Russia & EM Europe

Highlights President Trump’s support among Republicans and lack of smoking gun evidence will prevent his removal from office. Trade risk will increase if Trump’s approval benefits from impeachment proceedings and the U.S. economy is resilient. Political risk on the European mainland is falling. However, watch out for Russia and Turkey, and short 10-year versus 2-year gilts. A new election in Spain may not resolve the political deadlock. Book gains on our Hong Kong Hang Seng short. Feature Impeachment proceedings against U.S. President Donald Trump, the brazen Iranian attack on Saudi Arabia, the persistence of trade war risk, and additional weak data from China and Europe all suggest that investors should remain risk averse for now. Specifically, Trump’s impeachment could drive him to seek distractions abroad – abandoning the tactical retreat from aggressive foreign and trade policy that had only just begun. Geopolitical risk outside of the hot spots is falling, especially in Europe. The risk of a no-deal Brexit has collapsed in line with our expectations. Italy and Germany have pleased markets by providing some fiscal stimulus sans populism. In France, President Emmanuel Macron’s popularity is recovering. And – as we discuss in this report – Spain’s election will not add any significant fear factor. In what follows we introduce a new GeoRisk Indicator, review the signal from all of our indicators over the past month, and then focus on Spain. Fear U.S. Politics, Not Impeachment The House Democrats’ decision to impeach Trump gives investors another reason to remain cautious on risk assets. Why not be bullish? It is true that impeachment without smoking gun evidence increases Trump’s chances of reelection, which is market positive relative to a Democratic victory. President Trump is virtually invulnerable to Democratic impeachment measures as long as Republicans continue to support him at a 91% rate (Chart 1). Senators will not defect in these circumstances, so Trump will not be removed from office. Trump is invulnerable to impeachment measures as long as GOP support remains high. Moreover the transcript of his phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy did not produce a bombshell: there is no explicit quid pro quo in which President Trump suggests he will withhold military aid to Ukraine in exchange for an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden’s and his son Hunter’s doings involving Ukraine. Any wrongdoing is therefore debatable, pending further evidence. This includes evidence beyond the “whistleblower’s complaint,” which suggests that the Trump team attempted to stifle the transcript of the aforementioned phone call. The point is that the grassroots GOP and Senate are the final arbiters of the debate. The problem is that scandal and impeachment will still likely feed equity market volatility (Chart 2). The House Democrats could turn up new evidence now that they are fully focused on impeachment and hearing from whistleblowers in the intelligence community. Chart 1GOP Not Yet Willing To Impeach Trump Impeachment, Trade War, And A Sojourn To Spain – GeoRisk Update: September 27, 2019 Impeachment, Trade War, And A Sojourn To Spain – GeoRisk Update: September 27, 2019 Impeachment also has a negative market impact via the Democratic Party’s primary election. Elizabeth Warren has not dislodged Biden in the early Democratic Primary yet. Chart 2Impeachment Proceedings Likely To Raise Vol Impeachment Proceedings Likely To Raise Vol Impeachment Proceedings Likely To Raise Vol If she does, it will have a sizable negative impact on equity markets, as President Trump will still be only slightly favored to win reelection. Under any circumstances, this election will be extremely close, it has significant implications for fiscal policy and regulation, and therefore it will create a lot of uncertainty between now and November 2020. The whistleblower episode has if anything aggravated this uncertainty. As mentioned at the top of the report, if impeachment proceedings ever gain any traction they could drive Trump to seek distractions abroad – abandoning the tactical retreat from aggressive foreign and trade policy that had only just begun. Finally, Trump’s reelection, while more market-friendly than the alternative and likely to trigger a relief rally, is not as bullish as meets the eye. Trump’s policies in the second term will not be as favorable to corporates as in the first term. Unshackled by electoral concerns yet still facing a Democratic House, Trump will not be able to cut taxes but he will be likely to conduct his foreign and trade policy even more aggressively. This is not a market-positive outlook, regardless of whether it is beneficial to U.S. interests over the long run. Bottom Line: President Trump’s approval among Republican voters is the critical data point. Unless they abandon faith, the senate will not turn, and Trump’s support may even go up. But this is not a reason to turn bullish. The coming year will inevitably see a horror show of American political dysfunction that will lead to volatility and potentially escalating conflicts abroad. Introducing … Our Sino-American Trade Risk Indicator This week we introduce a new GeoRisk Indicator for the U.S.-China trade war (Chart 3). The indicator is based on the outperformance of overall developed market equities relative to those same equities that have high exposure to China, and on China’s private credit growth (“total social financing”). As our chart commentary shows, the indicator corresponds with the course of events throughout the trade war. It also correlates fairly well with alternative measures of trade risk, such as the count of key terms in news reports. Chart 3Trade Risk Will Go Up From Here Impeachment, Trade War, And A Sojourn To Spain – GeoRisk Update: September 27, 2019 Impeachment, Trade War, And A Sojourn To Spain – GeoRisk Update: September 27, 2019 As we go to press, our indicator suggests that trade-war related risk is increasing. Over the past month Trump has staged a tactical retreat on foreign and trade policy in order to control economic risks ahead of the election. Our indicator suggests this is now priced. The problem is that Trump’s re-election risk enables China to drive a harder bargain, which is tentatively confirmed by China’s detainment of a FedEx employee (signaling it can trouble U.S. companies) and its cancellation of a tour of farms in Montana and Nebraska. These were not major events but they suggest China smells Trump’s hesitation and is going on the offensive in the negotiations. Principal negotiators are meeting in early October for a highly significant round of talks. If these result in substantive statements of progress – and evidence that the near-finished draft text from April is being completed – they could set up a summit between Presidents Xi Jinping and Donald Trump in November at the APEC summit in Santiago, Chile. At this point we would need to upgrade our 40% chance that a deal is concluded by November 2020. If the talks do not conclude with positive public outcomes then investors should not take it lightly. The Q4 negotiations are possibly the last attempt at a deal prior to the U.S. election. If there is no word of a Trump-Xi summit, it will confirm our pessimistic outlook on the end game. U.S.-China trade talks are unlikely to produce a durable agreement. Ultimately we do not believe that the U.S.-China trade talks will produce a conclusive and durable agreement that substantially removes trade war risk and uncertainty. This is especially the case if financial market and economic pressure – amid global monetary policy easing – is not pressing enough to force policymakers to compromise. But we will watch closely for any signs that Trump’s tactical retreat is surviving the impeachment proceedings and eliciting reciprocation from China, as this would point to a more sanguine outlook. Bottom Line: As long as the president’s approval rating benefits from the Democratic Party’s impeachment proceedings, and the U.S. economy is resilient, as we expect, Trump can avoid any capitulation to a shallow deal with China. Trade risk could go up from here. By the same token, impeachment proceedings could eventually force Trump to change tactics yet again and stake out a much more aggressive posture in foreign affairs. If impeachment gains traction, or a bear market develops, he could become more aggressive than at any stage in his presidency – and this aggression could be directed at China (or Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, or another country). The risk to our view is that China accepts Trump’s trade position in order to win a reprieve for its economy and the two sides agree to a deal at the APEC summit. European Risk Falls, While Russian And Turkish Risk Can Hardly Fall Further Elsewhere our measures of geopolitical risk indicate a decrease in tensions for a number of developed and emerging markets (see Appendix). In Germany, risk can rise a bit from current levels but is mostly contained – this is not the case in the United Kingdom beyond the very short run. In Russia and Turkey, risk can hardly fall further. Take, for starters, Germany, where political risk declined after Chancellor Angela Merkel’s ruling coalition agreed to a 50 billion euro fiscal spending package to battle climate change. This agreement confirms our assessment that while German politics are fundamentally stable, the administration will be reactive rather than proactive in applying stimulus. Europe will have to wait for a global crisis, or a new German government, for a true “game changer” in German fiscal policy. Perhaps the Green Party, which is surging in polls and as such drove Merkel into this climate spending, will enable such a development. But it is too early to say. Meanwhile Merkel’s lame duck years and external factors will prevent political risk from subsiding completely. We see the odds of U.S. car tariffs at no higher than 30%, at least as long as Sino-American tensions persist. By contrast, the United Kingdom’s political risks are not contained despite a marked improvement this month. The Supreme Court’s decision on September 25 to nullify Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s prorogation of parliament drove another nail into the coffin of his threat to pull the country out of the EU without a deal. This was a gambit to extract concessions from the EU that has utterly flopped.1 Since it was the most credible threat of a no-deal exit that is likely to be mounted, its failure should mark a step down in political risk for the U.K. and its neighbors. However, paradoxically, our GeoRisk indicator failed to corroborate the pound’s steep slide throughout the summer and now, as no-deal is closed off, it has stopped falling. The reason is that the pound’s rate of depreciation remained relatively flat over the summer, while U.K. manufacturing PMI – one of the explanatory variables in our indicator – dropped off much faster as global manufacturing plummeted. As a result, our indicator registered this as a decrease in political risk. The world feared recession more than it feared a no-deal Brexit – and this turned out to be the right call by the market. But the situation will reverse if global growth improves and new British elections are scheduled, since the latter could well revive the no-deal exit risk, especially if the Tories are returned with thin majority under a coalition. The truth is that the Brexit saga is far from over and the U.K. faces an election, a possible left-wing government, and ultimately resilient populism once it becomes clear that neither leaving nor staying in the EU will resolve the middle class’s angst. Our long GBP-USD recommendation is necessarily tactical and we will turn sellers at $1.30. In emerging markets, Russia and Turkey have seen political risk fall so low that it is hard to see it falling any further without some political development causing an increase. Based on our latest assessment, Turkey is almost assured to see a spike in risk in the near future. This could happen because of the formation of a domestic political alliance against President Recep Erdogan or because of the increase in external risks centering on the fragile U.S.-Turkey deal on Syria. Tensions with Iran could also produce oil price shocks that weaken the economy and embolden the opposition. As for Russia, our base case is that Russia will continue to focus internal domestic problems to the neglect of foreign objectives, which helps geopolitical risk stay low. With U.S. politics in turmoil and a possible conflict with Iran on the horizon, Moscow has no reason to attract hostile attention to itself. Nevertheless Moscow has proved unpredictable and aggressive throughout the Putin era, it has no real loyalty to Trump yet could fall victim to the Democrats’ wrath, and it has an incentive to fan the flames in the Middle East and Asia Pacific. So to expect geopolitical risk to fall much further is to tempt the fates. Bottom Line: European political risk is falling, but Merkel’s lame duck status and trade war make German risk likely to rise from here despite stable political fundamentals. The United Kingdom still faces generationally elevated political risk despite the happy conclusion of the no-deal risk this summer. Go short 10-year versus 2-year gilts. Russia should remain quiet for now, but Turkey is almost guaranteed to experience a rise in political risk. Spain: Election Could Surprise But Risks Are Low Spanish voters will head to the polls on November 10 for the fourth time in four years after political leaders failed to reach a deal to form a permanent government. The Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE) has served as a caretaker government after winning 123 out of 350 seats in the snap election in April. A new Spanish election will not resolve the current political deadlock. Prime Minister and PSOE leader Pedro Sanchez failed to be confirmed in July, and has since attempted to make a governing deal with the left-wing, anti-establishment party Podemos. However, PSOE is not looking for a full coalition but merely external support to continue governing in the minority. Hence it is only offering Podemos non-ministerial agencies (rather than high-level cabinet positions) in negotiations, leaving Podemos and other parties ready for an election. The outcome of the upcoming election may not differ much from the April election. The Spanish voter is not demanding change. Unemployment and underemployment have been decreasing, and wage growth has been positive since 2014 (Chart 4). In opinion polls, support for the various parties has not shifted significantly (Chart 5, top panel). PSOE is still leading by a considerable gap. Chart 4Spanish Voter Is Not Demanding Change Spanish Voter Is Not Demanding Change Spanish Voter Is Not Demanding Change However, the election will increase uncertainty at an inconvenient time, and it could produce surprises. PSOE’s support has slightly decreased since late July, when negotiations with Podemos started falling apart. Chart 5Not Much Change In Polls... Not Much Change In Polls... Not Much Change In Polls... Even if PSOE and Podemos form a governing pact, their combined popular support is not significantly higher than the combined support for the three main conservative parties. These are the Popular Party, Ciudadanos, and Vox (Chart 5, bottom panel) – which recently showed they can work together by making a governing deal to rule the regional government in Madrid. Chart 6…But Lower Turnout Could Hurt The Left Impeachment, Trade War, And A Sojourn To Spain – GeoRisk Update: September 27, 2019 Impeachment, Trade War, And A Sojourn To Spain – GeoRisk Update: September 27, 2019 The Socialist Party hopes to capture borderline voters from Ciudadanos, namely those who are skeptical towards the party’s right-wing populist shift and hardening stance regarding Catalonia. However, even capturing as many as half of Ciudadanos’ voters would place PSOE support at ~37% – far short of what is needed to form a single-party majority government. Another factor that can hurt PSOE is voter turnout. Spanish voters have been less and less interested in supporting any party at all since the April election. A decrease in turnout would hurt left-wing parties the most, given that voters blame Podemos and PSOE more than PP and Ciudadanos for the failure to form a government (Chart 6). The most likely outcomes are the status quo, or a PSOE-Podemos alliance. But a conservative victory cannot be ruled out. In the former two cases, the implication is slightly more positive fiscal accommodation that is beneficial in the short-term, but at the risk of a loss of reform momentum that has long-term negative implications. To put this into context, Spanish politics remains domestic-oriented, not a threat to European integration. Voters in Spain are some of the most Europhile on the continent, both in terms of the currency and EU membership (Chart 7). Spain is a primary beneficiary of EU budget allocations, along with Italy. Even Spain’s extreme right-wing party Vox is not considered to be “hard euroskeptic.” Within Spain, however, political polarization is a problem. Inequality and social immobility are a concern, if not as extreme as in Italy, the U.K., or the United States. Moreover the Catalan separatist crisis is divisive. While a new Catalonian election is not scheduled until 2022, the pro-independence coalition of the Republican Left of Catalonia and Catalonia Yes has been gaining momentum in the polls, and Ciudadanos’s support plummeted since the party hardened its stance on Catalonia earlier this year (Chart 8). Catalonia is by no means going independent – support for independence in the region peaked in 2013 – but it remains a driving factor in Spanish politics. Chart 7Spaniards Love Europe Spaniards Love Europe Spaniards Love Europe Chart 8Catalonia Is A Divisive Issue Impeachment, Trade War, And A Sojourn To Spain – GeoRisk Update: September 27, 2019 Impeachment, Trade War, And A Sojourn To Spain – GeoRisk Update: September 27, 2019 In the very short term, election paralysis introduces fiscal policy crosswinds. On one hand, regional governments may be forced to cut spending. The regions were expecting to receive