direct support to households, unemployed workers, and small businesses. On Thursday, President-elect Joe Biden unveiled an additional $1.9 trillion relief package. Biden’s plan calls for making direct payments of $1400 to most Americans, bringing the total to $2000 after the $600 in direct payments in December’s deal is included. President Trump had earlier called for stimulus payments of $2000 per person, a number the Democrats quickly seized on. Biden’s plan would also extend emergency unemployment benefits to the end of September, boost funding for schools, raise the child tax credit, and increase spending on Covid testing and the vaccine rollout. Unlike the December deal, it would also provide $350 billion in assistance to state and local governments. We expect at least $1 trillion of Biden’s proposal to be enacted into law. A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you are talking big money. Admittedly, taxes are also likely to rise. During the election campaign, Joe Biden pledged to lift the corporate income tax rate from 21% to 28%, bringing it halfway back to the 35% rate that prevailed in 2017. He also promised to introduce a minimum 15% tax on the income that companies report in their financial statements to shareholders, raise taxes on overseas profits, and boost payroll taxes on households with annual earnings in excess of $400,000. If carried out, these measures would reduce S&P 500 earnings-per-share by 9%-to-10%. Given the slim majority that Democrats maintain in the Senate, it is unlikely that taxes will rise as much as Joe Biden’s tax plan calls for. Nevertheless, a tax hit to EPS of around 5% starting in 2022 looks probable. On the positive side, the additional spending will goose the economy, so that the net effect of the tax increase on corporate profits should be fairly small. Meanwhile, monetary policy will remain exceptionally accommodative. The Fed is unlikely to hike rates until late 2023 or early 2024. It will take even longer for policy rates to rise in the other major economies. Our bond strategists think that the Fed will start tapering QE only about six months before the first rate hike. Hence, for the time being, ongoing bond buying will limit the upside to yields. We see the US 10-year Treasury yield rising to 1.5% by the end of this year, only modestly higher than market expectations of 1.36%. Rising Inequality: The Dark Side Of QE? Chart 3Inequality Has Risen Across Major Developed Economies Inequality Has Risen Across Major Developed Economies Inequality Has Risen Across Major Developed Economies One often-heard objection to QE is that it has exacerbated inequality by pushing up equity prices without doing much to help the real economy. Some even contend that QE has hurt the middle class by depriving savers of a critical source of interest income. It is certainly true that inequality has risen sharply over the past 40 years, especially in the US (Chart 3). It is also true that the bulk of equity wealth is held by the very rich. According to Fed data, the wealthiest top 1% own half of all stocks (Chart 4). However, QE has pushed up not only equity prices. Falling bond yields have also pushed up home prices. Unlike stocks, housing wealth is broadly held across the population. Moreover, monetary policy operates through other channels. Lower interest rates tend to weaken a country’s currency, boosting competitiveness in the process. Lower rates also encourage investment. Again, real estate figures heavily here. Chart 5 shows that there is a very strong correlation between mortgage yields and housing starts. And while lower interest rates do penalize savers, the middle class is not the main victim. Interest receipts represent a much larger share of total income for ultra-wealthy individuals than for everyone else (Chart 6).   Chart 4The Rich Hold The Bulk Of Equities Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Chart 5Strong Correlation Between Mortgage Rates And Housing Activity Strong Correlation Between Mortgage Rates And Housing Activity Strong Correlation Between Mortgage Rates And Housing Activity Chart 6Interest Represents A Bigger Share Of Overall Income At The Top Of The Income Distribution Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Far from exacerbating income inequality, a recent IMF research paper argued that easier monetary policy may dampen inequality by boosting employment and wage growth. Chart 7 shows that labor’s share of GDP has tended to rise whenever the labor market tightened.   Chart 7Rising Labor Share Of Income Occurring Alongside Labor Market Tightening Rising Labor Share Of Income Occurring Alongside Labor Market Tightening Rising Labor Share Of Income Occurring Alongside Labor Market Tightening Inequality Paved The Way To QE Chart 8The Rich Save More Than The Poor Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Rather than QE exacerbating inequality, a more plausible story is that rising inequality led to QE. The rich tend to save more than the poor (Chart 8). Consistent with estimates by the IMF, we find that the shift in income towards the rich has depressed US aggregate demand by about 3% of GDP since the late 1970s (Chart 9). A standard Taylor Rule equation suggests that real interest rates would need to be 1.5-to-3 percentage points lower to offset a 3% loss in demand.1 That’s a lot! Thus, not only have the rich benefited directly from receiving a bigger share of the economic pie, they have also benefited indirectly from the fact that falling interest rates have pushed up the value of their assets.   Chart 9Rising Inequality Has Depressed Consumption By 3% Of GDP Since The Early 1980s Rising Inequality Has Depressed Consumption By 3% Of GDP Since The Early 1980s Rising Inequality Has Depressed Consumption By 3% Of GDP Since The Early 1980s For a while, lower rates allowed poorer households to take on more debt, thus masking the impact of rising income inequality on consumption. However, after the housing bubble burst, households were forced to retrench and start living within their means. The resulting collapse in spending pushed interest rates towards zero and forced the Fed to undertake one QE program after another. It Is Not About Education Many of the popular explanations for rising inequality have focused on the widening gap between well-educated and less well-educated workers. While there is evidence that the demand for skilled workers increased in the 1980s and 1990s, Beaudry, Green, and Sand have shown that it has declined since then. Together with a rising supply of college-educated workers, softer demand for skilled workers compressed the so-called “skill premium.” So why has inequality increased? One can get a sense of the answer by looking at Chart 10. It shows that almost all the increase in US real incomes has occurred not just near the top of the income distribution, but at the very very top – people in the highest 0.1% of income earners. These are not university professors. These are hedge fund managers and corporate chieftains, with a sprinkling of celebrities (Chart 11). Chart 10The (Really) Rich Got Richer Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Chart 11Who Are The Top Income Earners? Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Superstars In his seminal paper entitled “The Economics of Superstars,” Sherwin Rosen argued that technological trends have facilitated the rise of winner-take-all markets. The classic example is that of stage actors. A century ago, tens of thousands of actors could eke out a living performing at the local theater. Today, a small number of superstars dominate the entertainment industry, while countless others work odd jobs, waiting in vain for their chance for stardom. A similar argument applies to professional athletes. The applicability of the superstar model to other classes of workers is more debatable. How much of the income of star hedge fund managers reflects their unique skills and how much of it reflects a “heads I win, tails you lose” approach to investing client money? Similarly, do CEOs get paid what they do because there is no one else who can do the same job with less pay? Or is it because CEOs can effectively set their own compensation, subject to an “outrage constraint” from shareholders and the broader public — a constraint that has loosened in recent decades due to rising stock prices and a shift in public attention away from class issues towards the debilitating distraction of identity politics? The Rise Of Monopoly Capitalism Where the superstar model may be more relevant is at the firm level. Standard economics textbooks treat profit as a return on capital. This implies that when the after-tax rate of return on capital goes up, firms should respond by increasing investment spending in order to further boost profits. In practice, this has not occurred. For example, the Trump Administration promised that corporate tax cuts would produce an investment boom. Yet, outside of the energy sector – which benefited from an unrelated recovery in crude oil prices – US corporate capex grew more slowly between Q4 of 2016 and Q4 of 2019 than it did over the preceding three years (Chart 12). Why did the textbook economic relationship between investment and the rate of return on capital break down? The answer is that the textbook approach ignores what has become an increasingly important source of corporate profits: monopoly power. Chart 12No Evidence That Trump Corporate Tax Cuts Boosted Investment Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around   Chart 13A Winner-Take-All Economy A Winner-Take-All Economy A Winner-Take-All Economy A recent study by Grullon, Larkin, and Michaely finds that market concentration has increased in 75% of all US industries since 1997. Furman and Orszag have shown that the dispersion in the rate of return on capital across firms has widened sharply since the early 1990s. In the last year of their analysis, firms at the 90th percentile of profitability had a rate of return on capital that was five times higher than the median firm, a massive increase from the historic average of two times (Chart 13).   