EUR 5 billion more than last year, which was promised to be spent in part on healthcare and education. Until a stable (or at least caretaker) government can approve a 2019 budget, the regions will base their 2019 budgets on last year’s numbers, meaning they will have to cut any projected increases in spending. Yet on the other hand, the budget deficit will widen as taxes fail to be collected. In late 2018 Spain approved increases in pensions, civil servants’ salaries, and minimum wage by decree, but any corresponding revenue increases that were to be implemented in the 2019 budget will fail to materialize until government is in place, putting upward pressure on the deficit. Beyond the election the trend should be slightly greater fiscal thrust due to the continental slowdown. Spain has some fiscal room to play with – its budget deficit is projected to decrease to 2% in 2019 and 1.1% in 2020.2 The more conservative estimate by the European Commission forecasts the 2019 and 2020 deficits to be 2.3% and 2%, respectively (Chart 9). This means that Spain can provide roughly 10-15 billion euros worth of additional stimulus in 2020 without so much as hinting at triggering Excessive Deficit Procedures, a welcome change after nearly a decade of austerity. The risk is that Spain’s structural reform momentum could be lost with negative long-term consequences. In 2012 Spain undertook painful labor and pension reforms that underpinned its impressive economic recovery. The economy continues to grow faster than the average among its peers, unemployment has fallen by 12% in the past six years, and export competitiveness has had one of the sharpest recoveries in Europe since 2008 (Chart 10). This recovery has now begun to slow down, and the current political deadlock means that reforms could be rolled back farther than the market prefers. Chart 9Spain Has Some Fiscal Room Spain Has Some Fiscal Room Spain Has Some Fiscal Room This is more likely to be avoided if a surprise occurs and the conservatives come back into power, although that would also mean less accommodative near-term policies. Chart 10Recovery Starting To Slow Recovery Starting To Slow Recovery Starting To Slow Bottom Line: Our geopolitical risk indicator is signaling subdued levels of risk for Spain. This is fitting as the election may not change anything and at any rate the country will remain in an uneasy equilibrium. Politics are fundamentally more stable than in the populist-afflicted developed countries – the U.S., U.K., and Italy. However, an outcome that produces a left-wing government will lead to greater short-term fiscal accommodation at the expense of Spain’s recent outstanding progress on structural reforms. Housekeeping We are booking gains on our Hong Kong Hang Seng short. Unrest is not yet over, but is about to peak as we approach October 1, the National Day of the People’s Republic of China, and Beijing will look to avoid an aggressive intervention.   Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The Supreme Court deemed Johnson’s government’s prorogation of parliament an unlawful frustration of parliament’s role as sovereign lawgiver and government overseer without reasonable justification. The court was larger than usual, with 11 judges, and they ruled unanimously against the prorogation. We had expected the vote at least to be narrow – given the historic uses of prorogation, the fact that parliament still had time to act prior to October 31 Brexit Day, and the prime minister’s historical authority over foreign affairs and treaties. But the Supreme Court has risen to fill the power vacuum created by parliament’s paralysis amid the Brexit saga; it has “quashed” what might have become a neo-Stuart precedent that prime ministers can curtail parliament’s role at important junctures. The pragmatic, near-term consequence is the reduction in the political and economic risks of a no-deal exit; but the long-term consequence may be the rise of the judiciary to greater prominence within Britain’s ever-evolving constitutional system. 2 Please see “Stability Programme Update 2019-2022, Kingdom of Spain,” available at www.ec.europa.eu. U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator U.K.: GEORISK INDICATOR U.K.: GEORISK INDICATOR France: GeoRisk Indicator FRANCE: GEORISK INDICATOR FRANCE: GEORISK INDICATOR Germany: GeoRisk Indicator GERMANY: GEORISK INDICATOR GERMANY: GEORISK INDICATOR Spain: GeoRisk Indicator SPAIN: GEORISK INDICATOR SPAIN: GEORISK INDICATOR Italy: GeoRisk Indicator ITALY: GEORISK INDICATOR ITALY: GEORISK INDICATOR Russia: GeoRisk Indicator RUSSIA: GEORISK INDICATOR RUSSIA: GEORISK INDICATOR Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator TURKEY: GEORISK INDICATOR TURKEY: GEORISK INDICATOR Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator BRAZIL: GEORISK INDICATOR BRAZIL: GEORISK INDICATOR Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator TAIWAN: GEORISK INDICATOR TAIWAN: GEORISK INDICATOR Korea: GeoRisk Indicator KOREA: GEORISK INDICATOR KOREA: GEORISK INDICATOR What's On The Geopolitical Radar? Impeachment, Trade War, And A Sojourn To Spain – GeoRisk Update: September 27, 2019 Impeachment, Trade War, And A Sojourn To Spain – GeoRisk Update: September 27, 2019 Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights So what? Quantifying geopolitical risk just got easier. Why?   In this report we introduce 10 proprietary, market-based indicators of country-level political and geopolitical risk. Featured countries include France, U.K., Germany, Italy, Spain, Russia, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, and Brazil. Other countries, and refinements to these beta-version indicators, will come in due time. We remain committed to qualitative, constraint-based analysis. Our GeoRisk Indicators will help us determine how the market is pricing key risks, so we can decide whether they are understated or overstated. Feature For the past three months we have been tracking a “Witches’ Brew” of political risks that threaten the late-cycle bull market. Some of these risks have abated for the time being: the Fed is on pause, China’s stimulus has surprised to the upside, and Brexit has been delayed. Other risks we have flagged, however, are heating up: Iran And Oil Market Volatility: Surprisingly the Trump administration has chosen not to extend oil sanction waivers on Iran from May 2, putting 1.3 million barrels per day of oil on schedule to be removed from international markets by an unspecified time.  It remains to be seen how rapidly and resolutely the administration will enforce the sanctions on specific allies and partners (Japan, India, Turkey) as well as rivals (China, others). Because the decision coincides with rising production risks from renewed fighting in Libya and regime failure in Venezuela, we expect President Trump to phase in the new enforcement over a period of months, particularly on China and India. But official rhetoric is draconian. Hence the potential for full and immediate enforcement is greater than we thought. In the short term, individual political leaders, and very powerful nations like the United States, can ignore material economic and political constraints. Since the Trump administration’s decision exemplifies this point, geopolitical tail risks will get fatter this year and next. Global oil price volatility and equity market volatility will increase with sanction enforcement actions and retaliation. We would think that Trump’s odds of reelection will marginally suffer, though for now still above 50%, as any full-fledged confrontation with Iran will raise the chances of an oil price-induced recession. U.S.-EU Trade War: Neither the Trump administration nor the U.S. has a compelling interest in imposing Section 232 tariffs on imports of autos and auto parts. Nevertheless the risk of some tariffs remains high – we put it at 35% – because President Trump is legally unconstrained. The decision is technically due by May 18 but Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow has said Trump may adjust the deadline and decide later. Later would make sense given the economic and financial risks of the administration’s decision to ramp up the pressure on Iran.1 But the risk that tariffs will pile onto a weak German and European economy will hang over investors’ heads. U.S.-China Talks Not A Game Changer: The ostensible demand that China cease Iranian oil imports immediately and the stalling of U.S. diplomacy with North Korea are not conducive to concluding a trade deal in May. We have highlighted many times that strategic tensions will persist even if Beijing and Washington quarantine these issues to agree to a short-term trade truce. The June 28-29 G20 meeting in Japan remains the likeliest date for a summit between Presidents Trump and Xi Jinping, but even this timeframe could be too optimistic. Continued uncertainty or a weak deal will fail to satisfy financial markets expecting a very positive outcome.   With a 70% chance that U.S. tariffs on China will not increase this year and, contingent on a U.S.-China deal, only a 35% chance that the U.S. slaps tariffs on German cars, we sound optimistic to some clients. But the Trump administration’s decision on Iran is highly market-relevant and portends greater volatility. We expect to see a geopolitical risk premium creep higher into oil markets as well as a greater risk of “Black Swan” events in strategically critical or oil-producing parts of the Middle East. There is limited research devoted to quantifying geopolitical risk. We are late in the business cycle and President Trump has emphatically decided to increase rather than decrease geopolitical risk. Quantifying Geopolitical Risk Geopolitical analysis has taken a bigger role in investors’ decision-making over the last decade. Surveys show that geopolitical risks rank among global investors’ top concerns overall. In the oft-cited Bank of America Merrill Lynch survey, geopolitical and related issues have dominated the “top tail risk” responses for the past half-decade (Chart 1). In other surveys, the most worrisome short-term risks are mostly political or geopolitical in nature, ranking above socio-economic and environmental risks (Chart 2). Chart 1 Chart 2 Despite this high level of concern, there is limited research devoted to quantifying geopolitical risk. Isolating and measuring the range of risks under this umbrella term remains a challenge. As such, for many investors, geopolitics remains an ad hoc, exogenous factor that is often mentioned but rarely incorporated into portfolio construction. For the past four decades the predominant ways of measuring political or geopolitical risk have been qualitative or semi-qualitative. The Delphi technique, developed on the basis of low-quality data sets in social sciences, relies on pooled expert opinions.2 Independently selected experts are asked to provide risk assessments and their responses are then interpreted by analysts to create a measure of risk. Another semi-qualitative method of measuring geopolitical risk ranks countries according to a set of political and socio-economic variables. These variables – such as governance, political and social stability, corruption, law and order, or formal and informal policies – are extremely important but inherently difficult to quantify.3 These results are useful but suffer from dependency on expert opinion, data quality, and institutional biases. More importantly, these methods are slow to react to breaking events in a rapidly changing world. The same goes for bottom-up assessments using political intelligence. The weakness of these methods is that it is highly unlikely that they will produce statistically significant estimates of risk. The odds of getting a “silver bullet” insight from a “key insider” are decent for simple political systems, but not in the complex jurisdictions that host the vast majority of global, liquid investments. Quantitative approaches to measuring geopolitical risk have since become more widespread. The most prominent method is based on quantifying the occurrence of words related to political and geopolitical tensions that appear in international newspapers. These word-counts typically include terms like “terrorism,” “crisis,” “war,” “military action,” etc. As a result, the indices reflect incidents of physical violence or other “Black Swan” events that may not have direct relevance to financial markets. Moreover, while news-based indices accurately capture dramatic one-time peaks at the time of a crisis, they are largely flat aside from these, as they rely on popular topics rather than underlying structural trends (Chart 3). They fail to capture geopolitical developments associated with electoral cycles, protest movements, paradigm shifts in economic policy, or other policy changes.4 Notice, for instance, that the fall of the Soviet Union in late 1991 and the resulting chaos in Russia and many other parts of the emerging world hardly register in Chart 3. Chart 3News-Based Indices Only Capture Crisis Peaks, Not Geopolitical Developments News-Based Indices Only Capture Crisis Peaks, Not Geopolitical Developments News-Based Indices Only Capture Crisis Peaks, Not Geopolitical Developments Introducing BCA’s GeoRisk Indicators The past 70 years have taught BCA Research to listen and respect the market. Why would we suddenly follow the media instead? Most quantitative geopolitical indicators begin with the premise that journalists and the news-reading public have accurately emphasized the most relevant risks and uncertainties. They proceed to quantify the terms of these assessments with increasingly sophisticated methods. This approach solves only part of the puzzle. News-based indices ... fail to capture geopolitical developments associated with underlying policy changes. At BCA Geopolitical Strategy, we aim to generate geopolitical alpha.5 This means identifying where financial media and markets overstate or understate geopolitical risks. We do not primarily aim to predict events or crises. As such, traditional news-based indicators that capture only major events, even those ex post facto, are of little relevance to our analysis. What is needed is a better way to quantify how the market is calculating risks. We start with a simple premise: the market is the greatest machine ever created for gauging the wisdom of the crowd. Furthermore, it puts its money where its predictions are, unlike other methods of geopolitical risk quantification which have no “value at risk.” Chart 4USD/RUB Captures Geopolitical Risk In Russia... USD/RUB Captures Geopolitical Risk In Russia... USD/RUB Captures Geopolitical Risk In Russia... To this end, we have introduced market-based indicators over the years that rely on currency movements, which are often the simplest and most immediate means of capturing the process of pricing risk. In 2015, for instance, we introduced an indicator that measures Russia’s geopolitical risk premium (Chart 4). It is constructed using the de-trended residual from a regression of USD/RUB against USD/NOK and Russian CPI relative to U.S. CPI. We can show empirically that it captures geopolitical risk priced into the ruble, as the indicator increases following critical incidents. These include the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine in 2014; the warnings that Russia aimed to stage a “spring offensive” in Ukraine in 2015; Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War later that year; and the poisoning of former intelligence agent Sergei Skripal in the U.K. in 2018 and subsequent tensions. Using similar methods, we created a proxy to capture geopolitical risk in Taiwan, based on USD/JPY and USD/KRW exchange rates and relative Taiwanese/American inflation (Chart 5). The indicator tracks well with previous cross-strait crises. It jumped upon Taiwan’s election of President Tsai Ing-wen and her pro-independence government in January 2016 – and this was well before any tensions actually flared. It even registered a small increase upon her controversial phone call congratulating Donald Trump upon winning the U.S. election. Chart 5...And USD/TWD Captures Geopolitical Risk In Taiwan ...And USD/TWD Captures Geopolitical Risk In Taiwan ...And USD/TWD Captures Geopolitical Risk In Taiwan This year we have expanded on this work, constructing a set of ten standardized GeoRisk Indicators for five developed economies and five emerging economies: U.K., France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Russia, Turkey, Brazil, Korea, and Taiwan. Indicators for the U.S., China, and others will be rolled out in a future report. These indicators attempt to capture risk premiums priced into the various currencies – except for Euro Area countries, where the risk is embedded in equity prices. In each case, we look at whether the relevant assets are decreasing in value at a faster rate than implied by key explanatory variables. The explanatory variables consist of (1) an asset that moves together with the dependent variable while not responding to domestic geopolitical risks, and (2) a variable to capture the state of the economy. This set of indicators differs from our earlier indicators in the following ways: We aim to create a simple methodology that we can apply consistently to all countries, both in the DM and EM universes. We therefore omitted using regression models that can prove to be quite whimsical. Instead, we simply looked at the deviation of the dependent variable from the explanatory variables, all in expanding standardized terms, to create the GeoRisk proxy. We wanted an indicator that would immediately respond to priced-in risks, so we opted for a daily frequency rather than the weekly frequency we used in our initial work. To get as accurate of a signal as possible, we use point-in-time data. Since economic data tends to be released with a one-to-two-month lag, we lagged the economic independent variable to correspond to its release date. All ten indicators are shown in the Appendix. Across all countries, they track well with both short-term events and long-term trends in geopolitical risk. In the case of France, for example, the indicator steadily climbs during the period of domestic tensions and protests in the early 2000s; as the European debt crisis flares up; again during the rise of the anti-establishment Front National and the Russian military intervention in Ukraine; and finally during the U.S. trade tariffs and Yellow Vest protests (Chart 6). Our GeoRisk indicators isolate risks that either originate internally or otherwise affect the country more so than others. Similarly, in Germany, there is a general increase in perceived risk as Chancellor Gerhard Schröder implements structural reforms in the early 2000s; another increase leading up to the leadership change as Angela Merkel is elected Chancellor; another during the global and European financial crises; another during the Ukraine invasion and refugee influx; and finally another with the U.S.