The rise of monopoly power has been most evident in the tech sector. Over the past 25 years, rising tech profit margins have contributed more to tech share outperformance than rising sales (Chart 14). Chart 14Decomposing Tech Outperformance Decomposing Tech Outperformance Decomposing Tech Outperformance Tech companies are particularly susceptible to network effects: The more people who use a particular tech platform, the more attractive it is for others to use it. Facebook is a classic example. Tech companies also benefit significantly from scale economies. Once a piece of software has been written, creating additional copies costs almost nothing. Even in the hardware realm, the marginal cost of producing an additional chip is tiny compared to the fixed cost of designing it. All of this creates a winner-take-all environment where success begets further success. Monopolies And The Neutral Rate Unlike firms in a perfectly competitive industry, monopolistic firms have to contend with the fact that higher output tends to depress selling prices, thus leading to lower profit margins. As such, rising market power may simultaneously increase profits while reducing investment spending. This may be deflationary in two ways: First, lower investment will reduce aggregate demand. Second, greater market power will shift income towards wealthy owners of capital, who tend to save more than regular workers. An increase in savings relative to investment, in turn, will depress the neutral rate of interest. An Inflection Point For Inequality? After rising for the past four decades, inequality may be set to decline. Central banks are keen to allow economies to overheat. A feedback loop could emerge where overheated economies push up labor’s share of income, leading to more spending and even higher wages. Fiscal policy is likely to amplify this feedback loop. As we discussed last week, loose monetary policy is allowing governments to pursue expansionary fiscal policies. Fiscal stimulus raises the neutral rate of interest, making it easier for central banks to keep policy rates below their equilibrium level. Government policy is also moving in a more redistributive direction. Tax rates on high-income earnings will rise over the next few years, which will support new spending initiatives. Minimum wages are also heading higher. It is worth noting that Florida voters, despite handing the state to President Trump in November, voted 61%-to-39% to raise the state minimum wage from $8.56 an hour to $15 by 2026. Joe Biden also reaffirmed today his pledge to hike the federal minimum wage to $15 from its current level of $7.25. In addition, there is bipartisan support for strengthening anti-trust policies. On the left, Senator Elizabeth Warren has stated that “Today’s big tech companies have too much power – too much power over our economy, our society, and our democracy.” Increasingly, Republicans agree with this sentiment. According to a Pew Research study conducted last June, more than half of conservative Republicans favor increasing government regulation of tech companies (Chart 15). This number has probably gone up following last week’s coordinated effort by the largest tech companies to banish Parler, a Twitter-style app popular with conservatives, from the internet. Chart 15Conservatives Favor Increased Government Regulation Of Big Tech Companies Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Meanwhile, globalization is on the back foot. After rising significantly, the ratio of global trade-to-output has been flat for over a decade (Chart 16). As competition from foreign workers abates, working-class wages in advanced economies could rise. Chart 16Globalization Plateaued More Than A Decade Ago Globalization Plateaued More Than A Decade Ago Globalization Plateaued More Than A Decade Ago Long-Term Investment Implications What is good for Main Street is usually good for Wall Street. For the past 70 years, the S&P 500 has generally moved in sync with the ISM manufacturing index (Chart 17). The same pattern holds globally. Chart 18 shows that the stock-to-bond ratio has correlated closely with the global manufacturing PMI. Chart 17Strong Correlation Between Economic Growth And Stocks Strong Correlation Between Economic Growth And Stocks Strong Correlation Between Economic Growth And Stocks Cyclical fluctuations can disguise important structural trends, however. US productivity has doubled since 1980, but real median wages have increased by only 20% (Chart 19). The bulk of productivity gains have flowed to upper-income earners and owners of capital. Hence, corporate profits rose, while inflation and interest rates declined. Chart 18Stocks Rarely Underperform Bonds When The Global Economy Is Strengthening Stocks Rarely Underperform Bonds When The Global Economy Is Strengthening Stocks Rarely Underperform Bonds When The Global Economy Is Strengthening Chart 19Real Median Wages Failed To Keep Up With Productivity Real Median Wages Failed To Keep Up With Productivity Real Median Wages Failed To Keep Up With Productivity   If we are approaching an inflection point for inequality, we may also be approaching an inflection point for profit margins and bond yields. To be sure, with unemployment still elevated, wage growth and inflation are not about to take off anytime soon. However, investors should prepare for a more inflationary – and ultimately, stagflationary – environment in the second half of the decade. This calls for reducing duration risk in fixed-income portfolios, favoring TIPS over nominal bonds, and owning inflation hedges such as gold and farmland. It also calls for maintaining a bias towards value over growth stocks, as the former usually outperform when inflation and commodity prices are on the upswing (Chart 20). Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Chart 20Value Stocks Usually Outperform When Commodity Prices Are On The Upswing Value Stocks Usually Outperform When Commodity Prices Are On The Upswing Value Stocks Usually Outperform When Commodity Prices Are On The Upswing   Footnotes 1 One can specify different parameters to weight the inflation and capacity utilization segments of a Taylor rule equation so that they are equally-weighted, meaning there is a coefficient of 0.5 on the gap between the year-over-year percent change in headline PCE and the Fed's 2% target and a coefficient of 0.5 on the output gap term. Previous Fed Chair and incoming Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen preferred an alternative specification where there was a coefficient of 1 on the output gap term so that the equation is as follows: RT= 2 + PT + 0.5(PT- 2) + 1.0YT, where R is the federal funds rate; P is headline PCE as expressed as a year-over-year percent change; and Y is the output gap (as approximated using the unemployment gap and Okun's law). For further discussion, please see Janet L. Yellen, "The Economic Outlook and Monetary Policy," April 11, 2012. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Special Trade Recommendations Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Current MacroQuant Model Scores Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around

Highlights With a vaccine already rolling out in the UK and soon in the US, investors have reason to be optimistic about next year. Government bond yields are rising, cyclical equities are outperforming defensives, international stocks hinting at outperforming American, and value stocks are starting to beat growth stocks (Chart 1). Feature President Trump’s defeat in the US election also reduces the risk of a global trade war, or a real war with Iran. European, Chinese, and Emirati stocks have rallied since the election, at least partly due to the reduction in these risks (Chart 2). However, geopolitical risk and global policy uncertainty have been rising on a secular, not just cyclical, basis (Chart 3). Geopolitical tensions have escalated with each crisis since the financial meltdown of 2008. Chart 1A New Global Business Cycle A New Global Business Cycle A New Global Business Cycle Chart 2Biden: No Trade War Or War With Iran? Biden: No Trade War Or War With Iran? Biden: No Trade War Or War With Iran? Chart 3Geopolitical Risk And Global Policy Uncertainty Geopolitical Risk And Global Policy Uncertainty Geopolitical Risk And Global Policy Uncertainty Chart 4The Decline Of The Liberal Democracies? The Decline Of The Liberal Democracies? The Decline Of The Liberal Democracies? Trump was a symptom, not a cause, of what ails the world. The cause is the relative decline of the liberal democracies in political, economic, and military strength relative to that of other global players (Chart 4). This relative decline has emboldened Chinese and Russian challenges to the US-led global order, as well as aggressive and unpredictable moves by middle and small powers. Moreover the aftershocks of the pandemic and recession will create social and political instability in various parts of the world, particularly emerging markets (Chart 5). Chart 5EM Troubles Await EM Troubles Await EM Troubles Await Chart 6Global Arms Build-Up Continues Global Arms Build-Up Continues Global Arms Build-Up Continues   We are bullish on risk assets next year, but our view is driven largely from the birth of a new economic cycle, not from geopolitics. Geopolitical risk is rapidly becoming underrated, judging by the steep drop-off in measured risk. There is no going back to a pre-Trump, pre-Xi Jinping, pre-2008, pre-Putin, pre-9/11, pre-historical golden age in which nations were enlightened, benign, and focused exclusively on peace and prosperity. Hard data, such as military spending, show the world moving in the opposite direction (Chart 6). So while stock markets will grind higher next year, investors should not expect that Biden and the vaccine truly portend a “return to normalcy.” Key View #1: China’s Communist Party Turns 100, With Rising Headwinds Investors should ignore the hype about the Chinese Communist Party’s one hundredth birthday in 2021. Since 1997, the Chinese leadership has laid great emphasis on this “first centenary” as an occasion by which China should become a moderately prosperous society. This has been achieved. China is deep into a structural economic transition that holds out a much more difficult economic, social, and political future. Chart 7China: Less Money, More Problems China: Less Money, More Problems China: Less Money, More Problems The big day, July 1, will be celebrated with a speech by General Secretary Xi Jinping in which he reiterates the development goals of the five-year plan. This plan – which doubles down on import substitution and the aggressive tech acquisition campaign – will be finalized in March, along with Xi’s yet-to-be released vision for 2035, which marks the halfway point to the “second centenary,” 2049, the hundredth birthday of the regime. Xi’s 2035 goals may contain some surprises but the Communist Party’s policy frameworks should be seen as “best laid plans” that are likely to be overturned by economic and geopolitical realities. It was easier for the country to meet its political development targets during the period of rapid industrialization from 1979-2008. Now China is deep into a structural economic transition that holds out a much more difficult economic, social, and political future. Potential growth is slowing with the graying of society and the country is making a frantic dash, primarily through technology acquisition, to boost productivity and keep from falling into the “middle income trap” (Chart 7). Total debt levels have surged as Beijing attempts to make this transition smoothly, without upsetting social stability. Households and the government are taking on a greater debt load to maintain aggregate demand while the government tries to force the corporate sector to deleverage in fits and starts (Chart 8). The deleveraging process is painful and coincides with a structural transition away from export-led manufacturing. Beijing likely believes it has already led de-industrialization proceed too quickly, given the huge long-term political risks of this process, as witnessed in the US and UK. The fourteenth five-year plan hints that the authorities will give manufacturing a reprieve from structural reform efforts (Chart 9). Chart 8China Struggles To Dismount Debt Bubble China Struggles To Dismount Debt Bubble China Struggles To Dismount Debt Bubble Chart 9China Will Slow De-Industrialization, Stoking Protectionism China Will Slow De-Industrialization, Stoking Protectionism China Will Slow De-Industrialization, Stoking Protectionism Chart 10China Already Reining In Stimulus China Already Reining In Stimulus China Already Reining In Stimulus A premature resumption of deleveraging heightens domestic economic risks. The trade war and then the pandemic forced the Xi administration to abandon its structural reform plans temporarily and drastically ease monetary, fiscal, and credit policy to prevent a recession. Almost immediately the danger of asset bubbles reared its head again. Because the regime is focused on containing systemic financial risk, it has already begun tightening monetary policy as the nation heads into 2021 – even though the rest of the world has not fully recovered from the pandemic (Chart 10). The risk of over-tightening is likely to be contained, since Beijing has no interest in undermining its own recovery. But the risk is understated in financial markets at the moment and, combined with American fiscal risks due to gridlock, this familiar Chinese policy tug-of-war poses a clear risk to the global recovery and emerging market assets next year. Far more important than the first centenary, or even General Secretary Xi’s 2035 vision, is the impending leadership rotation in 2022. Xi was originally supposed to step down at this time – instead he is likely to take on the title of party chairman, like Mao, and aims to stay in power till 2035 or thereabouts. He will consolidate power once again through a range of crackdowns – on political rivals and corruption, on high-flying tech and financial companies, on outdated high-polluting industries, and on ideological dissenters. Beijing must have a stable economy going into its five-year national party congresses, and 2022 is no different. But that goal has largely been achieved through this year’s massive stimulus and the discovery of a global vaccine. In a risk-on environment, the need for economic stability poses a downside risk for financial assets since it implies macro-prudential actions to curb bubbles. The 2017 party congress revealed that Xi sees policy tightening as a key part of his policy agenda and power consolidation. In short, the critical twentieth congress in 2022 offers no promise of plentiful monetary and credit stimulus (Chart 11). All investors can count on is the minimum required for stability. This is positive for emerging markets at the moment, but less so as the lagged effects of this year’s stimulus dissipate. Chart 11No Promise Of Major New Stimulus For Party Congress 2022 No Promise Of Major New Stimulus For Party Congress 2022 No Promise Of Major New Stimulus For Party Congress 2022 Not only will Chinese domestic policy uncertainty remain underestimated, but geopolitical risk will also do so. Superficially, Beijing had a banner year in 2020. It handled the coronavirus better than other countries, especially the US, thus advertising Xi Jinping’s centralized and statist governance model. President Trump lost the election. Regardless of why Trump lost, his trade war precipitated a manufacturing slowdown that hit the Rust Belt in 2019, before the virus, and his loss will warn future presidents against assaulting China’s economy head-on, at least in their first term. All of this is worth gold in Chinese domestic politics. Chart 12China’s Image Suffered In Spite Of Trump 2021 Key Views: No Return To Normalcy 2021 Key Views: No Return To Normalcy Internationally, however, China’s image has collapsed – and this is in spite of Trump’s erratic and belligerent behavior, which alienated most of the world and the US’s allies (Chart 12). Moreover, despite being the origin of COVID-19, China’s is one of the few economies that thrived this year. Its global manufacturing share rose. While delaying and denying transparency regarding the virus, China accused other countries of originating the virus, and unleashed a virulent “wolf warrior” diplomacy, a military standoff with India, and a trade war with Australia. The rest of Asia will be increasingly willing to take calculated risks to counterbalance China’s growing regional clout, and international protectionist headwinds will persist. The United States will play a leading part in this process. Sino-American strategic tensions have grown relentlessly for more than a decade, especially since Xi Jinping rose to power, as is evident from Chinese treasury holdings (Chart 13). The Biden administration will naturally seek a diplomatic “reset” and a new strategic and economic dialogue with China. But Biden has already indicated that he intends to insist on China’s commitments under Trump’s “phase one” trade deal. He says he will keep Trump’s sweeping Section 301 tariffs in place, presumably until China demonstrates improvement on the intellectual property and tech transfer practices that provided the rationale for the tariffs. Biden’s victory in the Rust Belt ensures that he cannot revert to the pre-Trump status quo. Indeed Biden amplifies the US strategic challenge to China’s rise because he is much more likely to assemble a “grand alliance” or “coalition of the willing” focused on constraining China’s illiberal and mercantilist policies. Even the combined economic might of a western coalition is not enough to force China to abandon its statist development model, but it would make negotiations more likely to be successful on the West’s more limited and transactional demands (Chart 14). Chart 13The US-China Divorce Pre-Dates And Post-Dates Trump The US-China Divorce Pre-Dates And Post-Dates Trump The US-China Divorce Pre-Dates And Post-Dates Trump Chart 14Biden's Grand Alliance A Danger To China Biden's Grand Alliance A Danger To China Biden's Grand Alliance A Danger To China The Taiwan Strait is ground zero for US-China geopolitical tensions. The US is reviving its right to arm Taiwan for the sake of its self-defense, but the US commitment is questionable at best – and it is this very uncertainty that makes a miscalculation more likely and hence conflict a major tail risk (Chart 15). True, Beijing has enormous economic leverage over Taiwan, and it is fresh off a triumph of imposing its will over Hong Kong, which vindicates playing the long game rather than taking any preemptive military actions that could prove disastrous. Nevertheless, Xi Jinping’s reassertion of Beijing and communism is driving Taiwanese popular opinion away from the mainland, resulting in a polarizing dynamic that will be extremely difficult to bridge (Chart 16). If China comes to believe that the Biden administration is pursuing a technological blockade just as rapidly and resolutely as the Trump administration, then it could conclude that Taiwan should be brought to heel sooner rather than later. Chart 15US Boosts Arms Sales To Taiwan 2021 Key Views: No Return To Normalcy 2021 Key Views: No Return To Normalcy Chart 16Taiwan Strait Risk Will Explode If Biden Seeks Tech Blockade 2021 Key Views: No Return To Normalcy 2021 Key Views: No Return To Normalcy Bottom Line: On a secular basis, China faces rising domestic economic risks and rising geopolitical risk. Given the rally in Chinese currency and equities in 2021, the downside risk is greater than the upside risk of any fleeting “diplomatic reset” with the United States. Emerging markets will benefit from China’s stimulus this year but will suffer from its policy tightening over time. Key View #2: The US “Pivot To Asia” Is Back On … And Runs Through Iran Most likely President-elect Biden will face gridlock at home. His domestic agenda largely frustrated, he will focus on foreign policy. Given his old age, he may also be a one-term president, which reinforces the need to focus on the achievable. He will aim to restore the Obama administration’s foreign policy, the chief features of which were the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran and the “Pivot to Asia.” The US is limited by the need to pivot to Asia, while Iran is limited by the risk of regime failure. A deal should be agreed. The purpose of the Iranian deal was to limit Iran’s nuclear and regional ambitions, stabilize Iraq, create a semblance of regional balance, and thus enable American military withdrawal. The US could have simply abandoned the region, but Iran’s ensuing supremacy would have destabilized the region and quickly sucked the US back in. The newly energy independent US needed a durable deal. Then it could turn its attention to Asia Pacific, where it needed to rebuild its strategic influence in the face of a challenger that made Iran look like a joke (Chart 17). Chart 17The "Pivot To Asia" In A Nutshell The "Pivot To Asia" In A Nutshell The "Pivot To Asia" In A Nutshell It is possible for Biden to revive the Iranian deal, given that the other five members of the agreement have kept it afloat during the Trump years. Moreover, since it was always an executive deal that lacked Senate approval, Biden can rejoin unilaterally. However, the deal largely expires in 2025 – and the Trump administration accurately criticized the deal’s failure to contain Iran’s missile development and regional ambitions. Therefore Biden is proposing a renegotiation. This could lead to an even greater US-Iran engagement, but it is not clear that a robust new deal is feasible. Iran can also recommit to the old deal, having taken only incremental steps to violate the deal after the US’s departure – manifestly as leverage for future negotiations. Of course, the Iranians are not likely to give up their nuclear program in the long run, as nuclear weapons are the golden ticket to regime survival. Libya gave up its nuclear program and was toppled by NATO; North Korea developed its program into deliverable nuclear weapons and saw an increase in stature. Iran will continue to maintain a nuclear program that someday could be weaponized. Nevertheless, Tehran will be inclined to deal with Biden. President Hassan Rouhani is a lame duck, his legacy in tatters due to Trump, but his final act in office could be to salvage his legacy (and his faction’s hopes) by overseeing a return to the agreement prior to Iran’s presidential election in June. From Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s point of view, this would be beneficial. He also needs to secure his legacy, but as he tries to lay the groundwork for his power succession, Iran faces economic collapse, widespread