-China trade war (Chart 7). Chart 6Our French Indicator Picks Up Domestic And European Unrest Our French Indicator Picks Up Domestic And European Unrest Our French Indicator Picks Up Domestic And European Unrest Chart 7Greater German Risk Amid The Trade War Greater German Risk Amid The Trade War Greater German Risk Amid The Trade War   We have annotated each country’s GeoRisk indicator heavily in the appendix so that readers can see for themselves the correspondence with political events. The indicators are affected by international developments – like the Great Recession – but we have done our best to isolate risks that either originate internally or otherwise affect the country more than other countries. (As a consequence, the Great Recession is muted in some cases.) What are the indicators telling us now? Most obviously, they highlight the extreme risk we have witnessed in the U.K. over the now-delayed March 29 Brexit deadline. We would bet against this risk as the political reality has demonstrated that a “hard Brexit” is very low probability: the U.K. has the ability to back off unilaterally while the EU is willing to extend for the sake of regional stability. In this sense the pound is a tactical buy, which our foreign exchange strategist Chester Ntonifor has highlighted.6 Our U.K. risk indicator has been fairly well correlated with the GBP/USD since the global financial crisis and it suggests that the pound has more room to rally (Chart 8). Chart 8Betting Against A Hard Brexit, the GBP Is A Tactical Buy Betting Against A Hard Brexit, the GBP Is A Tactical Buy Betting Against A Hard Brexit, the GBP Is A Tactical Buy Meanwhile, Spanish risks are overstated while Italy’s are understated. As for the emerging world, Turkish risks should be expected to spike yet again, as divisions emerge within the ruling coalition in the wake of critical losses in local elections and a failure to reassure investors over monetary policy and the currency. Brazilian risks will probably not match the crisis points of the impeachment and the 2018 election, at least not until controversial pension reforms reach a period of peak uncertainty over legislative passage. Both our new Russian indicator and its prototype are collapsing (see Chart 4 above). This captures the fact that we stand at a critical juncture in Russian affairs, where President Putin is attempting to shift focus to domestic stability even as the U.S. and the West maintain pressure on the economy to deter Russia from its aggressive foreign policy. Given that both Putin’s and the government’s approval ratings are low amid rising oil prices, the stage is set for Russia to take a provocative foreign policy action meant to distract the populace from its poor living conditions. Venezuela is the obvious candidate, but there are others. Moscow will want to test Ukraine’s newly elected, inexperienced president; it may also make a show of support for Iran. With Russia equities having rallied on a relative basis over the past year and a half, and with the Iranian waiver decision already boosting oil prices as we go to press, the window of opportunity to buy Russian stocks is starting to close. (We remain overweight relative to EM on a tactical horizon; our Emerging Markets Strategy is also overweight.) Going forward, we will update these risk indicators regularly as needed and publish the full appendix at the end of every month along with our long-running Geopolitical Calendar. We will also fine-tune the indicators as new information comes to light. In other words, here we present only the beta version. We hope that these indicators will help inform investors as to the direction, and even magnitude, of political risks as the market prices them. Our GeoRisk indicators are not predictive, as establishing a trend is not a prediction. The main purpose of this exercise is to answer the critical question, “What is already priced in?” How is the market currently calculating geopolitical risk for a country? After that, it is the geopolitical strategist’s job to unpack this question through qualitative, constraint-based analysis. It is when our qualitative assessments disagree with what is priced in that we can generate geopolitical alpha.    Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic Consulting Editor marko@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      See Sean Higgins, “Auto tariffs decision could be delayed, Kudlow says,” Washington Examiner, April 3, 2019, www.washingtonexaminer.com. 2      Norman C. Dalkey and Olaf Helmer-Hirschberg, “An Experimental Application of the Delphi Method to the Use of Experts,” Management Science, Vol. 9, Issue: 3 (April 1963) pp. 458- 467. 3      Darryl S. L. Jarvis, “Conceptualizing, Analyzing and Measuring Political Risk: The Evolution of Theory and Method,” Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy Research Paper No. LKYSPP08-004 (July 2008).  William D. Coplin and Michael K. O'Leary, "Political Forecast For International Business," Planning Review, Vol. 11 Issue: 3 (1983) pp.14-23. The PRS Group, “Political Risk Services”™ (PRS) or the “Coplin-O’Leary Country Risk Rating System”™ Methodology. Daniel Kaufmann, Aart Kraay, and Massimo Mastruzzi, “The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and Analytical Issues,” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 5430 (September 2010). 4      Scott R. Baker, Nicholas Bloom, and Steven J. Davis, “Measuring Economic Policy Uncertainty,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 131, Issue 4, November 2016 (July 2016) pp.1593–1636. Dario Caldara and Matteo Iacoviello, “Measuring Geopolitical Risk,” Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board, Working Paper (January 2018). 5      Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Five Myths On Geopolitical Forecasting,” dated July 9, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6      Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, “Not Out Of The Woods Yet,” April 5, 2019, available at www.bcaresearch.com.   Appendix Appendix France France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix U.K. U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Germany Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Italy Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Spain Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Russia Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Korea Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Taiwan Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Turkey Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Brazil Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator What’s On The Geopolitical Radar? Chart 19      Geopolitical Calendar

Clearly the president will benefit from being vindicated in such an authoritative way. He will not only avoid any mushrooming scandal, which can hurt a president seeking reelection, but will also gain sympathy from at least some voters for having been falsely accused. While Mueller technically did not exonerate Trump from charges of obstruction of justice, he also did not make any such charges. This means that House Democrats could conceivably still use the Mueller report’s evidence of potential obstruction to impeach Trump. But if they do they will fail. Attorney General Anthony Barr and his deputy, Rod Rosenstein, have both determined that there was no obstruction. With the special counsel having ruled out any collusion or even coordination with Russia, Trump will remain secure among grassroots Republicans. Hence the senators in his party will not convict him and any impeachment trial will be a charade. Thus to some extent Trump’s odds of reelection must be going up. Right? Wrong. The problem is that any positive impact on Trump’s reelection odds from the Mueller report ultimately matters much less than the inversion of the yield curve on March 22. This curve is the most reliable indicator of forthcoming economic recession. If the inversion is deep and persistent then it makes an election year recession probable. Presidents can survive a grand scandal, but they live or die by recessions. There have only been two presidents in the post-Civil War era who won reelection despite a recession in the calendar year of the election. These were William McKinley in 1900 and Theodore Roosevelt in 1904. Yet in 1900, the recession was drawing to a close and economic conditions were better than when McKinley first took office in 1896. And in 1904, the recession technically ended in August, before the fall campaign began. In ten other cases the ruling party has lost the White House amid a recessionary environment. In recent decades yield curve inversion precedes recessions by anywhere from five to sixteen months. The average is eleven months. This means that if the 10yr/3mo signal proves accurate once again, Trump would get extremely lucky to see the economy rebounding by the fall campaign. Granted, the yield curve could send a false signal. For instance, some take the view that the term premium is historically low for structural reasons and that this makes inversion easier and less indicative than in the past. However, when it comes to politics, President Trump cannot afford to assume that this time is different. It is already clear from his waivers on Iranian oil sanctions and trade negotiations with China that he lives in great fear of the business cycle expiring before November 3 next year, when it will be very long-in-the-tooth. Trump is also more vulnerable to recession than the usual president. He is a self-styled commercial leader – a CEO president and Washington outsider who staked his credibility on the claim that he will create jobs and grow the economy. Trump can possibly survive an election with a large trade deficit or a surge in immigrants on the southern border because these developments would highlight the very policy concerns that he did so much to emphasize: they would not necessarily invalidate his approach. But if unemployment is rising, it is hard to see how this president, let alone any other, could wriggle out of it. If he tries to shift the blame to the Federal Reserve or China in any concrete way, the equity market will riot and exacerbate the downturn. The takeaway is, first, that we should continue to see President Trump show relative risk aversion on market-relevant matters like Iran, China, and the “stimulus cliff” affecting the U.S. budget next fiscal year. Second, that if the current economic wobbles pass and the economic expansion gets a new breath of life, then Trump’s chances of retaining the White House will soar. Trump’s reelection odds have important investment consequences. His reelection will entail policy continuity and the maintenance of a low-tax, deregulatory environment that encourages animal spirits and pads corporate earnings. The more likely it appears that Trump will lose the White House, the more animal spirits will sag. A Democratic win will mean yet another violent vacillation in U.S. policy, like 2016, which will cause a spike in policy uncertainty. It will also bring a probable increase in taxes (including possibly the corporate rate) and regulations across a range of sectors. If a Democrat wins in 2020, he or she will most likely have a fairly left-wing agenda, due to trends in the party, and whoever takes the White House will likely also take the Senate. Since the same goes for the House, a presidential win will deliver full Democratic control of the executive and legislative branches: a window of minimal political constraints in which a sweeping piece of legislation can be enacted, like in 2009 or 2017. Image In short, a Trump loss would not only mean the end of the status quo but likely a united government in favor of a rather left-leaning Democratic agenda. If the market has reason to believe a recession is looming, and that a recession will occasion a lurch to the “anti-business” side of the Left, then the impact on investment decisions and capex intentions will be negative and immediate. Economic policy uncertainty has nowhere to go but up. Matt Gertken,  Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com

Highlights So What? China’s January credit data suggest that stimulus is here. Why? January credit growth was a blowout number. Trade uncertainty is likely to be prolonged with an extension of talks. Equity bourses in South Korea and Russia are the most likely to benefit from Chinese stimulus. Industrial metals such as copper will also benefit – with a delay. Feature New credit data for China in January improves the chances that Beijing’s stimulus measures will overshoot this year, causing China’s economy to bottom in 2019 and jumpstart global growth. In our annual outlook for this year we argued that while China was stimulating the economy, the magnitude of stimulus would be the decisive factor for the global macro environment in 2019. We argued that the type of stimulus would remain primarily fiscal – tax cuts for households and small and medium-sized enterprises – and hence that it would be modest as fiscal easing would merely offset relatively weak credit growth. This view stemmed from our assessment of the Xi Jinping administration, highlighted in April 2017, as an “elitist” (not populist) administration. Its policy priorities are to discipline the Chinese economy, and in particular to contain systemic financial risk, which President Xi has cited as a national security threat. This view is not wrong, but the latest data clearly show that Xi has decided to pause these painful efforts at limiting leverage and rebalancing China’s economy. Witness January’s decisive uptick in both total social financing (total private credit) and local government bond issuance (Chart 1). Chart 1Higher Risk Of An Overshoot Higher Risk Of An Overshoot Higher Risk Of An Overshoot A massive spike in new credit is the single most important criterion in our “Checklist For A Stimulus Overshoot.” Thus, from a policy perspective, we are now at higher risk of an overshoot (Table 1). Not only credit as a whole but also informal lending saw a surge in January, implying that the government is relenting in its crackdown on the shadow banks. The approval of local government bond issuance for early in the year – and the People’s Bank of China’s announcement of a “Central Bank Bills Swap” program – reinforce this policy shift.1 Table 1Checklist For A Chinese Stimulus Overshoot In 2019 China: Stimulating Amid The Trade Talks China: Stimulating Amid The Trade Talks   A stimulus overshoot is positive for Chinese demand in the short run but negative for potential GDP in the long run. A “traditional” credit surge of this nature cannot be surgically targeted at SMEs or households. It will go to state-owned enterprises, privileged corporations, property developers, and the like, which have always had the advantage in China’s financial system. SOEs have taken a much larger share of new loans than private companies in recent years,2 and the only silver lining of this trend was the possibility that tighter credit controls would discipline the SOEs. That silver lining is now fading, barring some new and surprising development on the reform front. China needs to create 26 trillion renminbi in new credit over the course of the year to avoid a corporate earnings contraction. These January numbers put China on track to do just that (Chart 2), assuming that President Xi and U.S. President Donald Trump agree to a short-term, framework trade deal this year. Chart 2On Track To Avoid An Earnings Contraction On Track To Avoid An Earnings Contraction On Track To Avoid An Earnings Contraction Of course, a few caveats are in order. First, January’s credit number is only one data point and credit growth is always abnormally strong in the first month of the year. Early in the year, banks seek to expand their assets rapidly in a bid to get as much market share as possible before administrative credit quotas kick in. Because of Chinese New Year, it is best to combine January and February data to get a sense of the rate of credit expansion in the first part of the year. To do that, investors will have to wait for mid-March when the February data is out. This year’s January numbers are very strong relative to previous Januaries (Chart 3) and the context is more accommodative than the 2017 January credit surge, when authorities were beginning to tighten rather than ease macroprudential policy. Still a rapid rate of credit expansion will have to be sustained in the coming months in order to meet the 26 trillion RMB requirement highlighted above. Chart 3 Second, there is some risk that China’s households and private businesses will not respond as positively today as in the past. The intensification of Communist Party control over the society and economy, President Xi’s cancellation of term limits, and the strategic confrontation with the United States have created a bearish sentiment in the private sector. Our Emerging Markets Strategy would point out that if the propensity to consume, and money velocity,3 do not accelerate, then a surge in new credit may fail to ignite a reacceleration in China (Chart 4). Chart 4Chinese Are Holding On To Their Money Chinese Are Holding On To Their Money Chinese Are Holding On To Their Money Still, what we now know is that Xi Jinping and his top economic adviser, Vice Premier Liu He, are not initiating the “assault phase of reform” that their predecessors initiated in the late 1990s in order to cleanse China’s economy of bad loans and zombie companies. Instead, they are likely reestablishing the “Socialist Put” in order to reverse the current deceleration, demonstrate China’s continued economic might and face down the United States’ threat of tariffs. Bottom Line: China’s stimulus measures are increasingly likely to overshoot, with positive implications for both Chinese and global growth. China is still facing a corporate earnings recession, but the odds of averting it are increasing.    