social unrest, and a potentially explosive division between the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and the more pragmatic political faction hoping for economic opening and reform. Iran needs a reprieve from US maximum pressure, so Khamenei will ultimately rejoin a limited nuclear agreement if it enables the regime to live to fight another day. In short, the US is limited by the need to pivot to Asia, while Iran is limited by the risk of regime failure. A deal should be agreed. But this is precisely why conflict could erupt in 2021. First, either in Trump’s final days in office or in the early days of the Biden administration, Israel could take military action – as it has likely done several times this year already – to set back the Iranian nuclear program and try to reinforce its own long-term security. Second, the Biden administration could decide to utilize the immense leverage that President Trump has bequeathed, resulting in a surprisingly confrontational stance that would push Iran to the brink. This is unlikely but it may be necessary due to the following point. Third, China and Russia could refuse to cooperate with the US, eliminating the prospect of a robust renegotiation of the deal, and forcing Biden to choose between accepting the shabby old deal or adopting something similar to Trump’s maximum pressure. China will probably cooperate; Russia is far less certain. Beijing knows that the US intention in Iran is to free up strategic resources to revive the US position in Asia, but it has offered limited cooperation on Iran and North Korea because it does not have an interest in their acquiring nuclear weapons and it needs to mitigate US hostility. Biden has a much stronger political mandate to confront China than he does to confront Iran. Assuming that the Israelis and Saudis can no more prevent Biden’s détente with Iran than they could Obama’s, the next question will be whether Biden effectively shifts from a restored Iranian deal to shoring up these allies and partners. He can possibly build on the Abraham Accords negotiated by the Trump administration smooth Israeli ties with the Arab world. The Middle East could conceivably see a semblance of balance. But not in 2021. The coming year will be the rocky transition phase in which the US-Iran détente succeeds or fails. Chart 18Oil Market Share War Preceded The Last US-Iran Deal Oil Market Share War Preceded The Last US-Iran Deal Oil Market Share War Preceded The Last US-Iran Deal Chart 19Still, Base Case Is For Rising Oil Prices Still, Base Case Is For Rising Oil Prices Still, Base Case Is For Rising Oil Prices Chart 20Biden Needs A Credible Threat Biden Needs A Credible Threat Biden Needs A Credible Threat The lead-up to the 2015 Iranian deal saw a huge collapse in global oil prices due to a market share war with Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the US triggered by US shale production and Iranian sanctions relief (Chart 18). This was despite rising global demand and the emergence of the Islamic State in Iraq. In 2021, global demand will also be reviving and Iraq, though not in the midst of full-scale war, is still unstable. OPEC 2.0 could buckle once again, though Moscow and Riyadh already confirmed this year that they understand the devastating consequences of not cooperating on production discipline. Our Commodity and Energy Strategy projects that the cartel will continue to operate, thus drawing down inventories (Chart 19). The US and/or Israel will have to establish a credible military threat to ensure that Iran is in check, and that will create fireworks and geopolitical risks first before it produces any Middle Eastern balance (Chart 20). Bottom Line: The US and Iran are both driven to revive the 2015 nuclear deal by strategic needs. Whether a better deal can be negotiated is less likely. The return to US-Iran détente is a source of geopolitical risk in 2021 though it should ultimately succeed. The lower risk of full-scale war is negative for global oil prices but OPEC 2.0 cartel behavior will be the key determiner. The cartel flirted with disaster in 2020 and will most likely hang together in 2021 for the sake of its members’ domestic stability. Key View #3: Europe Wins The US Election Chart 21Europe Won The US Election Europe Won The US Election Europe Won The US Election The European Union has not seen as monumental of a challenge from anti-establishment politicians over the past decade as have Britain and America. The establishment has doubled down on integration and solidarity. Now Europe is the big winner of the US election. Brussels and Berlin no longer face a tariff onslaught from Trump, a US-instigated global trade war, or as high of a risk of a major war in the Middle East. Biden’s first order of business will be reviving the trans-Atlantic alliance. Financial markets recognize that Europe is the winner and the euro has finally taken off against the dollar over the past year. European industrials and small caps outperformed during the trade war as well as COVID-19, a bullish signal (Chart 21). Reinforcing this trend is the fact that China is looking to court Europe and reduce momentum for an anti-China coalition. The center of gravity in Europe is Germany and 2021 faces a major transition in German politics. Chancellor Angela Merkel will step down at long last. Her Christian Democratic Union is favored to retain power after receiving a much-needed boost for its handling of this year’s crisis (Chart 22), although the risk of an upset and change of ruling party is much greater than consensus holds. Chart 22German Election Poses Political Risk, Not Investment Risk German Election Poses Political Risk, Not Investment Risk German Election Poses Political Risk, Not Investment Risk However, from an investment point of view, an upset in the German election is not very concerning. A left-wing coalition would take power that would merely reinforce the shift toward more dovish fiscal policy and European solidarity. Either way Germany will affirm what France affirmed in 2017, and what France is on track to reaffirm in 2022: that the European project is intact, despite Brexit, and evolving to address various challenges. The European project is intact, despite Brexit, and evolving to address various challenges. This is not to say that European elections pose no risk. In fact, there will be upsets as a result of this year’s crisis and the troubled aftermath. The countries with upcoming elections – or likely snap elections in the not-too-distant future, like Spain and Italy – show various levels of vulnerability to opposition parties (Chart 23). Chart 23Post-COVID EU Elections Will Not Be A Cakewalk Post-COVID EU Elections Will Not Be A Cakewalk Post-COVID EU Elections Will Not Be A Cakewalk Chart 24Immigration Tailwind For Populism Subsided Immigration Tailwind For Populism Subsided Immigration Tailwind For Populism Subsided The chief risks to Europe stem from fiscal normalization and instability abroad. Regime failures in the Middle East and Africa could send new waves of immigration, and high levels of immigration have fueled anti-establishment politics over the past decade. Yet this is not a problem at the moment (Chart 24). And even more so than the US, the EU has tightened border enforcement and control over immigration (Chart 25). This has enabled the political establishment to save itself from populist discontent. The other danger for Europe is posed by Russian instability. In general, Moscow is focusing on maintaining domestic stability amid the pandemic and ongoing economic austerity, as well as eventual succession concerns. However, Vladimir Putin’s low approval rating has often served as a warning that Russia might take an external action to achieve some limited national objective and instigate opposition from the West, which increases government support at home (Chart 26). Chart 25Europe Tough On Immigration Like US Europe Tough On Immigration Like US Europe Tough On Immigration Like US Chart 26Warning Sign That Russia May Lash Out Warning Sign That Russia May Lash Out Warning Sign That Russia May Lash Out Chart 27Russian Geopolitical Risk Premium Rising Russian Geopolitical Risk Premium Rising Russian Geopolitical Risk Premium Rising The US Democratic Party is also losing faith in engagement with Russia, so while it will need to negotiate on Iran and arms reduction, it will also seek to use sanctions and democracy promotion to undermine Putin’s regime and his leverage over Europe. The Russian geopolitical risk premium will rise, upsetting an otherwise fairly attractive opportunity relative to other emerging markets (Chart 27). Bottom Line: The European democracies have passed a major “stress test” over the past decade. The dollar will fall relative to the euro, in keeping with macro fundamentals, though it will not be supplanted as the leading reserve currency. Europe and the euro will benefit from the change of power in Washington, and a rise in European political risks will still be minor from a global point of view. Russia and the ruble will suffer from a persistent risk premium. Investment Takeaways As the “Year of the Rat” draws to a close, geopolitical risk and global policy uncertainty have come off the boil and safe haven assets have sold off. Yet geopolitical risk will remain elevated in 2021. The secular drivers of the dramatic rise in this risk since 2008 have not been resolved. To play the above themes and views, we are initiating the following strategic investment recommendations: Long developed market equities ex-US – US outperformance over DM has reached extreme levels and the global economic cycle and post-pandemic revival will favor DM-ex-US. Long emerging market equities ex-China – Emerging markets will benefit from a falling dollar and commodity recovery. China has seen the good news but now faces the headwinds outlined above. Long European industrials relative to global – European equities stand to benefit from the change of power in Washington, US-China decoupling, and the global recovery. Long Mexican industrials versus emerging markets – Mexico witnessed the rise of an American protectionist and a landslide election in favor of a populist left-winger. Now it has a new trade deal with the US and the US is diversifying from China, while its ruling party faces a check on its power via midterm elections, and, regardless, has maintained orthodox economic policy. Long Indian equities versus Chinese – Prime Minister Narendra Modi has a single party majority, four years on his political clock, and has recommitted to pro-productivity structural reforms. The nation is taking more concerted action in pursuit of economic development since strategic objectives in South Asia cannot be met without greater dynamism. The US, Japan, Australia, and other countries are looking to develop relations as they diversify from China.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com

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.

Highlights Strikes result from divergent perceptions of bargaining power: A strike reflects a negotiating failure, and negotiations fail when parties cannot agree on which side has the stronger position, typically because at least one of them overestimates its leverage. Once a strike starts, broad macro factors influence the outcome: Labor market slack, economic concentration, trends in labor relations law and regulations, and the gap between labor’s and management’s fortunes (if extreme) are the key macro determinants of negotiating leverage. Key factors that have bolstered management for decades are poised to reverse: Legal and regulatory trends have little room to improve from management’s perspective, and the gap between management’s and labor’s share of rewards is ripe for narrowing. A union resurgence is a low-probability, high-impact event: We view the potential for labor to gain the upper hand over management as a low-probability event that would have a significant impact on markets if it did come to pass, so it merits a close look. Feature We concluded Part 1 by highlighting two consistent themes from the modern history of the US labor movement: successful strikes beget strikes, and employees are unlikely to make gains if judges and government officials are disposed to favor management. In this installment, we will focus on the factors that encourage strikes and the non-government determinants of their success. Part 3 will focus on public opinion, elected officials and the judiciary. Our ultimate goal is to evaluate relative bargaining power, and the potential for organized labor to push wages significantly higher, upending the risk-friendly status quo. The Origin Of Strikes Strikes (and lockouts) occur when labor and management cannot reach a mutually acceptable settlement, often because at least one side overestimates its bargaining power. It is easy to agree when labor and management hold similar views about each side’s relative power, as when both perceive that one of them is considerably stronger. In that case, a settlement favoring the stronger side can be reached fairly quickly, especially if the stronger side exercises some restraint and does not seek to impose terms that the weaker side can scarcely abide. Restraint is rational in repeated games like employer-employee bargaining, and when both parties recognize that relative bargaining positions are fluid, they are likely to exercise it. History shows that the pendulum between labor and management swings, albeit slowly, as societal views evolve1 and the business cycle fluctuates. As a general rule, management will have the upper hand during recessions, when the supply of workers exceeds demand, and labor will have the advantage when expansions are well advanced, and capacity tightens. A high unemployment rate broadly favors employers, and a low unemployment rate favors employees. Neither the number of work stoppages (Chart 1, top panel), nor the number of workers involved (Chart 1, middle panel) correlates very well with the unemployment gap (Chart 1, bottom panel), in the Reagan-Thatcher era, however, as work stoppages have dwindled almost to zero. Chart 1Swamped By The Legal And Regulatory Tide Swamped By The Legal And Regulatory Tide Swamped By The Legal And Regulatory Tide Game theory is better equipped than simple regression models to offer insight into the origin of strikes. We posit a simple framework in which each side can hold any of five perceptions of its own bargaining power, resulting in a total of 25 possible joint perceptions. Management (M) can believe it is way stronger than Labor (L), M >> L; stronger than Labor, M > L; roughly equal, M ≈ L; weaker than Labor, L > M; or way weaker than Labor, L >> M. Labor also holds one of these five perceptions, and the interaction of the two sides’ perceptions establishes the path negotiations will follow. The fur flies when each party thinks the other should make the bulk of the concessions: labor negotiations over the next couple of years could be interesting. Limiting our focus to today’s prevailing conditions, Figure 1 displays only the outcomes consistent with management’s belief that it has the upper hand. For completeness, the exhibit lists all of labor’s potential perceptions, but we deem the two in which labor is feeling its oats (circled) to be most likely, given the success of recent high-profile strikes.2 Management’s confidence follows logically from four decades of victories, but may prove to be unfounded if its power has already peaked. Figure 1The Eye Of The Beholder Labor Strikes Back, Part 2: Where Strikes Come From And Who Wins Them Labor Strikes Back, Part 2: Where Strikes Come From And Who Wins Them Strike outcomes turn on which side has overestimated its leverage. The broad factors we use to assess leverage are overall labor market slack; economic concentration; regulatory and legal trends; and the sustainability of either side’s accumulated advantage, which we describe as the labor-management rubber band. Other factors that matter on a case-by-case basis, but are beyond the scope of our analysis, include industry-level slack, a labor input’s susceptibility to automation, and the degree of labor specialization/skill involved in that input. For these micro-level factors, a given group of workers’ leverage is inversely related to the availability of substitutes for their input. Labor Market Slack Chart 2Surprise Wage Retracements Surprise Wage Retracements Surprise Wage Retracements Despite muted wage growth (Chart 2), the labor market is demonstrably tight. The unemployment rate is at a 50-year low, the broader definition of unemployment is at the lowest level in its 26-year history, and the prime-age employment-to-population ratio is back to its 2001 levels, having surpassed the previous cycle’s peak (Chart 3). The job openings rate is high, indicating that demand for workers is robust, and so is the quits rate, indicating that employers are competing vigorously to meet it. The NFIB survey’s job openings and hiring plans series (Chart 4) echo the JOLTS findings. Chart 3Prime-Age Employment Is At An 18-Year High ... Prime-Age Employment Is At An 18-Year High ... Prime-Age Employment Is At An 18-Year High ... Chart 4... But There Are Still Lots Of Help Wanted Signs ... But There Are Still Lots Of Help Wanted Signs ... But There Are Still Lots Of Help Wanted Signs The lack of labor market slack decisively favors workers’ negotiating position. It is a sellers’ market when demand outstrips supply, and labor victories tend to be self-reinforcing. Successful strikes beget strikes, and management volunteers concessions as labor peace becomes a competitive advantage during strike waves. Given that the crisis-driven damage to the labor force participation rate has healed as the gap between the actual part rate (Chart 5, solid line) and its demographically-determined structural proxy has closed (Chart 5, dashed line), the burden of proof rests squarely with those who argue that there is an ample supply of workers waiting to come off the sidelines. Chart 5The Labor Force Participation Gap Has Closed The Labor Force Participation Gap Has Closed The Labor Force Participation Gap Has Closed Economic Concentration Chart 6Less Competition = More Power Labor Strikes Back, Part 2: Where Strikes Come From And Who Wins Them Labor Strikes Back, Part 2: Where Strikes Come From And Who Wins Them The trend toward economic concentration (Chart 6) has endowed the largest companies with greater market power, as evidenced by surging corporate profit margins. The greater the concentration of employment opportunities in local labor markets, the more closely they resemble monopsonies.3 Unfortunately for labor, monopsonies restrain prices just as monopolies inflate them. As our Bank Credit Analyst colleagues have shown,4 there is a robust inverse relationship between employment concentration and real wages (Chart 7). Chart 7One Huge Buyer + Plus Multiple Small Sellers = Low Prices Labor Strikes Back, Part 2: Where Strikes Come From And Who Wins Them Labor Strikes Back, Part 2: Where Strikes Come From And Who Wins Them Economic concentration has been a major driver of management’s Reagan-Thatcher era dominance. Sleepy to indifferent antitrust enforcement has helped businesses capture market power, and it will continue to prevail through 2024 unless the Democrats take the White House in November. The silver lining for workers is that concentration could have the effect of promoting labor organization in services, where unions have heretofore made limited progress. The only way for employees to combat employers’ monopsony power is to organize their way to becoming a monopoly supplier of labor. Regulatory And Legal Trends Over the last four decades, unions have endured a near-constant drubbing from state capitols, federal agencies and the courts, as union and labor protections have been under siege from all sides. Since the air traffic controllers’ disastrous strike, labor’s regulatory and legal fortunes have most closely resembled the competitive fortunes of the Harlem Globetrotters’ beleaguered opposition. But the regulatory and legal tide has been such a huge benefit for management since the beginning of the Reagan administration that it cannot continue to maintain its pace. Employees and employers need each other, and their tether can only be stretched so far before it starts pulling them back together. Investors seem to assume that it will, however, to the extent that they think about it at all. It stands to reason that employers may be similarly complacent. We will look more closely at the presidential election and its potential consequences in Part 3, but labor concerns and inequality are capturing more attention, even among Republicans. With Republicans’ inclination to side with business only able to go in one direction, the chances are good that it has peaked. The Labor-Management Rubber Band For all of the romantic allure of labor’s battles with management in the Colosseum era, employees and employers have a deeply symbiotic relationship. One can’t exist without the other, and pursuing total victory in negotiations is folly. Even too many incremental wins can prove ruinous, as the UAW discovered to its chagrin in 2008. A half-century of generous compensation and stultifying work rules saddled Detroit automakers with a burden that would have put them out of business had the federal government not intervened. Table 1Average Salaries Of Public School Teachers By State Labor Strikes Back, Part 2: Where Strikes Come From And Who Wins Them Labor Strikes Back, Part 2: Where Strikes Come From And Who Wins Them We think of labor and management as being linked by a tether with a finite range. Since neither side can thrive for long if the other side is suffering, the tether pulls the two sides closer together when the gap between them threatens to become too wide. When labor does too well for too long at management’s expense, profit margins shrink and the company’s viability as a going concern is threatened. When management does too well, deteriorating living standards drive the best employees away, undermining productivity and profitability. Before the low-paying entity’s work force becomes a listless dumping ground for other firms’ castoffs, it may rise up and strike out of desperation. Teachers’ unions might have appeared to be setting themselves up for a fall in 2018 by illegally striking in staunchly conservative West Virginia, Oklahoma and Arizona, but desperate times call for desperate measures. Per the National Education Association’s data for the 2017-18 academic year, average public school teacher pay in West Virginia ranked 50th among the 50 states and the District of Columbia, Oklahoma ranked 49th and Arizona ranked 45th (Table 1). Adjusting the nominal salaries for cost disparities across states, West Virginia placed 41st, Oklahoma 44th and Arizona 48th. Given that real teacher salaries had declined by 8% and 9% since 2009-10 in West Virginia and Arizona, respectively, the labor-management rubber band had stretched nearly to the breaking point. Consolidating The Macro Message Parties to negotiations derive leverage from the availability of substitutes. When alternative employment opportunities are prevalent, workers have a lot of leverage, because they can credibly threaten to avail themselves of them. Teaching is a skill that transfers easily, and every state has a public school system, so teachers in low-salary states have a wealth of ready alternatives. The converse is true for low-salary states; despite much warmer temperatures, it is unlikely that teachers from top-quintile states will be willing to take a 