Trade Deadline More Likely To Be Extended What of the trade war? First, we would warn clients that China’s annual credit origination is a much bigger factor for the global economy than China’s exports to the United States (Chart 5). The trade war can escalate from here and yet, if China’s stimulus works as it has in the past, the results will be manageable for China’s economy save for Chinese companies expressly exposed to the U.S. economy through exports. In reality, both the U.S. and China are now effectively stimulating their economies and in this sense global trade as a whole will benefit regardless of bilateral tariffs. Chart 5Watch China Credit, Not So Much The Trade War Watch China Credit, Not So Much The Trade War Watch China Credit, Not So Much The Trade War But it is possible that just as global equity markets ignored China’s economic slowdown and only sold off when the tariffs were levied (Chart 6), they may not continue to rally much on China’s credit data. Given the already considerable rally in global risk assets since October, markets may not be satisfied merely with one or two months of solid credit data out of China without a clear resolution to the trade conflict. After all, if a collapse in U.S.-China trade talks portends a new Cold War, then institutional investors may be justified in taking a wait-and-see approach despite China’s credit cycle upswing. Chart 6Will Equities Ignore China Data (Again)? Will Equities Ignore China Data (Again)? Will Equities Ignore China Data (Again)? In the past, we have highlighted that the U.S. and China are not economically prohibited from engaging in a trade war – the export exposure is too small – and China’s new stimulus reinforces this point. However, President Trump is concerned about causing a sell-off in the tech sector and hence the broad equity market which could translate into a bear market and raise the probability of a recession occurring prior to November 2020. Meanwhile, in China, given Beijing’s reported trade concessions, there is apparently a desire to pacify the relationship and discourage U.S. unilateral tariffs and sanctions that could become seriously destabilizing for the Chinese economy and society. The need to have a happy 2021 centenary celebration for the Communist Party may factor into policymakers’ thinking. The latest news flow is mildly positive for the odds of getting a framework deal sometime this year. President Trump visited the Chinese negotiators in Washington, D.C. while President Xi reciprocated with the American negotiators in Beijing. Trump has signaled that an extension of the March 1 deadline is possible, and a two-month extension is being bandied about in the press. China’s National People’s Congress is likely to pass a new Foreign Investment Law that ostensibly guarantees many of the American demands on forced tech transfer, intellectual property theft, and discriminatory treatment of U.S. companies (Table 2). Even the second Trump summit with Kim Jong Un, this time in Vietnam, should be seen as a mild positive for U.S.-China negotiations. Table 2New Foreign Investment Law Would Be A Positive For U.S.-China Negotiations China: Stimulating Amid The Trade Talks China: Stimulating Amid The Trade Talks However, Presidents Trump and Xi have yet to schedule a new summit, which is probably necessary for a final deal. And there are murmurs from the press suggesting that China’s new law and other concessions are not going to satisfy the U.S. negotiators on the critical point of “structural changes” and a verification process. This leaves us inclined to change our trade war probabilities to increase the odds of an extension (Table 3). The improvement in U.S. financial conditions and China’s stimulus, if anything, make it more likely that negotiations will be extended, as both sides feel their economic and financial constraints less acutely. Table 3Updated Trade War Probabilities China: Stimulating Amid The Trade Talks China: Stimulating Amid The Trade Talks Bottom Line: Global and Chinese risk assets should rally on China’s credit uptick, but the lack of resolution of the trade war could continue to inhibit animal spirits – and the odds of a March 1 resolution are declining. Who Are The Equity Winners Of China’s Stimulus? China’s strong January credit number is supportive of global equity markets. That much is obvious. But which equity markets will benefit the most? In what follows we examine the relationship between Chinese credit and MSCI equity returns of various countries. We find that Malaysian, Australian, South Korean, and Indonesian equities are the most highly correlated with Chinese credit growth and are thus most likely to benefit from the recent upturn (Chart 7). On the other hand, France and Italy stand out as countries whose bourses are more insulated. Chart 7 Out of the markets that are positively correlated, South Korea and Russia stand out as relatively cheap (Chart 8). Thus we expect these equities to do especially well. By contrast, while Indonesia and the Philippines are highly leveraged to China, these markets are currently relatively expensive. BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy is currently overweight Korean and Russian equities within the EM space, neutral Turkey (although recently upgraded from underweight), and underweight Indonesia and the Philippines. Chart 8 In addition to credit stimulus, we expect Chinese household consumption to also gain support going forward. This will likely be driven by policy stimulus targeting the consumer specifically and is best exemplified by the recently announced tax cuts (Chart 9), which we expect to trickle down to greater consumer demand and growth in retail sales. Our base case calls for 8%-10% growth in household consumption over the coming 12 months, up from the current 3.5%. Chart 9 However, consumer sentiment in China is weak. BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy’s proxy for household marginal propensity to spend ticked up recently, after falling since early last year (see Chart 4 above). A resumption in the decline would highlight that households are increasingly unwilling to spend, which would translate into weaker retail sales despite policy efforts to boost consumption. Such a scenario – in which credit growth accelerates without a substantial uptick in consumer spending – is plausible, given that it occurred between mid-2015 and mid-2016 (Chart 10). In any case, whether Chinese stimulus comes in the form of the traditional credit channel, or instead in the form of fiscal stimulus to household consumption, the same equity markets will generally benefit the most (Chart 11). Chart 10...But Flattish Retail Sales Are Also A Possibility ...But Flattish Retail Sales Are Also A Possibility ...But Flattish Retail Sales Are Also A Possibility Chart 11 Indeed, global equity markets react the same way regardless of the type of stimulus implemented. For instance, MSCI returns for the Philippines, Sweden, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Turkey are more closely correlated to both Chinese credit growth and retail sales growth compared to Italy, Japan, and France.  The same conclusion is reached when we look at the correlations between Chinese credit growth or consumption growth and individual MSCI sectors such as industrials and consumer discretionary (Chart 12). Chart 12 The relatively stronger correlation between Chinese credit growth and equity returns – as opposed to Chinese retail sales and equity returns – can be put down to the nature of Chinese imports. While industrial goods account for the bulk of China’s purchases of foreign goods, consumer goods excluding autos make up only 15% of China’s imports (Table 4). However, as Chart 12 illustrates, the relationship between China’s retail sales growth and global equities is much tighter in the case of the consumer discretionary sector, whether the latter is compared to global industrials sectors or the overall MSCI index. Table 4Import Composition Of Chinese Imports China: Stimulating Amid The Trade Talks China: Stimulating Amid The Trade Talks Equity market exposure to China is not always in line with the extent of each country’s trade exposure to China (Chart 13). Chart 13 There are some clear exceptions – most notably Mexico, which has the highest correlation coefficient with Chinese credit and consumption variables since 2010. However, this is likely due to idiosyncratic factors.4 Correlation does not imply causation, and we cannot conclude with certainty that Mexican equities will outperform amid China’s new round of stimulus. Nevertheless, given that Mexico is a very deeply liquid market that benefits amid EM bull markets, this may not be entirely coincidental. The correlations between global equity markets and Chinese credit peak two months after the stimulus measures are first implemented (Chart 14). This is more or less in line with adjusted total social financing’s correlation versus industrial metals. However BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy has shown that copper’s correlations versus other measures of Chinese money and credit peak after roughly three quarters (Chart 15).5 This is evident in both the 2012 and 2015-16 stimulus episodes in which the bottom in copper prices lagged the bottom in China’s credit growth. Thus we may witness a rebound in equity markets on the back of China’s credit splurge before we see an improvement in annual returns on copper prices.  Chart 14 Chart 15Copper Rallies Lag China Credit Stimulus Copper Rallies Lag China Credit Stimulus Copper Rallies Lag China Credit Stimulus Bottom Line: South Korean and Russian equities are best positioned to benefit from the positive surprise in China’s credit data. France and Italy are the worst positioned. Copper prices will rebound with a delay.  Investment Implications BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy recommends that investors stay long Chinese equities ex-tech relative to the emerging market benchmark. This is a tactical call initiated in August 2018 that is now becoming a cyclical call on the basis of the credit upswing. We also remain long the “China Play Index,” a basket of China-sensitive assets, and long China’s “Big Five” banks relative to other banks. A rebound in China’s credit data and stronger global growth will support copper demand. Prices are still 15% below the mid-2018 peak and are poised to benefit in this environment, especially given that global inventories are already falling. BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy recommends that investors go long copper. Meanwhile, BCA’s China Investment Strategy recommends (for now) staying only tactically overweight Chinese equities relative to the global benchmark, pending higher conviction that the pace of credit growth will be strong enough to overwhelm the negative ramifications of a continued deceleration in actual activity over the coming few months on sentiment and 12-month forward earnings expectations. Over the long run, Geopolitical Strategy would look to underweight Chinese equities, as we are not optimistic about China’s productivity and potential GDP. This is because of the negative structural consequences of continuing the Socialist Put (i.e., bad loans, zombie companies, trade protectionism).  We would expect CNY/USD to remain relatively buoyant in the context of both trade negotiations with the U.S. and fiscal-and-credit stimulus. The trade talks can hardly succeed if CNY/USD is falling. Depending on whether and how soon China’s stimulus results in a durable economic bottom, global growth could stabilize and the USD could see a substantial countertrend selloff.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist roukayai@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1          Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled “China: Prepping A Bazooka?” dated February 14, 2019 available at ems.bcaresearch.com 2      Please see Nicholas Lardy, “The State Strikes Back: The End Of Economic Reform In China?” Peterson Institute For International Economics, January 29, 2019, available at piie.com. 3          Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report titled “Dissecting China’s Stimulus,” dated January 17, 2019 available at ems.bcaresearch.com 4       The 2012 election of President Enrique Peña Nieto caused Mexican equities to outperform their EM counterparts. Similarly in 2015-16, U.S. outperformance relative to EM also supported Mexico relative to EM because Mexico’s economy is highly leveraged to its northern neighbor. In both periods Mexico’s outperformance was not caused by – but instead coincided with – Chinese credit stimulus. These idiosyncratic events biased the correlation between Mexico’s equity markets and Chinese credit growth to the upside. 5      Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled “Trade Wars, China Credit Policy Will Roil Global Copper Markets,” dated June 21, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com.                  

Highlights So What? Our “Black Swan” risks for the year reveal several potential wars. Why? While we think it is premature to expect armed conflict over Taiwan, an outbreak of serious tensions is possible. Russia and Ukraine may have a shared incentive to go renew hostilities this year. Saudi Arabia has received a “blank cheque” from Donald Trump, so it may continue to be provocative. Everyone has forgotten about the Balkans … but tensions are building. A “Lame Duck” Trump could stage a military intervention in Venezuela. Feature Over the past three years, we have compiled a list of five geopolitical “Black Swans.” These are low-probability events whose market impact would be significant enough to matter for global investors. Unlike the great Byron Wien’s list of “Ten Surprises for 2018,” we do not assign these events a “better than 50% likelihood of happening.”1 Instead, we believe that the market is seriously underpricing these risks by assigning them only single-digit probabilities when the reality is closer to 10%-15%, a level at which a risk premium ought to be assigned. Furthermore, some of our events below are obscure enough that it is unclear how exactly to price them. But before we get to our list of the five things that keep us up at night,2 a quick note on the question for financial markets in 2019: Will the economic policy divergence between the U.S. and China continue? At the moment, momentum is building behind the narrative that both the U.S. and China have decided to reflate. In anticipation of this narrative switch, we closed our long DM / short EM equity trade on December 3, 2018 for a 15.70% return (originally opened on March 6, 2018). How sustainable is the EM outperformance relative to DM? Will the rest of the world “catch up” to U.S. growth momentum, thus hurting the U.S. dollar in the process? The global central bank – the Fed – is already expected to “back off,” even though members of the FOMC have simply pointed out that they remain data-dependent. Granting our BCA House View that the U.S. economy remains in decent health, U.S. economic data will continue to come in strong through the course of the year. This means that there is scope for a hawkish Fed surprise for the markets, given that the interest rate market already has dovish expectations, anticipating 4.33 basis points and 16.74 basis points of cuts over the next 12 and 24 months respectively (Chart 1). Chart 1 Meanwhile, the global demand engine – China – may disappoint in its reflationary efforts. We refer to China as the “global demand engine” because the combined imports and capex of China and other emerging markets dwarf that of the U.S. and EU (Chart 2 and Chart 3).3 Chinese imports alone make up $1.6 trillion, constituting 23% of the $7 trillion total of EM imports and about half of EM investment expenditures. Given that large swaths of EM are high-beta to the Chinese economy, the EM-plus-China slice of the global demand pie is leveraged to Beijing’s reflationary policies. Chart 2EM/China Imports Are Much Larger Than U.S.'s And EU's Combined EM/China Imports Are Much Larger Than U.S.'s And EU's Combined EM/China Imports Are Much Larger Than U.S.'s And EU's Combined Chart 3EM/China Capex Is As Large As U.S.'s And EU's Combined EM/China Capex Is As Large As U.S.'s And EU's Combined EM/China Capex Is As Large As U.S.'s And EU's Combined Chinese policymakers have gestured toward greater support for the economy. The communiqué published following the Central Economic Work Conference (CEWC) in December called for a broad stabilization of aggregate demand as a focus of macro policy over the course of 2019. The language was still not very expansionary, but Beijing has launched stimulus despite relatively muted communiqués in the past. The massive stimulus of early 2016, for instance, followed a mixed CEWC communiqué in December 2015. So everything depends on the forthcoming data. Broad money and credit growth improved marginally in December, while the State Council announced that local government bond issuance could begin at the start of the year rather than waiting until spring. Meanwhile, a coordinated announcement by the People’s Bank of China, the Ministry of Finance, and the National Development and Reform Commission declares that a larger tax cut is forthcoming – that is, in addition to the roughly 1% of GDP household tax cuts that went into effect starting late last year. Monetary policy remains very lax with liquidity injections and additional RRR cuts. Before investors become overly bullish, however, we would note that Chinese policymakers are focusing their reflationary efforts on fiscal spending and supply-side reforms like tax cuts. The problem with the latter is that household tax cuts will not add much to global demand, given that consumer goods make up just 15% of China’s imports (Table 1). The vast majority of Chinese imports stem from the country’s capital spending. Table 1China’s Consumer-Oriented Stimulus Will