25-33% cost-of-living-adjusted pay cut to decamp to Arizona (Table 2). Table 2Cost Of Living-Adjusted Public School Teacher Salaries By State Labor Strikes Back, Part 2: Where Strikes Come From And Who Wins Them Labor Strikes Back, Part 2: Where Strikes Come From And Who Wins Them It is easy to see from Figure 2 why management has had the upper hand. Economic concentration and the legal and regulatory climate have increasingly favored it for decades. The immediate future seems poised to favor labor, however, as the legal and regulatory climate cannot get materially better for employers, and the labor-management rubber band has become so stretched that some sort of mean reversion is inevitable. We have high conviction that labor’s one current advantage, a tight labor market, will remain in its column over the next year or two. On a forward-looking basis, the macro factors as a whole are poised to support labor. Figure 2Macro Drivers Of Negotiating Leverage Labor Strikes Back, Part 2: Where Strikes Come From And Who Wins Them Labor Strikes Back, Part 2: Where Strikes Come From And Who Wins Them ​​​​​​​ Takeaways After discussing this Special Report series with clients, we realized our views could easily be misinterpreted. We are not calling for an imminent union revival that drives wages higher across industries. To be clear, we think it is more likely than not that the labor movement in the United States will remain weak relative to its 1950s to 1970s heyday. We do think, however, that the probability that unions could rise up to exert the leverage that accrues to workers in a tight labor market is considerably larger than the great majority of investors perceive. Alpha – market-beating return – arises from surprises. An investor captures excess returns when s/he successfully anticipates something that the consensus does not. If the disparity involves a trivial outcome, then any excess return is likely to be trivial, but if the outcome is significant, the investor who zigged when the rest of the market zagged stands to separate him/herself from the pack. Management has been in the driver's seat, but the factors that have kept it there have a high risk of reversing. We think the outcome of a shift in leverage from employers to employees would be very large indeed. We would expect that aggregate wage gains of 4% or higher would quickly drive the Fed to impose restrictive monetary policy settings, eventually inducing the next recession and the end of the bull markets in equities, credit and property. A union revival may be a low-probability event, but it would have considerable impact on markets and the economy. Given our conviction that the probability, albeit low, is much greater than investors expect, we think the subject is well worth sustained attention. We will examine public opinion and its effect on elected officials and the courts in Part 3, which will conclude our examination of labor-management dynamics. We will publish that installment on February 3rd; next week we will publish a joint US Investment Strategy – US Bond Strategy Special Report on commercial real estate, lead-authored by Jennifer Lacombe.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 We will discuss public opinion, and its impact on elected officials and courts, in Part 3. 2 Please see the January 13, 2020 US Investment Strategy Special Report, “Labor Strikes Back, Part 1: An Investor’s Guide To US Labor History,” available at www.bcaresearch.com. 3 A monopsony is a market with a single buyer, akin to a monopoly, which is a market with only one seller. 4 Please see the July 2019 Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, “The Productivity Puzzle: Competition Is The Missing Ingredient,” available at bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The balance of power in US labor negotiations has shifted infrequently in the industrial age: Management completely dominated labor before the New Deal, which gave rise to a 45-year labor golden age that lasted until the Reagan revolution and globalization put employers firmly back in control. Employees rarely make gains without sympathetic elected officials and judges: The New Deal was a watershed in labor relations history because it granted workers legal protections that leveled the playing field with employers. Successful strikes beget strikes: Momentum matters in labor negotiations. One union’s win may embolden other unions to strike, blazing a path for further gains by demonstrating that the price of labor peace has risen. The pendulum may be swinging back in labor’s favor: Unions still face formidable headwinds in Washington, DC and state capitals, but a run of successful strikes may signal that rumors of the labor movement's demise have been exaggerated. Feature Where will inflation come from, and when will it arrive? An investor who answers these questions will have advance notice of the end of the expansion and the bull markets in equities and credit. Per our base-case scenario, the expansion won’t end until monetary policy settings become restrictive, and the Fed won’t pursue restrictive policy unless inflation pressures force its hand. Inured by a decade of specious warnings that “money printing” would let the inflation genie out of the bottle, investors are skeptical that inflation will ever re-emerge. The inflation backdrop has become much more supportive in the last few years, however, upon the closing of the output gap, and the stimulus-driven jolt in aggregate demand. Output gaps in other major economies will have to narrow further (Chart 1) for global goods inflation to gain traction, and mild inflation elsewhere in the G7 (Chart 2) suggests that goods prices are not about to surge. Chart 1There's Still Enough Spare Capacity ... There's Still Enough Spare Capacity ... There's Still Enough Spare Capacity ... Chart 2... To Restrain Global Goods Inflation ... To Restrain Global Goods Inflation ... To Restrain Global Goods Inflation Services are not so easily imported, though, and services inflation is a more fully domestic phenomenon. Rising wages could be the spur for services inflation, and the labor market is tight on several counts: the unemployment rate is at a 50-year low; the broader definition of unemployment, also encompassing discouraged workers and the underemployed, reached a new all-time (25-year) low in December; the JOLTS job openings and quits rates at or near their all-time (19-year) highs; and the NFIB survey and a profusion of anecdotal reports suggest that employers are having a hard time finding quality candidates. With labor demand exceeding supply, wages for nonsupervisory workers have duly risen (Chart 3). Gains in other compensation series have been muted, however, and investors have come to yawn and roll their eyes at any mention of the Phillips Curve. Chart 3Wage Growth Is Solid, But It's Lost A Good Bit Of Momentum Wage Growth Is Solid, But It's Lost A Good Bit Of Momentum Wage Growth Is Solid, But It's Lost A Good Bit Of Momentum Perhaps it’s not the Phillips Curve that’s broken, but workers’ spirits. A supine organized labor movement could explain why the Phillips Curve itself is so flat. As the old saying goes, if you don’t ask, you know what you’re going to get, and beleaguered unions and their memberships, cowed by two decades of woe coinciding with China’s entry into the WTO (Chart 4), have been afraid to ask. Strikes are the most potent weapon in labor’s arsenal; if it can’t credibly wield them, it is sure to be steamrolled. Chart 4Globalization Has Been Unkind To Labor Globalization Has Been Unkind To Labor Globalization Has Been Unkind To Labor Two years of high-profile strike victories by public- and private-sector employees may suggest that the sands have begun to shift, however, and inspired our examination of labor’s muscle. This first installment of a multi-part Special Report focuses on the history of US labor relations, with an eye toward identifying themes that shape relative bargaining power. We will subsequently examine the factors influencing the propensity for labor and management militancy, with a focus on where wages are headed in the near future. The Colosseum Era (1800-1933) We view US industrial labor history as having three distinct phases. We label the first, which lasted until the New Dealers took over Washington, the Colosseum era (Figure 1), because labor and management were about as evenly matched as the Christians and the lions in ancient Rome. Uprisings in textile mills, steel factories, and mines were swiftly squelched, often violently. Management was able to draw on public resources like the police and state National Guard units to put down strikes, or was able to unleash its own security or ad hoc militia forces on strikers or union organizers without state interference. The public, staunchly opposed to anarchists and Communists, generally sided with employers. Figure 1Significant Events In The Colosseum Era Labor Strikes Back, Part 1: An Investor’s Guide To US Labor History Labor Strikes Back, Part 1: An Investor’s Guide To US Labor History Unions won some small-bore victories during the period, but they nearly all proved fleeting as companies regularly took back concessions and public officials and courts failed to enforce the loose patchwork of laws aimed at ameliorating industrial workers’ plight. Labor inevitably suffered the brunt of the casualties when conflicts turned violent. Workers were hardly choir boys, and seem to have initiated violence as often as employers’ proxies, but they were inevitably outgunned, especially when police, guardsmen or soldiers were marshaled against them. Societal norms have changed dramatically since the Colosseum era, but the lore of past “battles” encourages an us-versus-them union mentality that occasionally colors negotiations. The UAW Era (1933-1981) Established presumptions about the employer-employee relationship were upended when FDR entered the White House. Viewing labor organization as a way to ease national suffering, New Dealers passed the Wagner Act to grant private-sector workers unionization and collective bargaining rights, and created the National Labor Relations Board to ensure that employers respected them. The Wagner Act greatly aided labor organization, enabling unions to build up the heft to engage with employers on an equal footing. Unionized workers still fought an uphill battle in the wake of the Depression, but tactics like the sit-down strike (Box) produced some early labor victories that paved the way for more. The UAW signed a similar accord with Chrysler immediately after the Flint sit-down strike, and the CIO (the UAW’s parent union) swiftly reached an agreement with US Steel that significantly improved steelworkers’ pay and hours. Labor unions’ path wasn’t always smooth – Ford fiercely resisted unionization until 1941, and ten protesters were killed, and dozens injured, by Chicago police at a peaceful Memorial Day demonstration in support of strikers against the regional steelmakers that did not follow US Steel’s conciliatory lead – but it generally trended upward after the New Deal (Figure 2). From the 1950 signing of the Treaty of Detroit, a remarkably generous five-year agreement between the UAW and the Big Three automakers, the UAW ran roughshod over the US auto industry for three-plus decades. The New Deal’s encouragement of unionization had given labor a fighting chance, and was the foundation on which all of its subsequent gains were built. Figure 2Significant Events In The UAW Era Labor Strikes Back, Part 1: An Investor’s Guide To US Labor History Labor Strikes Back, Part 1: An Investor’s Guide To US Labor History Box David Topples Goliath: The Flint Sit-Down Strike The broad mass of factory workers had not been organized to any meaningful degree before the New Deal, and the United Auto Workers (UAW) was not formed until 1935. Despite federal protections, the fledgling UAW had to conduct its operations covertly, lest its members face employer reprisals. At the end of 1936, when it took on GM, only one in seven GM employees was a dues-paying member. The strike began the night of December 30th when workers in two of GM’s Flint auto body plants sat down at their posts, ignoring orders to return to work. The sit-down action was more effective than a conventional strike because it prevented GM from simply replacing the workers with strikebreakers. It also made GM think twice about attempting to remove them by force, lest valuable equipment be damaged. GM was unsure how to dislodge the workers after a court injunction it obtained on January 2nd went nowhere once the UAW publicized that the presiding judge held today’s equivalent of $4 million in GM shares. It turned off the heat in one of the plants on January 11th, before police armed with tear gas and riot guns stormed it. The police were rebuffed by strikers who threw bottles, rocks, and car parts from the plant’s upper windows while spraying torrents of water from its fire hoses. No one died in the melee, but the strike was already front-page news across the country, and the attack helped the strikers win public sympathy. Michigan’s governor responded by calling out the National Guard to prevent a rematch, shielding the strikers from any further violence. The strike was finally settled on February 11th when GM accepted the UAW as the workers’ exclusive bargaining agent and agreed not to hinder its attempts to organize its work force. The Reagan-Thatcher Era (1981 - ??) The disastrous strike by the air traffic controllers’ union (PATCO) is the watershed event that heralded the end of unions’ golden age. Strikes by federal employees were illegal, so PATCO broke the law when it went on strike in April 1981, spurning the generous contract terms its leaders had negotiated with the Reagan administration. PATCO had periodically held the flow of air traffic hostage throughout the seventies to extract concessions from its employer, earning the lasting enmity of airlines, government officials and the public. Other unions were aghast at PATCO’s openly contemptuous attitude, and declined to support it with sympathy strikes, while conservatives blasted the new administration behind closed doors for the profligacy of its initial PATCO offer. President Reagan therefore had an unfettered opportunity to make an example out of the controllers, and he seized it, firing those who failed to return to work within 48 hours and banning them from ever returning to government employment. A fed-up public supported the president’s hard line, and employers and unions got the message that a new sheriff was in town. His deputies were not inclined to enforce labor-friendly statues, or investigate labor grievances, with much vigor, and they would not necessarily look the other way when public sector unions illegally struck. Unions also found themselves on the wrong side of the growing disaffection with bureaucracy that was bound up with the push for deregulation. The globalization wave further eroded labor’s power. Unskilled workers in the developed world would be hammered by the flat world that allowed people, capital and information to hopscotch around the globe. Eight years of a Democratic presidency brought no relief, as the “Third Way” Clinton administration embraced the free-market tide (Chart 5), and the unionized share of employees has receded all the way back to mid-thirties levels (Chart 6). Chart 5Inequality Took Off ... Inequality Took Off ... Inequality Took Off ... Chart 6... As Unions Lost Their Way ... As Unions Lost Their Way ... As Unions Lost Their Way A Fourth Phase? A handful of data points do not make a trend, especially in a series that stands out for its persistence, but the bargaining power pendulum could be shifting. Public school teachers won improbable statewide victories with illegal strikes in three highly conservative states in the first half of 2018 (Table 1); a canny hotel workers union steered its members to big gains in their contract negotiations with Marriott in the second half of 2018; and the UAW bested General Motors and the rest of the Big Three automakers last fall. Unions may have more bargaining power than markets and employers realize, and they could be on the cusp of becoming more aggressive in flexing it. The next installment(s) in this series will examine the factors determining whether or not unions will become more assertive and the likelihood that more assertive bargaining would meet with success. Table 1Teachers' Unions Conquer The Red States Labor Strikes Back, Part 1: An Investor’s Guide To US Labor History Labor Strikes Back, Part 1: An Investor’s Guide To US Labor History Takeaways There is not sufficient space to explore those factors in this installment, but we conclude by highlighting two key themes that emerge from our historical review. US industrial history makes it clear that employees are unlikely to gain ground if government sides with employers. Employees no longer have to fear that the state will look the other way while strikers are beaten, or fail to prosecute those responsible for loss of life, but they face especially long odds when the government is inclined to favor employers. Its thumb weighs heavily on the scale when it drags its feet on enforcement; cuts funding to agencies policing workplace standards; and appoints agency or department heads that are conditioned to see things solely from employers’ perspective, shaped by long careers in management. Successful strikes beget strikes, and the converse is also true. Withholding their labor is employees’ most powerful weapon, and when employers can’t replace them cheaply and easily, strikes often succeed. Striking is frightening for an individual, however, because it cuts off his or her income (or sharply reduces it, if the striker’s union has a strike fund) until the strike is over. If the strike fails, the employee may find him/herself blacklisted, impairing his/her long-term income prospects on top of his/her short-term losses. Prudent workers should therefore strike sparingly, with the due consideration that a prudent poker player exercises before going all-in. When other unions facing comparable conditions pull off successful strikes, it makes it much easier for another union to take the leap, in addition to making success more likely, provided conditions truly are comparable. “Before they occur, successful strikes appear impossible. Afterward, they seem almost inevitable .”1 The retrospective inevitability stiffens the spine of potential strikers who observe successful outcomes, and raises the bar for action among potential strikers who observe failures. “Just as defeats in struggle lead to demoralization and resignation, victories tend to beget more victories .”2 Public opinion matters just as surely as momentum, and it proved decisive in the Flint sit-down strike and in the air traffic controllers’ showdown with President Reagan. According to Gallup’s annual poll, Americans now regard unions as favorably as they did before Thatcher and Reagan came to power (Chart 7). We will dive more deeply into the topic in our next installment, as we probe labor market conditions for insight into the direction of inflation, and its implications for Fed policy, the business cycle and markets. Chart 7Could Unions Make A Comeback? Could Unions Make A Comeback? Could Unions Make A Comeback?   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Blanc, Eric. Red State Revolt: The Teachers’ Strike Wave and Working-Class Politics, Verso: New York (2019), p. 204. 2 Ibid, p. 209.

Dear Client, This Special Report is the full transcript and slides of a presentation I recently gave at the London School of Economics symposium: 'Will I Work For AI, Or Will AI Work For Me?' The presentation pulls together several years of research analyzing the impact of current technological advances on work, the economy and society. I hope you find the presentation insightful and provocative, especially the narrative surrounding Slide 12. Dhaval Joshi Slide 2 The Impact Of AI: Will We Be Able To Work In The Future? The Impact Of AI: Will We Be Able To Work In The Future? Feature Good afternoon Thank you very much for the invitation to speak here at the London School of Economics. The specific question you asked me was: will we be able to work in the future? (Slide 1). To which my answer is yes, an emphatic yes. I'm very optimistic that we will be able to work in the future. And one reason I'm saying this is, imagine that we had this symposium 100 years ago. I suspect we might have had exactly the same fears that we have right now (Slide 2). Slide 1 The Impact Of AI: Will We Be Able To Work In The Future? The Impact Of AI: Will We Be Able To Work In The Future? Slide 2 The Impact Of AI: Will We Be Able To Work In The Future? The Impact Of AI: Will We Be Able To Work In The Future? Specifically, at the start of the 20th century, about 35% of all jobs were on farms and another 6% were domestic servants. At the time, you could probably also have said, "Well, these jobs aren't going to exist." More or less half of the jobs that existed at that time were going to disappear - and disappear they did. So we'd have thought there would be mass unemployment. Of course, there wasn't mass unemployment, because just as jobs were destroyed, we had an equivalent job creation (Slide 3). For example, at the start of the 20th century, less than 5% of people worked in professional and technical jobs. But by the end of the century, these jobs employed a quarter of the workforce. I guess what I'm saying is that we're very conscious of job destruction because we can see existing jobs being destroyed. But we're not very conscious of job creation, because in real time, it's difficult to visualize or imagine where these new jobs will be. In essence, what we saw in the 20th century was one major segment of employment basically collapsed from very significant to insignificant. While another segment surged from insignificant to very significant (Slide 4). Slide 3 The Impact Of AI: Will We Be Able To Work In The Future? The Impact Of AI: Will We Be Able To Work In The Future? Slide 4 The Impact Of AI: Will We Be Able To Work In The Future? The Impact Of AI: Will We Be Able To Work In The Future? As you all know, there is an economic thesis that underlies this. It's called Say's Law, derived by French economist Jean-Baptiste Say in 1803. In simple terms, it says that new supply creates new demand. Think about it like this: why would you replace a human with a machine? You would only do that if it increases your productivity, right? Otherwise, it does not make sense to replace a human with any sort of machine, including AI. But because you have increased productivity, you then have extra income to spend on new goods and services. Now if those goods and services are being supplied by a machine, then you can redeploy humans to satiate new desires, desires that do not even exist at the time. In economic terms, the producer of X - as long as his products are demanded - is able to buy Y (Slide 5). The question is, what is Y? Y is the new product or service. Let me give you some examples (Slide 6). In the 19th century, we had the advent of railways. And then someone thought. "Hang on a minute. We have this way of moving things around much faster, and we've got all these people who live hundreds of miles from the coast who might want to eat fresh fish." So this was the birth of the frozen food industry. But you could not have the frozen food industry without railways. What I'm saying is that entrepreneurs will seize the new technology to satiate a desire. Or even create a new desire because maybe the people in the middle of the country never thought they could eat fresh sea fish. Until someone came along and said, "you can eat fresh fish now." Slide 5 The Impact Of AI: Will We Be Able To Work In The Future? The Impact Of AI: Will We Be Able To Work In The Future? Slide 6 The Impact Of AI: Will We Be Able To Work In The Future? The Impact Of AI: Will We Be Able To Work In The Future? Another example is, as technology improved the health and longevity of your teeth someone thought. "Well, hang on a minute. Maybe there's a desire to make teeth look beautiful." And we created this whole new industry called the dental cosmetics industry. We know this because prior to the 1960s, there was no job called dental technician or dental hygienist. A third example is, let's say that we have more advanced healthcare and pharmaceuticals, so humans are living longer and healthier lives. Well, then you can sort of ask. "Hang on a minute. Don't you want your dog to live the same long and healthy life that you're living?" And this is behind the explosion of the pet care industry that we're seeing at the moment. So while one segment of the economy will employ less, a new segment will come along to replace it. In the 20th century we saw farm work disappearing but professional work rising. Today, we are seeing manufacturing and driving jobs disappearing but healthcare work rising (Slide 7). Which does raise a pretty obvious question (Slide 8). Is there anything really different this time around? Slide 7 The Impact Of AI: Will We Be Able To Work In The Future? The Impact Of AI: Will We Be Able To Work In The Future? Slide 8 The Impact Of AI: Will We Be Able To Work In The Future? The Impact Of AI: Will We Be Able To Work In The Future? Well, the answer is yes, there