Boost Different Imports Than Past Stimulus Five Black Swans In 2019 Five Black Swans In 2019 Fiscal spending, meanwhile, is as large as the overall credit origination in the Chinese economy (Chart 4). But without a revival in credit growth, more spending will mainly serve to stabilize the economy, not light it on fire. It is likely that part of the fiscal pump-priming will be greater issuance of local government bonds. However, even the recently announced 1.39 trillion RMB quota for new bonds this year is not impressive. And even a 2 trillion RMB increase would only be equivalent to a single month of large credit expansion (Chart 5). Chart 4China: Credit Origination Is As Large As Government Spending China: Credit Origination Is As Large As Government Spending China: Credit Origination Is As Large As Government Spending   Chart 5 As such, tactically nimble investors could profit from a reflationary narrative that sees both the global central bank – the Fed – and the global fiscal engine – China – turning more dovish and supportive of growth. However, we agree with BCA’s Emerging Markets Chief Strategist Arthur Budaghyan, who is on record saying that “Going Tactically Long EM Is Akin To Collecting Pennies In Front Of A Steamroller.” The bottom line for investors is that 2019 is the first year in a decade where the collective intention of policymakers – across the world – is to prepare for the next recession, rather than to prevent a deflationary relapse. This cognitive shift may be slight, but it is important. The Fed and Beijing are engaged in a macroeconomic game of chicken. Each camp is trying to avoid having to over-reflate at the end of the cycle. For the Fed, the goal is to have room to cut rates sufficiently when the recession finally hits. For China, the goal is to ensure that its leverage does not get out of hand. Into this uncertain macroeconomic context we now insert the five Black Swans for 2019. To qualify for our list, the events must be: Unlikely: There must be less than a 20% probability that the event will occur in the next 12 months; Out of sight: The scenario we present should not be receiving media coverage, at least not as a serious market risk; Geopolitical: We must be able to identify the risk scenario through the lens of BCA’s geopolitical methodology. Genuinely unpredictable events – such as meteor strikes, pandemics, crippling cyber-attacks, solar flares, alien invasions, and failures in the computer program running the simulation that we call the universe – do not make the cut. Black Swan 1: China Goes To War With Taiwan One could argue that a military conflict between China and Taiwan in 2019 should not technically qualify for our list, as there has been chatter in the media about such an outcome. Indeed, our recent travels across Asia revealed that clients are taking a much greater interest in our longstanding view – since January 2016 – that Taiwan is the premier geopolitical Black Swan. We established this view well before President Trump won the election and received a congratulatory call from Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen, breaking diplomatic practice since 1979. Now, at the beginning of 2019, the exchange of barbs between the Chinese and Taiwanese presidents has raised tensions anew (Chart 6).4 Chart 6Taiwanese Geopolitical Risk Likely To Rise From Here Taiwanese Geopolitical Risk Likely To Rise From Here Taiwanese Geopolitical Risk Likely To Rise From Here Nonetheless, Taiwan makes the cut here because we doubt that most of our global clients take the issue seriously. Furthermore, we are concerned that – with fair odds of a U.S.-China trade truce lasting through 2019 – cross-strait tensions could fall out of sight. The basis of our view is that there is a unique confluence of political developments in Beijing, Washington, and Taipei that is conducive toward a diplomatic or military incident that could escalate tensions: Taiwan’s pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), in addition to taking the presidency in 2016, won control of the legislature for the first time ever (Chart 7). This means that domestic political constraints on President Tsai Ing-wen’s administration are lower than usual. Tsai has angered Beijing by seeking stronger relations with the U.S. and refusing to endorse the 1992 Consensus, which holds that there is only “One China” albeit two interpretations. China’s General Secretary Xi Jinping has removed term limits and placed greater emphasis on the reunification of Taiwan. Xi has consolidated power domestically and has pursued a more aggressive foreign policy throughout his term, including in the South China Sea, where greater naval control would enable China to threaten Taiwan’s supply security. Xi’s blueprint for his “New Era” includes the reunification of China, and some have argued that there is a fixed timetable for reunification with Taiwan by 2050 or even 2035.5 Some recent military drills can be seen as warnings to Taiwan. U.S. President Trump called the One China Policy into question at the outset of his term in office (only later reaffirming it), and has presided over an increase in U.S. strategic pressure against China, such as the trade war and freedom of navigation operations, including in the Taiwan Strait. Trump’s National Security Adviser John Bolton and Assistant Defense Secretary Randall Schriver are seen as Taiwan hawks, while the just-concluded Republican Congress passed the Taiwan Travel Act and the Asia Reassurance Initiative Act (ARIA), which imply an upgrade to the U.S. commitment to Taiwan’s democracy and security.6 Chart 7 These three factors suggest that, cyclically, there is larger room than usual for incidents to occur that initiate a vicious cycle of tensions. The odds of a full-fledged war are still very low – the U.S. has reaffirmed the One China Policy in its recent negotiations with Beijing, which seem to be progressing, while China has not changed its official position on Taiwan. Beijing’s reunification timetable still has a comfortable 30 years to go. The Chinese economy has not collapsed, so there is no immediate need for Beijing to dive headlong into a nationalist foreign policy adventure that could bring on World War III. However, the odds of diplomatic incidents, or military saber rattling, that then trigger a dangerous escalation and a multi-month period of extremely elevated tensions are much higher than the market recognizes. This is because the U.S. and China may still see strategic tensions flare even if they make progress on a trade deal, while a failure on the trade front could spark a spillover into strategic areas. Any cross-strait incident would be relevant to global investors – and not just Taiwanese assets, which would suffer the brunt of economic sanctions – because the slightest increase in the odds of a full-scale war would be extremely negative for global risk appetite. Over the next 12 months, we would mostly expect Beijing to eschew high-profile provocations. The reason is that President Tsai is unpopular and the recent local elections in Taiwan saw her DPP lose seats to the more China-friendly Kuomintang (Chart 8). An aggressive posture could revive the DPP ahead of the January 2020 presidential election, the opposite of what Beijing wants.7 Chart 8 On the other hand, Beijing could decide to ignore the 1996 precedent and choose outright military intimidation. Or it could attempt to meddle in Taiwan’s domestic politics, as it has been accused of doing in the recent local elections.8 Meanwhile, the U.S. and Taiwan are the more likely instigators of an incident over these 12 months, knowingly or not. Washington and Taipei have a window of opportunity to achieve a few concrete objectives while Presidents Tsai and Trump are still in office – which cannot be guaranteed after 2020. A similar window of opportunity caused a market-relevant spike in China-South Korea tensions back in 2015-17, when the United States, seeing that the right-wing Park Geun-hye administration was falling out of power, attempted to rush through the deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile system in South Korea. As a result, China imposed economic sanctions on its neighbor (Chart 9). Chart 9China Hits South Korea Over THAAD China Hits South Korea Over THAAD China Hits South Korea Over THAAD Something similar could transpire over the next year if the U.S. sends a high-level official – say, Bolton, or Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, or even Vice President Mike Pence – to hold talks in Taiwan. Or if the U.S. stages a major show of force in the Taiwan Strait, as it threatened in October, or U.S. naval vessels call on Taiwanese ports. The U.S. could also announce bigger or better arms packages (Chart 10), such as submarine systems, which have been cleared by the Department of State. Given the elevated U.S.-China and China-Taiwan tensions overall, such an incident could cause a bigger escalation than the different participants expect – and even more so than the market currently expects. Chart 10U.S. Arms Sales To Taiwan Could Provoke Beijing U.S. Arms Sales To Taiwan Could Provoke Beijing U.S. Arms Sales To Taiwan Could Provoke Beijing Bottom Line: Cyclically, the period between now and the inauguration of the next Taiwanese president in May 2020 brings heightened risk of a geopolitical incident. Depending on what happens in 2020, tensions could rise or fall for a time. Yet structurally, as Sino-American strategic distrust continues to build, Taiwan will continually find itself at the center of the storm. Black Swan 2: Russia And Ukraine Agree To Go To War Tensions are mounting between Russia and Ukraine in the run-up to the March 31 Ukrainian presidential election. Incumbent President, Petro Poroshenko, has been trailing in the polls for a year. His rival is the populist Yulia Tymoshenko, who has been leading both first-round and second-round polling. Both Poroshenko and Tymoshenko have, at various points in their careers, been accused of being pro-Russian. Poroshenko’s business interests, as with most successful Ukrainian businesspeople, include considerable holdings in Russia. Tymoshenko, on the other hand, was imprisoned from 2011 to 2014 for negotiating a gas imports contract with Russia that allegedly hurt Ukrainian interests. With the most pro-Russian parts of Ukraine either cleaved off (Crimea) or in a state of lawlessness (Donetsk and Luhansk), the median voter in the country has become considerably more nationalist and anti-Russian. It therefore serves no purpose for any politician to campaign on a platform of normalizing relations with Moscow. In this context, the decision by the Patriarchate of Constantinople – the first-among-equals of the Christian Orthodox churches – to grant autocephaly (sovereignty) to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine in January is part of the ongoing evolution of Ukraine into an independent entity from Russia. This process could create tensions, particularly as parts of the country continue to be engaged in military conflict (Map 1). From Moscow’s perspective, the autocephaly grants Ukraine religious – and therefore some semblance of cultural – independence from Russia. This solidifies the loss of a 43-million person crown jewel from the Russian sphere of influence. Chart Moscow is also not averse to stoking tensions. Although President Putin’s mandate will last until 2024, his popularity is nearly at the lowest level this decade. Orthodox monetary and fiscal policy, along with pension reforms, have sapped his political capital at home. In 2014, tensions over Ukraine spurred nationalist sentiment in Russia, rapidly increased popular support for both Putin and his government (Chart 11). Putin may calculate that another such recapitalization may be needed. Chart 11Non-Negligible Risk Of Russian Aggression Non-Negligible Risk Of Russian Aggression Non-Negligible Risk Of Russian Aggression The danger is therefore that domestic politics in both Ukraine and Russia may create a window of opportunity for a skirmish this quarter. Perhaps something akin to the naval tensions around the Kerch Strait that ultimately cost President Putin a summit with President Trump at the G20 meeting in December. While these incidents may benefit both sides domestically, and may even appear carefully orchestrated, they could also get out of hand in unpredictable ways. Bottom Line: While both Kiev and Russia may see a short-termed conflict as domestically beneficial, such an outcome could have unforeseen consequences. At the very least, it could sap already poor business confidence in neighboring Europe, as it did in 2014-2015. Black Swan 3: Saudi Arabia With A Blank Cheque One of the greatest geopolitical blunders of the twentieth century was Berlin’s decision to give its ally Austro-Hungary a “blank cheque.” Austro-Hungary was an anachronism at the turn of the century – a multiethnic empire held together by allegiance to a royal family. As such, the ideology of nationalism represented an existential threat, particularly given that 60% of the empire’s population was neither Austrian nor Hungarian. Following the assassination of its crown prince Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a pan-Slavist terrorist in Sarajevo, Vienna decided that a total destruction of Serbia was necessary for geopolitical and domestic political reasons. Today, Saudi Arabia is in many ways an anachronism itself. It is the world’s last feudal monarchy. Its leaders understand the risks and have begun an ambitious and multifaceted reform effort. Unlike Austro-Hungary, Saudi Arabia has learned to embrace nationalism. Riyadh is using the war in Yemen, as well as targeted actions against its own royal family and the religious establishment, to build a modern nation-state. The problem is that, much as nationalism was an ideological kryptonite for Vienna, democratic Islamism is an existential problem for Riyadh and its peers among the Gulf monarchies. Neighboring Qatar, a tiny peninsular kingdom enjoying an oversized geopolitical influence due to its natural gas wealth, has supported various groups across the Middle East that believe that democracy and conservative Islam are compatible. Turkey and Qatar have often cooperated in this effort, as the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) of Turkey has served as a model for many such Islamist parties in the region. Why Qatar hitched its geopolitical wagon to democratic Islamism is not clear. Perhaps its leaders felt that it was the only option unclaimed by an energy-rich sponsor. Regardless, Qatar’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood and other such groups has clearly irked Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies, enough for them to kick Qatar out of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). In 2017, with the pro-Saudi Trump administration ascendant in the White House, Riyadh felt emboldened enough to break off all diplomatic relations with Qatar and impose an economic blockade. Since 2014, another dynamic has emerged in the region that raises further concerns: a scramble for material resources brought on by the end of +$100 per barrel oil prices. Saudi public expenditures have been steadily rising since 2008, both due to population growth, social welfare spending in the wake of Arab Spring rebellions, and astronomical defense spending to counter the rising influence of Iran. And yet, 2014 saw oil prices plunge to decade lows in a matter of months. Saudi Arabia’s fiscal breakeven oil price has doubled, in a decade, from under $40 per barrel to $83 per barrel in 2018 (Chart 12). Meanwhile, Qatar’s GDP is a quarter of that of Saudi Arabia, even though its population is less than 2% of Saudi Arabia’s. Chart 12Saudi Arabia Has A Fiscal Problem Saudi Arabia Has A Fiscal Problem Saudi Arabia Has A Fiscal Problem Rumors that the U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis prevented a Saudi invasion of Qatar in 2018 have largely been dismissed by the mainstream media. But should they be? If allegedly “rogue elements” of the Saudi intelligence establishment can dismember a journalist in a consulate, why couldn’t “rogue elements” of its military stage a coup – or an outright invasion – in neighboring Qatar? Such an outcome would truly be extraordinary, but so was the annexation of Crimea in 2014. Meanwhile, President Trump offered an extraordinary level of support for Riyadh by issuing what we can only refer to as a “blank cheque” following Khashoggi’s murder. In the November 20 statement, President Trump essentially created a new policy doctrine of standing with Saudi Arabia “no matter what.”9 Two weeks later, Riyadh “thanked” the U.S. President by slashing the OPEC oil output by 1.2 million barrels per day. From this dynamic, it appears that Washington has made a similar strategic blunder in 2018 that Berlin did in 1914. A weakened, stressed, and threatened ally has been given a “blank cheque” by its stronger ally. Such a sweeping offer of support may lead to unintended consequences as the weaker ally feels that its material and geopolitical constraints can be overcome. In Saudi Arabia’s case, that could mean a more aggressive policy towards Qatar, or perhaps Iran. Particularly now that the White House has seen several realist members of the Trump cabinet – such as Mattis and former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson – replaced by Iran hawks and Trump loyalists. Bottom Line: A combination of less independent-minded cabinet members in the White House and a clear “blank cheque” from President Trump to Saudi Arabia could cause geopolitical risk to re-emerge in the Middle East. In the near term, this could increase the geopolitical risk premium on oil prices – as measured by the residual in Chart 13. Chart 13 Black Swan 4: The Balkans Become A Powder Keg … Again Bismarck famously said in 1888 – 26 years before the outbreak of the Great War, that “one day the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans.” The Balkans are far less geopolitically relevant today than in the early twentieth century. They are also exhausted following a decade-long Yugoslav rigor mortis in the 1990s which yielded at least three regional wars and now six (or seven, depending who is counting) independent