is a subtle but crucial difference this time around. To see the difference, we have to look more closely at where jobs are being destroyed, and where they are being created. As you can see, the mega-sectors losing a lot of jobs are manufacturing, the auto industry, and finance (Slide 9). While on the other side of the ledger, we have job creation in health, social work and education. But now, let's look in a little more detail. Where, specifically, are the jobs being created? For this we have to look at the United States data which is much more granular than in Europe. Here are the top five subsectors of job creation this decade (Slide 10). At the top of the list is food services and drinking places, which is just a euphemistic way of describing bartenders, waitresses, and pizza delivery boys. We also have a lot of new administrative jobs and care workers. What is the common link in this job creation? Answer: these are predominantly low-income jobs. Slide 9 The Impact Of AI: Will We Be Able To Work In The Future? The Impact Of AI: Will We Be Able To Work In The Future? Slide 10 The Impact Of AI: Will We Be Able To Work In The Future? The Impact Of AI: Will We Be Able To Work In The Future? So it is true that we have an enormous amount of job creation in the last decade or so, and the policymakers keep boasting about it, they say, "Well look, the unemployment rate in the U.S. is at a record low, the unemployment rate in the UK is at a record low, the unemployment rate in Germany is at a record low. We're creating loads and loads of jobs." The trouble is that these are predominantly low-income jobs. Meanwhile the job destruction is in middle-income jobs in manufacturing and finance. This means what we're seeing in the labour market is called a 'negative composition effect' - a hollowing out of middle incomes. So while we're getting loads and loads of job creation, it is not translating into wage inflation at an aggregate level. I think one of the reasons is a concept called Moravec's paradox. Professor Hans Moravec is an expert in robotics and Artificial Intelligence, and he noticed this paradox (Slide 11). He said, "Look. For AI, the things that we think are difficult are actually easy." By easy, he means they're doable. Let me give you some specific examples. Say someone could speak five languages fluently and translate between them at ease. We would think that person is a genius, a real rare specimen, and the economy would value this person extremely highly, probably pay that person hundreds of thousands of pounds at a minimum. But actually, AI can translate across five languages quite easily, and even something like Google Translate, which we all use, does a reasonably good first stab at translating from one language to another. Slide 11 The Impact Of AI: Will We Be Able To Work In The Future? The Impact Of AI: Will We Be Able To Work In The Future? Or consider something like insurance underwriting. Pricing an insurance premium from lots of data on a risk. AI can do that extremely well, much better than a human can. Or medical diagnosis. Figuring out what's wrong with a patient from very detailed medical data. Again, AI beats humans hands down on that. What I'm saying is, these skills that we thought were difficult transpired not to be that difficult for AI, because they just amount to narrow-frame pattern recognition and repetition of algorithms. Whereas, the second part of Moravec's paradox is that AI finds the easy things very hard. Things that we think are really innate, we don't even give them a second thought like walking up some stairs, cleaning a table, moving objects around, and cleaning around them. Actually, AI finds these things incredibly difficult, almost impossible. We have a false sense of what is difficult and what is easy. The main reason is that the things that we find innate took millions and millions of years of human brain evolution for us to find them innate. And as AI is in essence trying to replicate the human brain, only now are we recognizing that things that we find innate are actually incredibly complex. If it took millions and millions of years to evolve the sensorimotor skills that allow us to walk up some stairs, recognize subtle emotional signals, and respond appropriately, then obviously AI is going to find it very, very difficult to replicate those innate human skills. Conversely, the brain's ability to do calculus, construct a grammatical structure for a language, or play chess only evolved relatively recently. So AI can do them very easily. Which brings me to quite a profound thought. If there's one thing that I want you to remember from this presentation it is this (Slide 12). Might we have completely misvalued the human brain? Might we have grossly overvalued things that are actually quite easy? And might we have undervalued things which are actually very, very difficult? And what AI is now doing is correcting this huge error. In which case, the next decade could be extremely disruptive as AI corrects this economic misvaluation of our skills. Slide 12 The Impact Of AI: Will We Be Able To Work In The Future? The Impact Of AI: Will We Be Able To Work In The Future? This might also explain the mystery as to why there is no wage inflation when the Phillips curve says there should be. The Phillips curve makes a simple relationship between the unemployment rate and wage pressures. And the folks at the Federal Reserve and Bank of England, they're sort of getting really perplexed. They're saying, "Look, unemployment is so low. Where is this wage inflation? It's going to kick in any time now." In fact, there's a bit of a paradox going on. For the people who are continuously employed in the same job, there has been pretty good wage inflation - at sort of three, four percent (Slide 13). But when you take the negative composition effect into account, then suddenly there's this big gap because what's happening is that the well-paid jobs are disappearing to be replaced by lower-paid jobs. So even if you give the bartender making thirty thousand a big pay rise to thirty-five thousand. Even if you hire two of them, but you're losing a finance job paying over a hundred thousand, then at the aggregate level, you won't see much wage inflation. And this problem, I think, continues for the next few years, minimum. It means that you will not get the wage pressures that a lot of economists think you're going to get from the low unemployment rate. Because you have to look at the quality of the jobs as well as the quantity. I think there is another disturbing impact from a societal perspective. Look again at where the jobs are being lost and where they're being created, and look at the percentage of male employees (Slide 14). Job destruction is occurring in sectors that are male-dominated, whereas job creation is occurring in sectors that are female-dominated. Slide 13 The Impact Of AI: Will We Be Able To Work In The Future? The Impact Of AI: Will We Be Able To Work In The Future? Slide 14 The Impact Of AI: Will We Be Able To Work In The Future? The Impact Of AI: Will We Be Able To Work In The Future? AI is good at narrow-frame pattern recognition and repetition of algorithms and functions - jobs like driving, which are typically male-dominated. Whereas jobs that require emotional input, emotional understanding, and empathy in the 'caring sectors' are typically female-dominated. So if you're a male, you're in trouble. You're in a lot of trouble. Obviously, there'll be re-training, so all the guys who were driving trucks will have to retrain as nurses, or as essential carers. But if you're a female, things are looking okay. You can see that in the data (Slide 15). Female labour force participation is in a very clear uptrend. Male participation is flat to down. This varies by country by country, and in the U.S., it's catastrophic for males, especially young males. Young male participation in the U.S. is really falling off a cliff at the moment. I think the other thing to say from a societal perspective is that the so-called 'Superstar Economy' is booming - both superstar individuals and superstar firms. One way of seeing this is in this index called 'the cost of living extremely well' calculated every year by Forbes (Slide 16). Whereas the ordinary CPI includes the cost of bread and milk, the CPI index for the extremely rich includes the cost of Petrossian caviar and Dom Perignon champagne. And a Learjet 70, a Sikorsky S-76D helicopter. I think there's a pedigree racehorse in there too. Anyway, we're seeing the CPI for the extremely rich rising at a dramatically faster pace than the CPI for society as a whole. So it would seem that superstar individuals and superstar firms are really thriving. Slide 15 The Impact Of AI: Will We Be Able To Work In The Future? The Impact Of AI: Will We Be Able To Work In The Future? Slide 16 The Impact Of AI: Will We Be Able To Work In The Future? The Impact Of AI: Will We Be Able To Work In The Future? Let's explain this dynamic in terms of a superstar we all recognise - Roger Federer. Roger Federer was unknown initially, but as he went up the tennis rankings and became a superstar, his income grew exponentially. The other aspect is, how long can he stay a superstar? Because all superstars are eventually displaced by a new superstar. So there's two aspects to the dynamics of superstar incomes (Slide 17). First, how exponential is your income growth? And second, how long do you stay a superstar? What I'm saying is that the rise of AI, by hollowing out the middle jobs, actually allows a few superstars to have this exponential rise in their income. Let's think about it in terms of the legal profession. The top lawyer will be in huge demand. Technology really boosts him. Not just AI, but things like the internet, the fact that social media will reinforce his position, whereby everyone will know who he is. Even if he can't service you directly, he will have a team with his brand on it. And he can stay there for longer before he is displaced. So this is the mechanism by which technology can increase income inequality by hollowing out the middle. In the legal profession, the assistant lawyer who just checks a document for simple legal principle, well the machine can do that. But the guy who knows all the oddities, who knows all the loopholes that can win you the case, the machine won't be able to do that. Essentially what I'm saying is that the technological revolution - it's not just AI, it's technology in aggregate, including the internet and social media, and so on - it increases the rate of income growth for a few superstar individuals and firms. And it increases their longevity (Slide 18). And these are the two drivers for the Pareto distribution of incomes. You can actually go through the mathematics of this to show that it does increase the polarization of incomes. Slide 17 The Impact Of AI: Will We Be Able To Work In The Future? The Impact Of AI: Will We Be Able To Work In The Future? Slide 18 The Impact Of AI: Will We Be Able To Work In The Future? The Impact Of AI: Will We Be Able To Work In The Future? Let's sum up (Slide 19). First of all, yes, we will be able to work in the future. I don't think there's any doubt about that because there will be new jobs created, the nature of which we can only guess because we're going to get new industries to satiate our new desires. However, in the coming years, middle-income work will suffer high disruption because of Moravec's Paradox. Some things that we thought were difficult are actually quite easy for AI. But things like gardening, plumbing, nursing, and childcare are very difficult for machines to replicate. Which means that low-income work will suffer much less disruption and, of course, low-income work will get paid better over time - though the gap is so large at the moment that it's preventing overall wage inflation from kicking in. And that, I think, will persist for the next few years at a minimum. Slide 19 The Impact Of AI: Will We Be Able To Work In The Future? The Impact Of AI: Will We Be Able To Work In The Future? Men are going to suffer much more disruption than women because of the nature of the job destruction versus the job creation. And the final point is that superstars will thrive. All of this has a lot of implications for how we respond as a society, and maybe we will need some support mechanisms in this period of disruption. I think the most intense disruption will be in the next decade. After that we will reach a new equilibrium once we have actually corrected this misvaluation of the brain, this misvaluation of what it is that makes us truly human. Thank you very much. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com