states. The problem is that tensions have not disappeared. Two frozen conflicts remain. First, Bosnia and Herzegovina is a sovereign country made up of two political entities, with the Serb-dominated Republika Srpska agitating for independence and aligning with Russia. Second, tensions between Serbia and Kosovo took a turn for the worse late last year as Kosovo imposed an economic embargo on trade with Serbia and called for the creation of a military. Has anything really changed over the course of the decade? We think there are three causes for alarm: Tensions between Russia and the West have become serious, with both camps looking to score tactical and strategic wins across the globe. With the Syrian Civil War all but over, a new battleground may emerge. While Republika Srpska is essentially an outright ally of Russia, Serbia continues to try to straddle the fine line between an EU enlargement candidate and geopolitical neutrality. However, this high-wire act is becoming untenable as… Enlargement fatigue sets in the EU. There is no doubt that the EU enlargement process froze Balkan conflicts. Countries like Serbia and Kosovo have an incentive to be on their best behavior so long as the prospect of eventual EU membership remains. But in the current environment of introspection, the EU may not have enough of a coherent geopolitical vision to deal with the Balkans without a crisis. The global economic cycle may be ending, leading to a global recession in the next 12-to-24 months. While our BCA House View remains that the next recession will be a mild one in the U.S., we think that EM and, by extension, frontier markets could be the eye of the storm in the next downturn. As investors abandon their “search for yield” in riskier geographies, they could exacerbate poor governance, political tensions, and geopolitical cleavages that have been frozen in place by the last economic cycle. Finally, U.S. policy towards the Balkans is unclear. In the past, the U.S. asked all countries in the region to accept the status quo and prepare for EU integration. But with the U.S. now adopting an antagonistic view towards the EU bloc, it is unclear what Washington’s message to the Balkans will be. After all, Trump has personally encouraged all other world leaders to don their own version of the “America First” slogan. The only problem in a place like the Balkans is that “Serbia first” – or Croatia and Kosovo first – is unlikely to go down smoothly in the neighborhood, given the last twenty – or even hundred – years. Bottom Line: The powder keg that is the Balkans has not been dried for decades. However, several tailwinds of stability are gone, replaced with macro headwinds. A renewed conflict on Europe’s doorstep could be the next great geopolitical crisis. If this were to occur, we would bank on greater European integration, especially in terms of military and foreign policy. However, it could also mark the first break in U.S.-EU foreign policy if the two decide to pick opposing sides in the region. Black Swan 5: Lame Duck Trump For our final Black Swan, we are sticking with one of our 2018 choices: a “Lame duck” presidency. “Lame duck” presidents – leaders whose popularity late in their terms have sunk so low that they can no longer affect policy – are said to be particularly adventurous in the foreign arena. While this adage has a spotty empirical record, there are several notable examples in recent memory.10 American presidents have few constitutional constraints when it comes to foreign policy. Therefore, when domestic constraints rise, U.S. presidents can seek relevance abroad. President Trump may become the earliest, and lamest, lame duck president in recent U.S. history. While his Republican support remains strong (Chart 14), his overall popularity is well below the average presidential approval rating at this point in the political cycle (Chart 15). Now there is also a Democrat-led House of Representatives to stymie his domestic policy and launch independent investigations into both his administration’s conduct and his personal finances and dealings. Chart 14 Chart 15 We would also add the Senate to the list of problems for President Trump. The electoral math was friendly towards the Republicans in 2018, with Democrats defending 10 Senate seats in states that President Trump won in 2016. In 2020, however, two-thirds of the races will be for Republican-held seats. As such, many Republican senators may begin campaigning early by moving away from President Trump. What kind of adventures would we expect to see President Trump embark on in 2019? Last year, we identified “China-U.S. trade war,” “Iran jingoism,” and “North Korea” as potentials. In many ways, 2018 was the year when all three mattered. Going forward, however, we think that trade war and the Middle East might take a backseat. First, the bear market in equities has raised the odds of a recession. As such, the potential cost of pursuing the trade war further has been increased. So has an aggressive policy towards Iran that dramatically boosts oil prices. Furthermore, President Trump has signaled that he is willing to withdraw from the Middle East, calling for a full withdrawal from Syria and telegraphing one from Afghanistan. Instead, we see President Trump potentially following in the footsteps of previous U.S. administrations and finding relevance in Latin America. A military intervention in Venezuela, to ostensibly support a coup against the current regime, would find little opposition domestically. First, there is no doubt that Venezuela has become a genuine humanitarian disaster. Second, its oil output is on a downward spiral already, with only 1 million b/d of production at risk due to a potential military conflict (Chart 16). Third, the new Bolsonaro administration in Brazil may even support an intervention, as well as neighboring Colombia. This is a change from the last twenty years, in which Latin American countries largely stuck together, despite ideological differences, in opposition to U.S. interference in the continent’s domestic affairs. Chart 16On A Downward Spiral On A Downward Spiral On A Downward Spiral Finally, even the anti-Trump U.S. foreign policy establishment may support an intervention. Not only is there the issue of human suffering, but Russia and China have used Venezuela as an anchor to build out influence in America’s sphere of influence. Furthermore, the potential promise of Venezuela’s eventual energy production is another reason to consider an American intervention (Chart 17). Chart 17 Bottom Line: American presidents rarely decide to go softly into that good night. It is very difficult to see President Trump become irrelevant. With tensions with China carrying a high economic cost and military interventions in the Middle East remaining politically toxic in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan wars, perhaps President Trump will decide to go “retro,” in the sense of a throwback Latin America intervention.   Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see, Blackstone, “Byron Wien Announces Ten Surprises For 2018,” dated January 2, 2018, available at blackstone.com. 2 A shoutout to another doyen of the financial industry, Alastair Newton! 3 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, “Deciphering Global Trade Linkages,” dated September 27, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see “Highlights of Xi’s speech at Taiwan message anniversary event,” China Daily, January 2, 2019, available at www.chinadaily.com.cn; and “President Tsai Issues Statement On China’s President Xi’s ‘Message To Compatriots In Taiwan,’” Office of the President, Republic of China (Taiwan), January 2, 2019, available at english.president.gov.tw. 5 Please see Xi Jinping, “Secure a Decisive Victory in Building a Moderately Prosperous Society in All Respects and Strive for the Great Success of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era,” section 3.12, October 18, 2017, available at www.xinhuanet.com; and Deng Yuwen, “Is China Planning To Take Taiwan By Force In 2020?” South China Morning Post, July 20, 2018, available at beta.scmp.com. 6 Please see United States, H.R. 535, Taiwan Travel Act, 115th Congress (2017-18), available at www.congress.gov and S. 2736, Asia Reassurance Initiative Act of 2018, 115th Congress (2017-18), available at www.congress.gov. 7 This is precisely what occurred when China chose missile tests in 1995-96 and drove voters toward the very candidate, Lee Teng-hui, that Beijing least desired. The popular Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je may run for president in 2020, and Beijing may see him as preferable to President Tsai. He has spoken of China and Taiwan as being part of the same family and he has held city-to-city talks between Shanghai and Taipei despite the shutdown in direct talks between Beijing and Taipei. 8 Please see Andrew Sharp, “Beijing likely meddled in Taiwan elections, US cybersecurity firm says,” Nikkei Asian Review, November 28, 2018, available at asia.nikkei.com. 9 Please see “Statement from President Donald J. Trump on Standing with Saudi Arabia,” The White House, dated November 20, 2018, available at whitehouse.org. 10 President Clinton launched the largest NATO military operation against Yugoslavia amidst impeachment proceedings against him, while President George H. W. Bush ordered U.S. troops to Somalia a month after losing the 1992 election. Ironically, President George H. W. Bush intervened in Somalia in order to lock in the supposedly isolationist Bill Clinton, who had defeated him three weeks earlier, into an internationalist foreign policy. President George W. Bush ordered the “surge” of troops into Iraq in 2007 after losing both houses of Congress in 2006; President Obama arranged the Iranian nuclear deal after losing the Senate (and hence Congress) to the Republicans in 2014.   Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights So What? Our best and worst calls of 2018 cast light on our methodology and 2019 forecasts. Why? Our clients took us to task for violating our own methodology on the Iranian oil sanctions. Sticking to our guns would have paid off with long Russian equities versus EM. We correctly called China’s domestic policy, the U.S.-China trade war, Europe, the U.S. midterms, and relative winners in emerging markets. Feature It has been a tradition for BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy, since our launch in 2012, to highlight our best and worst forecasts of the year.1 This will also be the final publication of the year, provided that there is no global conflagration worthy of a missive between now and January 9, when we return to our regular publication schedule. We wish all of our clients a great Holiday Season. And especially all the very best in 2019: lots of happiness, health, and hefty returns. Good luck and good hunting. The Worst Calls Of 2018 A forecasting mistake is wasted if one learns nothing from the error. This is why we take our mistakes seriously and why we always begin the report card with our zingers. Our overall performance in 2018 was … one of our best. The successes below will testify to this. However, we made three notable errors. A Schizophrenic Russia View Our worst call of the year was to panic and close our long Russian equities relative to emerging markets trade in the face of headline geopolitical risks. In early March, we posited that Russia was a “buy” relative to the broad EM equity index due to a combination of cheap valuations, strong macro fundamentals, orthodox policy, and an end to large-scale geopolitical adventurism. This call ultimately proved to be correct (Chart 1). Chart 1Russian Stocks Outperformed In The End Russian Stocks Outperformed In The End Russian Stocks Outperformed In The End What went wrong? The main risk to our view, that the U.S. Congress would pursue an anti-Russia agenda regardless of any Russian sympathies in the Trump White House, materialized in the wake of the poisoning of former Russian military intelligence officer Sergei Skripal with a Novichok nerve agent in the United Kingdom. As fate would have it, the incident occurred just before our bullish report went to clients! The ensuing international uproar and sanctions caused a selloff. Our bullish thesis did not rest exclusively on geopolitics, but a thaw in West-Russia relations did form the main pillar of the view. Our Russia Geopolitical Risk Index, which had served us well in the past, was pricing as low of a level of geopolitical risk as one could hope for in the post-Crimea environment (Chart 2). Naturally the measure jumped into action following the Skripal incident. Chart 2Geopolitical Risk Was Low Prior To Skripal Geopolitical Risk Was Low Prior To Skripal Geopolitical Risk Was Low Prior To Skripal The timing of our call was therefore off, but we should have stuck with the overall view. The U.S. imposed preliminary sanctions that lacked teeth. While Washington accepted the U.K.’s assessment that Moscow was behind the poisoning, the weakness of the sanctions also signaled that the U.S. did not consider the incident worthy of a tougher position. There are now two parallel sanction processes under way. The first round of sanctions announced in August gave Russia 90 days to comply and adopt “remedial measures” regarding the use of chemical and biological weapons. On November 9, the U.S. State Department noted that Russia had not complied with the deadline. The U.S. is now expected to impose a second round of sanctions that will include at least three of six punitive actions: Opposition to development aid and assistance by international financial institutions (think the IMF and the World Bank); Downgrading diplomatic relations; Additional restrictions on exports to Russia (high-tech exports have already been barred by the first round of sanctions); Restrictions on imports from Russia; A ban on landing rights in the U.S. for Russian state-owned airlines; Prohibiting U.S. banks from purchasing Russian government debt. While the White House was expected to have such sanctions ready to go on the November 9 deadline, it has dragged its feet for almost two months now. This suggests that President Trump continues to hold out for improved relations with President Putin. A visit by President Putin to Washington remains possible in Q1 2019. As such, we would expect the White House to adopt some mix of the first five items on the above list, hardly a crushing response from Moscow’s perspective. The U.S. Congress, however, has a parallel process in the form of the Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act of 2018 (DASKAA). Introduced in August by Senator Lindsey Graham, a Russia hawk, the legislation would put restrictions on Americans buying Russian sovereign debt and curb investments in Russian energy projects. The bill also includes secondary sanctions on investing in the Russian oil sector, which would potentially ensnare European energy companies collaborating with Russia in the energy sector. There was some expectation that Congress would take up the bill ahead of the midterm election, but nothing came of it. Even with the latest incident – the seizing of two Ukrainian naval vessels in the Kerch Strait – we have yet to see action. While we expect the U.S. to do something eventually, the White House approach is likely to be tepid while the congressional approach may be too draconian to pass into law. And with Democrats about to take over the House, and likely demand even tougher sanctions against Russia, the ultimate legislation may be too bold for President Trump to sign into legislation. The point is that Russia has acted antagonistically towards the West in 2018, but in small enough increments that the response has been tepid. Given the paucity of Russian financial and trade links with the U.S., Washington’s sanctions would only bite if they included the dreaded “secondary sanction” implications for third party sovereigns and firms – particularly European, which do have a lot of business in Russia. This is highly unlikely without major Russian aggression. We cannot completely ignore the potential for such aggression in 2019, especially with President Putin’s popularity in the doldrums (Chart 3) and a contentious Ukrainian election due for March 31. However, we outlined the constraints against Russia in 2014, amidst the Ukrainian crisis, and we do not think that these constraints have been reduced (they may have only grown since then). Chart 3Non-Negligible Risk Of Russian Aggression Non-Negligible Risk Of Russian Aggression Non-Negligible Risk Of Russian Aggression Regardless of the big picture for 2019, we could have faded the risks in 2018 and stuck to the fundamentals. Russia is up 17.2% against EM year-to-date. The lesson here, therefore, is to find re-entry points into a well-founded view despite market volatility. Chart 1 shows that Russian equities climbed the proverbial “wall of worry” relative to EM in 2018. Doubting Jair Bolsonaro Our list of mistakes keeps us in the EM universe where we underestimated Jair Bolsonaro’s chances of winning the presidency in Brazil. The answer to the question we posed in the title of our September report – “Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything?” – was a definitive “yes.” Since the publication of that report, BRL/USD is up 2.9% and Brazilian equities are up 18.5% relative to EM (Chart 4). Chart 4Bolsonaro Rally Losing Its Luster Already Bolsonaro Rally Losing Its Luster Already Bolsonaro Rally Losing Its Luster Already To our credit, the question of Bolsonaro’s electoral chances elicited passionate and pointed internal debate. But our clients did not see the internal struggle, just the incorrect external output! A bad call is a bad call, no matter how it is assembled on the intellectual assembly line. That said, we still think that our report is valuable. It sets out the constraints facing Bolsonaro in 2019. He has to convince the left-leaning median voter that meaningful pension reform is needed; bully a fractured Congress into painful structural reforms; and overcome an unforgiving macro context of tepid Chinese stimulus and a strong USD. If the Bolsonaro administration wastes the good will of the investment community over the next six months, we expect the market’s punishment to be swift and painful. In fact, Chart 4 notes that the initial Bolsonaro rally has already lost most of its shine. Brazilian assets are still up since the election, but the gentle slope could become a steep fall if Bolsonaro stumbles. The market is priced for political perfection. To be clear, we are not bearish on Bolsonaro. We believe that, relative to EM, he will be a positive for Brazil. However, the market is currently betting that he will win by two touchdowns, whereas we think he will squeak by with a last-second field goal. The difference between the two forecasts is compelling and we have expressed it by being long MXN/BRL.2 Not Sticking To Our Method In The Case Of Iran Throughout late-2017 and 2018 we pointed out that President Trump’s successful application of “maximum pressure” against North Korea could become a market-relevant risk if he were emboldened to try the same strategy against Iran. For much of the year, this view was prescient. As investors realized the seriousness of President Trump’s strategy, a geopolitical risk premium began to seep into oil prices, as illustrated in Chart 5 by the red bar. Chart 5 Every time we spoke to clients or published reports on this topic, we highlighted just how dangerous a “maximum pressure” strategy would be in the case of Iran. We stressed that Iran could wreak havoc across Iraq and other parts of the Middle East and even drive up oil prices to the point of causing a “geopolitical recession in 2019.” In other words, we stressed the extraordinary constraints that President Trump would face. To their credit many of our clients called us out on the inconsistency: our market call was über bullish oil prices, while our methodology emphasized constraints over preferences. We were constantly fielding questions such as: Why would President Trump face down such overwhelming constraints? We did not have a very good answer to this question other than that he was ideologically committed to overturning the Iranian nuclear deal. In essence, we doubted President Trump’s own ideological flexibility and realism. That was a mistake and we tip our hat to the White House for recognizing the complex constraints arrayed against it. President Trump realized by October how dangerous those constraints were and began floating the idea of sanction waivers, causing the geopolitical risk premium to drain from the market (Chart 6). To our credit, we highlighted sanction waivers as a key risk to our view and thus took profit on our bullish energy call early. Chart 6Sanction Waivers Caused A Collapse In Oil Prices Sanction Waivers Caused A Collapse In Oil Prices Sanction Waivers Caused A Collapse In Oil Prices That said, our clients have taken the argument further, pointing out that if we were wrong on Trump’s ideological flexibility with Iran, we may be making the same mistake when it comes to China. However, there is a critical difference. Americans are more concerned about conflict with North Korea than with Iran (Chart 7), while China is the major concern about trade (Chart 8). Chart 7 Chart 8 Second, railing against the Iran deal did not get President Trump elected, whereas his protectionist rhetoric – specifically regarding China – did (Chart 9). Getting anything less than the mother-of-all-deals with Beijing will draw down Trump’s political capital ahead of 2020 and open him to accusations of being “weak” and “surrendering to China.” These are accusations that the country’s other set of protectionists – the Democrats – will wantonly employ against him in the next general election. Chart 9Protectionism, Not Iran, Helped Trump Get Elected Protectionism, Not Iran, Helped Trump Get Elected Protectionism, Not Iran, Helped Trump Get Elected Ultimately, if we have to be wrong, we are at least satisfied that our method stood firm in the face of our own fallibility. We are doubly glad to see our clients using our own method against our views. This is precisely what we wanted to accomplish when we began BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy in March 2012: to revolutionize finance by raising the sophistication with which it approaches geopolitics. That was a lofty goal, but we do not pretend to hold the monopoly on our constraint-based methodology. In the end, our market calls did not suffer due to our error. We closed our long EM energy-producer equities / EM equities for a gain of 4.67% and our long Brent / short S&P 500 for a gain of 6.01%. However, our latter call, shorting the S&P 500 in September, was based on several reasons, including concerns regarding FAANG stocks, overstretched valuations, and an escalation of the trade war. Had we paired our S&P 500 short with a better long, we would have added far more value to our clients. It is that lost opportunity that has kept us up at night throughout this quarter. We essentially timed the S&P 500 correction, but paired it with a wayward long. The Best Calls Of 2018 BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy had a strong year. We are not going to list all of our calls here, but only those most relevant to our clients. Our best 2018 forecast originally appeared in 2017, when in April of that year we predicted that “Political Risks Are Understated In 2018.” Our reasoning was bang on: U.S. fiscal policy would turn strongly stimulative (the tax cuts would pass and Trump would be a big spender) and thus cause the Fed to turn hawkish and the USD to rally, tightening global monetary policy; Trump’s trade war would re-emerge in 2018; China would reboot its structural reform efforts by focusing on containing leverage, thus tightening global “fiscal” policy. In the same report we also predicted that Italian elections in 2018 would reignite Euro Area breakup risks, but that Italian policymakers would ultimately be found to be bluffing, as has been our long-running assertion. Throughout 2018, our team largely maintained and curated the forecasts expressed in that early 2017 report. We start the list of the best calls with the one call that was by far the most important for global assets in 2018: economic policy in China. The Chinese Would Over-Tighten, Then Under-Stimulate Getting Chinese policy right required us, first, to predict that policy would bring negative economic surprises this year, and second, once policy began to ease, to convince clients and colleagues that “this time would be different” and the stimulus would not be very stimulating. In other words, this time, China would not panic and reach for the credit lever of the post-2008 years (Chart 10), but would maintain its relatively tight economic, financial, environmental, and macro-prudential oversight, while easing only on the margin. Chart 10No Massive Credit Stimulus In 2018 No Massive Credit Stimulus In 2018 No Massive Credit Stimulus In 2018 This is precisely what occurred. BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy’s “China Play Index,” which is designed to capture any reflation out of Beijing, collapsed in 2018 and has hardly ticked up since the policy easing announced in July (Chart 11). Chart 11Weak Reflation Signal From China Weak Reflation Signal From China Weak Reflation Signal From China Our view was based on an understanding of Chinese politics that we can confidently say has been unique: From March 2017, we highlighted the importance of the 2017 October Party Congress, arguing that President Xi Jinping would consolidate his power and redouble his attempts to “reform” the economy by reining in dangerous imbalances. We explicitly characterized the containment of leverage as the most market-relevant reform to focus on. We stringently ignored the ideological debate about the nature of reform in China, focusing instead on the major policy changes afoot. We identified very early on how the rising odds of a U.S.-China conflict would embolden Chinese leadership to double-down on painful structural reforms. Will China maintain this disciplined approach in 2019? That is yet to be seen. But we are arming ourselves and clients with critical ways to identify when and whether Beijing’s policy easing transforms into a full-blown “stimulus overshoot”: First, we need to see a clear upturn in shadow financing to believe that the Xi administration has given up on preventing excess debt. Assuming that such a shift occurs, and that overall credit improves, it will enable us to turn bullish on global growth and global risk assets on a cyclical, i.e., not merely tactical, horizon (Chart 12). Chart 12A Shadow Lending Surge Would Mean A Big Policy Shift A Shadow Lending Surge Would Mean A Big Policy Shift A Shadow Lending Surge Would Mean A Big Policy Shift Second, our qualitative checklist will need to see a lot more “checks” in order to change our mind. Short of an extraordinary surge in bank and shadow bank credit, there needs to be a splurge in central and especially local government spending (Table 1). The mid-year spike in local governments’ new bond issuance in 2018 was fleeting and fell far short of the surge that initiated the large-scale stimulus of 2015. Frontloading these bonds in 2019 will depend on timing and magnitude. Table 1A Credit Splurge, Or Government Spending Splurge, Is Necessary For Stimulus To Overshoot BCA Geopolitical Strategy 2018 Report Card BCA Geopolitical Strategy 2018 Report Card Third, we would need to see President Xi Jinping make a shift in rhetoric away from the “Three Battles” of financial risk, pollution, and poverty. Having identified systemic financial risk as the first of the three ills, Xi needs to make a dramatic reversal of this three-year action plan if he is to clear the way for another credit blowout. Trade War Would Reignite In 2018 It paid off to stick with our trade war alarmism in 2018. We correctly forecast that the U.S. and China would collide over trade and that their initial trade agreement – on May 20 – was insubstantial and would not last. In the event it lasted three days. Our one setback on the trade front was to doubt the two sides would agree to a trade truce at the G20. However, by assigning a subjective 40% probability, we correctly noted the fair odds of a truce. We also insisted that any truce would be temporary, which ended up being the case. We may yet be vindicated if the March 1 deadline produces no sustainable deal, as we forecast in last week’s Strategic Outlook. That said, correct geopolitical calls do not butter our bread at BCA. Rather, we are paid to make market calls. To that end, we would point out that we correctly assessed the market-relevance of the trade conflict, fading S&P 500 risks and focusing on the effect on global risk assets. Will this continue into 2019? We think so. We do not see trade conflict as the originator of ongoing market turbulence (Chart 13) and would expect the U.S. to outperform global equities again over the course of 2019 (Chart 14). This view may appear wrong in Q1, as the market digests the Fed backing off from hawkish rhetoric, the ongoing trade negotiations, and the likely seasonal uptick in Chinese credit data in the beginning of the calendar year. Chart 13Yields, Not Trade War, Drove Stocks Yields, Not Trade War, Drove Stocks Yields, Not Trade War, Drove Stocks Chart 14U.S. Stocks Will Resume Outperformance U.S. Stocks Will Resume Outperformance U.S. Stocks Will Resume Outperformance However, any stabilization in equity markets would likely serve to ease financial conditions in the U.S., where economic and inflation conditions remain firmly in tightening territory (Chart 15). As such, the Fed pause is likely to last no more than a quarter, maybe two at best, leading to renewed carnage in global risk assets if our view on Chinese policy stimulus – tepid – remains valid through the course of 2019. Chart 15If Financial Conditions Ease, Tightening Will Be Back On If Financial Conditions Ease, Tightening Will Be Back On If Financial Conditions Ease, Tightening Will Be Back On Europe (All Of It… Again) In 2017, our forecasting track record for Europe was stellar. This continued in 2018, with no major setbacks: Populism in Italy: Our long-held view has been that Europe’s chief remaining risks lay in Italian populists coming to power. We predicted in 2016 that this would eventually happen and that they would then be proven to be bluffing. This is essentially what happened in 2018. Matteo Salvini’s Lega is surging in the polls because its leader has realized that a combination of hard anti-immigrant policy and the softest-of-soft Euroskepticism is a winning combination. We believe that investors can live with this combination. Our only major fault in forecasting European politics and assets this year was to close our bearish Italy call too early: we booked our long Spanish / short Italian 10-year government bond trade for a small loss in August, before the spread between the two Mediterranean countries blew out to record levels. That missed opportunity could have also made it on our “worst calls” list as well. Chart 16 Pluralism in Europe: To get the call on Italy right, we had to dabble in some theoretical work. In a somewhat academic report, we showed that political concentration was on the decline in the developed world (Chart 16), but especially in Europe (Chart 17). Put simply, lower political concentration suggests that a duopoly between the traditional center-left and center-right parties is breaking down. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, we argued that Europe’s parliamentary systems would enable centrist parties to adopt elements of the populist agenda, particularly on immigration, without compromising the overall stability of European institutions. As such, political pluralism, or low political concentration, is positive for markets. Chart 17 Immigration crisis is over: For centrist parties to be able to successfully adopt populist immigration policy, they needed a pause in the immigration crisis. This was empirically verifiable in 2018 (Chart 18). Chart 18European Migration Crisis Is Over European Migration Crisis Is Over European Migration Crisis Is Over Merkel’s time has run out: Since early 2017, we had cautioned clients that Angela Merkel’s demise was afoot, but that it would be an opportunity, rather than a risk, when it came. It finally happened in 2018 and it was not a market moving event. The main question for 2019 is whether German policymakers, and Europe as a whole, will use the infusion of fresh blood in Berlin to reaccelerate crucial reforms ahead of the next global recession. Brexit: Since early 2016, we have been right on Brexit. More specifically, we were corrent in cautioning investors that, were Brexit to occur, “the biggest loser would be the Conservative Party, not the EU.” As with the previous two Conservative Party prime ministers, it appears that the question of the U.K.’s relationship with the EU has completely drained any political capital out of Prime Minister Theresa May’s reign. We suspect that the only factor propping up the Tories in the polls is that Jeremy Corbyn is the leader of Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition. We have also argued that soft Brexit would ultimately prove to be “illogical” and that “Bregret” would begin to seep in, as it now most clearly has. We parlayed these rising geopolitical risks and uncertainties by shorting cable in the first half of the year for a 6.21% gain. Malaysia Over Turkey And India Over Brazil Not all was lost for our EM calls this year. We played Malaysia against Turkey in the currency markets for a 17.44% gain, largely thanks to massively divergent governance and structural reform trajectories after Malaysia’s opposition won power for the first time in the country’s history. Second, we initiated a long Indian / short Brazilian equity view in March that returned 27.54% by August. This was a similar play on divergent structural reforms, but it was also a way to hedge our alarmist view on trade. Given India’s isolation from global trade and insular financial markets, we identified India as one of the EM markets that would remain aloof of protectionist risks. We could have closed the trade earlier for greater gain, but did not time the exit properly. Midterm Election: A Major Democratic Victory Our midterm election forecast was correct: Democrats won a substantial victory. Even our initial call on the Senate, that Democrats had a surprisingly large probability of picking up seats, proved to be correct, with Republicans eking out just two gains in a year when Democrats were defending 10 seats in states that Trump carried in 2016. What about our all-important call that the election would have no impact on the markets? That is more difficult to assess, given that the S&P 500 has in fact collapsed in the lead-up to and aftermath of the election. However, we see little connection between the election outcome and the stock market’s performance. Neither do our colleagues or clients, who have largely stopped asking about the Democrats’ policy designs. In 2019, domestic politics may play a role in the markets. Impeachment risk is low, but, if it rears its head, it could prompt President Trump to seek relevance abroad, as his predecessors have done when they lost control of domestic policy. In addition, the Democratic Party’s sweeping House victory may suggest a political pendulum swing to the left in the 2020 presidential election. We will discuss both risks as part of our annual Five Black Swans report in early 2019. U.S. domestic politics was a collection of Red Herrings during much of President Obama’s presidency, and has produced strong tailwinds under President Trump (tax cuts in particular). This may change in 2019, with considerable risk to investors, and asset prices, ahead.     Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist roukayai@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      For our 2019 Outlook, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, “2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge,” dated December 14, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. For our past Strategic Outlooks, please visit gps.bcaresearch.com. 2      In part we like this cross because we also think that Mexico’s newly elected president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, is priced to lose by two touchdowns, whereas he may merely lose by a last-second field goal.    

Highlights So What? Our best and worst calls of 2018 cast light on our methodology and 2019 forecasts. Why? Our clients took us to task for violating our own methodology on the Iranian oil sanctions. Sticking to our guns would have paid off with long Russian equities versus EM. We correctly called China’s domestic policy, the U.S.-China trade war, Europe, the U.S. midterms, and relative winners in emerging markets. Feature It has been a tradition for BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy, since our launch in 2012, to highlight our best and worst forecasts of the year.1 This will also be the final publication of the year, provided that there is no global conflagration worthy of a missive between now and January 9, when we return to our regular publication schedule. We wish all of our clients a great Holiday Season. And especially all the very best in 2019: lots of happiness, health, and hefty returns. Good luck and good hunting. The Worst Calls Of 2018 A forecasting mistake is wasted if one learns nothing from the error. This is why we take our mistakes seriously and why we always begin the report card with our zingers. Our overall performance in 2018 was … one of our best. The successes below will testify to this. However, we made three notable errors. A Schizophrenic Russia View Our worst call of the year was to panic and close our long Russian equities relative to emerging markets trade in the face of headline geopolitical risks. In early March, we posited that Russia was a “buy” relative to the broad EM equity index due to a combination of cheap valuations, strong macro fundamentals, orthodox policy, and an end to large-scale geopolitical adventurism. This call ultimately proved to be correct (Chart 1). Chart 1Russian Stocks Outperformed In The End Russian Stocks Outperformed In The End Russian Stocks Outperformed In The End What went wrong? The main risk to our view, that the U.S. Congress would pursue an anti-Russia agenda regardless of any Russian sympathies in the Trump White House, materialized in the wake of the poisoning of former Russian military intelligence officer Sergei Skripal with a Novichok nerve agent in the United Kingdom. As fate would have it, the incident occurred just before our bullish report went to clients! The ensuing international uproar and sanctions caused a selloff. Our bullish thesis did not rest exclusively on geopolitics, but a thaw in West-Russia relations did form the main pillar of the view. Our Russia Geopolitical Risk Index, which had served us well in the past, was pricing as low of a level of geopolitical risk as one could hope for in the post-Crimea environment (Chart 2). Naturally the measure jumped into action following the Skripal incident. Chart 2Geopolitical Risk Was Low Prior To Skripal Geopolitical Risk Was Low Prior To Skripal Geopolitical Risk Was Low Prior To Skripal The timing of our call was therefore off, but we should have stuck with the overall view. The U.S. imposed preliminary sanctions that lacked teeth. While Washington accepted the U.K.’s assessment that Moscow was behind the poisoning, the weakness of the sanctions also signaled that the U.S. did not consider the incident worthy of a tougher position. There are now two parallel sanction processes under way. The first round of sanctions announced in August gave Russia 90 days to comply and adopt “remedial measures” regarding the use of chemical and biological weapons. On November 9, the U.S. State Department noted that Russia had not complied with the deadline. The U.S. is now expected to impose a second round of sanctions that will include at least three of six punitive actions: Opposition to development aid and assistance by international financial institutions (think the IMF and the World Bank); Downgrading diplomatic relations; Additional restrictions on exports to Russia (high-tech exports have already been barred by the first round of sanctions); Restrictions on imports from Russia; A ban on landing rights in the U.S. for Russian state-owned airlines; Prohibiting U.S. banks from purchasing Russian government debt. While the White House was expected to have such sanctions ready to go on the November 9 deadline, it has dragged its feet for almost two months now. This suggests that President Trump continues to hold out for improved relations with President Putin. A visit by President Putin to Washington remains possible in Q1 2019. As such, we would expect the White House to adopt some mix of the first five items on the above list, hardly a crushing response from Moscow’s perspective. The U.S. Congress, however, has a parallel process in the form of the Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act of 2018 (DASKAA). Introduced in August by Senator Lindsey Graham, a Russia hawk, the legislation would put restrictions on Americans buying Russian sovereign debt and curb investments in Russian energy projects. The bill also includes secondary sanctions on investing in the Russian oil sector, which would potentially ensnare European energy companies collaborating with Russia in the energy sector. There was some expectation that Congress would take up the bill ahead of the midterm election, but nothing came of it. Even with the latest incident – the seizing of two Ukrainian naval vessels in the Kerch Strait – we have yet to see action. While we expect the U.S. to do something eventually, the White House approach is likely to be tepid while the congressional approach may be too draconian to pass into law. And with Democrats about to take over the House, and likely demand even tougher sanctions against Russia, the ultimate legislation may be too bold for President Trump to sign into legislation. The point is that Russia has acted antagonistically towards the West in 2018, but in small enough increments that the response has been tepid. Given the paucity of Russian financial and trade links with the U.S., Washington’s sanctions would only bite if they included the dreaded “secondary sanction” implications for third party sovereigns and firms – particularly European, which do have a lot of business in Russia. This is highly unlikely without major Russian aggression. We cannot completely ignore the potential for such aggression in 2019, especially with President Putin’s popularity in the doldrums (Chart 3) and a contentious Ukrainian election due for March 31. However, we outlined the constraints against Russia in 2014, amidst the Ukrainian crisis, and we do not think that these constraints have been reduced (they may have only grown since then). Chart 3Non-Negligible Risk Of Russian Aggression Non-Negligible Risk Of Russian Aggression Non-Negligible Risk Of Russian Aggression Regardless of the big picture for 2019, we could have faded the risks in 2018 and stuck to the fundamentals. Russia is up 17.2% against EM year-to-date. The lesson here, therefore, is to find re-entry points into a well-founded view despite market volatility. Chart 1 shows that Russian equities climbed the proverbial “wall of worry” relative to EM in 2018. Doubting Jair Bolsonaro Our list of mistakes keeps us in the EM universe where we underestimated Jair Bolsonaro’s chances of winning the presidency in Brazil. The answer to the question we posed in the title of our September report – “Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything?” – was a definitive “yes.” Since the publication of that report, BRL/USD is up 2.9% and Brazilian equities are up 18.5% relative to EM (Chart 4). Chart 4Bolsonaro Rally Losing Its Luster Already Bolsonaro Rally Losing Its Luster Already Bolsonaro Rally Losing Its Luster Already To our credit, the question of Bolsonaro’s electoral chances elicited passionate and pointed internal debate. But our clients did not see the internal struggle, just the incorrect external output! A bad call is a bad call, no matter how it is assembled on the intellectual assembly line. That said, we still think that our report is valuable. It sets out the constraints facing Bolsonaro in 2019. He has to convince the left-leaning median voter that meaningful pension reform is needed; bully a fractured Congress into painful structural reforms; and overcome an unforgiving macro context of tepid Chinese stimulus and a strong USD. If the Bolsonaro administration wastes the good will of the investment community over the next six months, we expect the market’s punishment to be swift and painful. In fact, Chart 4 notes that the initial Bolsonaro rally has already lost most of its shine. Brazilian assets are still up since the election, but the gentle slope could become a steep fall if Bolsonaro stumbles. The market is priced for political perfection. To be clear, we are not bearish on Bolsonaro. We believe that, relative to EM, he will be a positive for Brazil. However, the market is currently betting that he will win by two touchdowns, whereas we think he will squeak by with a last-second field goal. The difference between the two forecasts is compelling and we have expressed it by being long MXN/BRL.2 Not Sticking To Our Method In The Case Of Iran Throughout late-2017 and 2018 we pointed out that President Trump’s successful application of “maximum pressure” against North Korea could become a market-relevant risk if he were emboldened to try the same strategy against Iran. For much of the year, this view was prescient. As investors realized the seriousness of President Trump’s strategy, a geopolitical risk premium began to seep into oil prices, as illustrated in Chart 5 by the red bar. Chart 5 Every time we spoke to clients or published reports on this topic, we highlighted just how dangerous a “maximum pressure” strategy would be in the case of Iran. We stressed that Iran could wreak havoc across Iraq and other parts of the Middle East and even drive up oil prices to the point of causing a “geopolitical recession in 2019.” In other words, we stressed the extraordinary constraints that President Trump would face. To their credit many of our clients called us out on the inconsistency: our market call was über bullish oil prices, while our methodology emphasized constraints over preferences. We were constantly fielding questions such as: Why would President Trump face down such overwhelming constraints? We did not have a very good answer to this question other than that he was ideologically committed to overturning the Iranian nuclear deal. In essence, we doubted President Trump’s own ideological flexibility and realism. That was a mistake and we tip our hat to the White House for recognizing the complex constraints arrayed against it. President Trump realized by October how dangerous those constraints were and began floating the idea of sanction waivers, causing the geopolitical risk premium to drain from the market (Chart 6). To our credit, we highlighted sanction waivers as a key risk to our view and thus took profit on our bullish energy call early. Chart 6Sanction Waivers Caused A Collapse In Oil Prices Sanction Waivers Caused A Collapse In Oil Prices Sanction Waivers Caused A Collapse In Oil Prices That said, our clients have taken the argument further, pointing out that if we were wrong on Trump’s ideological flexibility with Iran, we may be making the same mistake when it comes to China. However, there is a critical difference. Americans are more concerned about conflict with North Korea than with Iran (Chart 7), while China is the major concern about trade (Chart 8). Chart 7 Chart 8 Second, railing against the Iran deal did not get President Trump elected, whereas his protectionist rhetoric – specifically regarding China – did (Chart 9). Getting anything less than the mother-of-all-deals with Beijing will draw down Trump’s political capital ahead of 2020 and open him to accusations of being “weak” and “surrendering to China.” These are accusations that the country’s other set of protectionists – the Democrats – will wantonly employ against him in the next general election. Chart 9Protectionism, Not Iran, Helped Trump Get Elected Protectionism, Not Iran, Helped Trump Get Elected Protectionism, Not Iran, Helped Trump Get Elected Ultimately, if we have to be wrong, we are at least satisfied that our method stood firm in the face of our own fallibility. We are doubly glad to see our clients using our own method against our views. This is precisely what we wanted to accomplish when we began BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy in March 2012: to revolutionize finance by raising the sophistication with which it approaches geopolitics. That was a lofty goal, but we do not pretend to hold the monopoly on our constraint-based methodology. In the end, our market calls did not suffer due to our error. We closed our long EM energy-producer equities / EM equities for a gain of 4.67% and our long Brent / short S&P 500 for a gain of 6.01%. However, our latter call, shorting the S&P 500 in September, was based on several reasons, including concerns regarding FAANG stocks, overstretched valuations, and an escalation of the trade war. Had we paired our S&P 500 short with a better long, we would have added far more value to our clients. It is that lost opportunity that has kept us up at night throughout this quarter. We essentially timed the S&P 500 correction, but paired it with a wayward long. The Best Calls Of 2018 BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy had a strong year. We are not going to list all of our calls here, but only those most relevant to our clients. Our best 2018 forecast originally appeared in 2017, when in April of that year we predicted that “Political Risks Are Understated In 2018.” Our reasoning was bang on: U.S. fiscal policy would turn strongly stimulative (the tax cuts would pass and Trump would be a big spender) and thus cause the Fed to turn hawkish and the USD to rally, tightening global monetary policy; Trump’s trade war would re-emerge in 2018; China would reboot its structural reform efforts by focusing on containing leverage, thus tightening global “fiscal” policy. In the same report we also predicted that Italian elections in 2018 would reignite Euro Area breakup risks, but that Italian policymakers would ultimately be found to be bluffing, as has been our long-running assertion. Throughout 2018, our team largely maintained and curated the forecasts expressed in that early 2017 report. We start the list of the best calls with the one call that was by far the most important for global assets in 2018: economic policy in China. The Chinese Would Over-Tighten, Then Under-Stimulate Getting Chinese policy right required us, first, to predict that policy would bring negative economic surprises this year, and second, once policy began to ease, to convince clients and colleagues that “this time would be different” and the stimulus would not be very stimulating. In other words, this time, China would not panic and reach for the credit lever of the post-2008 years (Chart 10), but would maintain its relatively tight economic, financial, environmental, and macro-prudential oversight, while easing only on the margin. Chart 10No Massive Credit Stimulus In 2018 No Massive Credit Stimulus In 2018 No Massive Credit Stimulus In 2018 This is precisely what occurred. BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy’s “China Play Index,” which is designed to capture any reflation out of Beijing, collapsed in 2018 and has hardly ticked up since the policy easing announced in July (Chart 11). Chart 11Weak Reflation Signal From China Weak Reflation Signal From China Weak Reflation Signal From China Our view was based on an understanding of Chinese politics that we can confidently say has been unique: From March 2017, we highlighted the importance of the 2017 October Party Congress, arguing that President Xi Jinping would consolidate his power and redouble his attempts to “reform” the economy by reining in dangerous imbalances. We explicitly characterized the containment of leverage as the most market-relevant reform to focus on. We stringently ignored the ideological debate about the nature of reform in China, focusing instead on the major policy changes afoot. We identified very early on how the rising odds of a U.S.-China conflict would embolden Chinese leadership to double-down on painful structural reforms. Will China maintain this disciplined approach in 2019? That is yet to be seen. But we are arming ourselves and clients with critical ways to identify when and whether Beijing’s policy easing transforms into a full-blown “stimulus overshoot”: First, we need to see a clear upturn in shadow financing to believe that the Xi administration has given up on preventing excess debt. Assuming that such a shift occurs, and that overall credit improves, it will enable us to turn bullish on global growth and global risk assets on a cyclical, i.e., not merely tactical, horizon (Chart 12). Chart 12A Shadow Lending Surge Would Mean A Big Policy Shift A Shadow Lending Surge Would Mean A Big Policy Shift A Shadow Lending Surge Would Mean A Big Policy Shift Second, our qualitative checklist will need to see a lot more “checks” in order to change our mind. Short of an extraordinary surge in bank and shadow bank credit, there needs to be a splurge in central and especially local government spending (Table 1). The mid-year spike in local governments’ new bond issuance in 2018 was fleeting and fell far short of the surge that initiated the large-scale stimulus of 2015. Frontloading these bonds in 2019 will depend on timing and magnitude. Table 1A Credit Splurge, Or Government Spending Splurge, Is Necessary For Stimulus To Overshoot BCA Geopolitical Strategy 2018 Report Card BCA Geopolitical Strategy 2018 Report Card Third, we would need to see President Xi Jinping make a shift in rhetoric away from the “Three Battles” of financial risk, pollution, and poverty. Having identified systemic financial risk as the first of the three ills, Xi needs to make a dramatic reversal of this three-year action plan if he is to clear the way for another credit blowout. Trade War Would Reignite In 2018 It paid off to stick with our trade war alarmism in 2018. We correctly forecast that the U.S. and China would collide over trade and that their initial trade agreement – on May 20 – was insubstantial and would not last. In the event it lasted three days. Our one setback on the trade front was to doubt the two sides would agree to a trade truce at the G20. However, by assigning a subjective 40% probability, we correctly noted the fair odds of a truce. We also insisted that any truce would be temporary, which ended up being the case. We may yet be vindicated if the March 1 deadline produces no sustainable deal, as we forecast in last week’s Strategic Outlook. That said, correct geopolitical calls do not butter our bread at BCA. Rather, we are paid to make market calls. To that end, we would point out that we correctly assessed the market-relevance of the trade conflict, fading S&P 500 risks and focusing on the effect on global risk assets. Will this continue into 2019? We think so. We do not see trade conflict as the originator of ongoing market turbulence (Chart 13) and would expect the U.S. to outperform global equities again over the course of 2019 (Chart 14). This view may appear wrong in Q1, as the market digests the Fed backing off from hawkish rhetoric, the ongoing trade negotiations, and the likely seasonal uptick in Chinese credit data in the beginning of the calendar year. Chart 13Yields, Not Trade War, Drove Stocks Yields, Not Trade War, Drove Stocks Yields, Not Trade War, Drove Stocks Chart 14U.S. Stocks Will Resume Outperformance U.S. Stocks Will Resume Outperformance U.S. Stocks Will Resume Outperformance However, any stabilization in equity markets would likely serve to ease financial conditions in the U.S., where economic and inflation conditions remain firmly in tightening territory (Chart 15). As such, the Fed pause is likely to last no more than a quarter, maybe two at best, leading to renewed carnage in global risk assets if our view on Chinese policy stimulus – tepid – remains valid through the course of 2019. Chart 15If Financial Conditions Ease, Tightening Will Be Back On If Financial Conditions Ease, Tightening Will Be Back On If Financial Conditions Ease, Tightening Will Be Back On Europe (All Of It… Again) In 2017, our forecasting track record for Europe was stellar. This continued in 2018, with no major setbacks: Populism in Italy: Our long-held view has been that Europe’s chief remaining risks lay in Italian populists coming to power. We predicted in 2016 that this would eventually happen and that they would then be proven to be bluffing. This is essentially what happened in 2018. Matteo Salvini’s Lega is surging in the polls because its leader has realized that a combination of hard anti-immigrant policy and the softest-of-soft Euroskepticism is a winning combination. We believe that investors can live with this combination. Our only major fault in forecasting European politics and assets this year was to close our bearish Italy call too early: we booked our long Spanish / short Italian 10-year government bond trade for a small loss in August, before the spread between the two Mediterranean countries blew out to record levels. That missed opportunity could have also made it on our “worst calls” list as well. Chart 16 Pluralism in Europe: To get the call on Italy right, we had to dabble in some theoretical work. In a somewhat academic report, we showed that political concentration was on the decline in the developed world (Chart 16), but especially in Europe (Chart 17). Put simply, lower political concentration suggests that a duopoly between the traditional center-left and center-right parties is breaking down. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, we argued that Europe’s parliamentary systems would enable centrist parties to adopt elements of the populist agenda, particularly on immigration, without compromising the overall stability of European institutions. As such, political pluralism, or low political concentration, is positive for markets. Chart 17 Immigration crisis is over: For centrist parties to be able to successfully adopt populist immigration policy, they needed a pause in the immigration crisis. This was empirically verifiable in 2018 (Chart 18). Chart 18European Migration Crisis Is Over European Migration Crisis Is Over European Migration Crisis Is Over Merkel’s time has run out: Since early 2017, we had cautioned clients that Angela Merkel’s demise was afoot, but that it would be an opportunity, rather than a risk, when it came. It finally happened in 2018 and it was not a market moving event. The main question for 2019 is whether German policymakers, and Europe as a whole, will use the infusion of fresh blood in Berlin to reaccelerate crucial reforms ahead of the next global recession. Brexit: Since early 2016, we have been right on Brexit. More specifically, we were corrent in cautioning investors that, were Brexit to occur, “the biggest loser would be the Conservative Party, not the EU.” As with the previous two Conservative Party prime ministers, it appears that the question of the U.K.’s relationship with the EU has completely drained any political capital out of Prime Minister Theresa May’s reign. We suspect that the only factor propping up the Tories in the polls is that Jeremy Corbyn is the leader of Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition. We have also argued that soft Brexit would ultimately prove to be “illogical” and that “Bregret” would begin to seep in, as it now most clearly has. We parlayed these rising geopolitical risks and uncertainties by shorting cable in the first half of the year for a 6.21% gain. Malaysia Over Turkey And India Over Brazil Not all was lost for our EM calls this year. We played Malaysia against Turkey in the currency markets for a 17.44% gain, largely thanks to massively divergent governance and structural reform trajectories after Malaysia’s opposition won power for the first time in the country’s history. Second, we initiated a long Indian / short Brazilian equity view in March that returned 27.54% by August. This was a similar play on divergent structural reforms, but it was also a way to hedge our alarmist view on trade. Given India’s isolation from global trade and insular financial markets, we identified India as one of the EM markets that would remain aloof of protectionist risks. We could have closed the trade earlier for greater gain, but did not time the exit properly. Midterm Election: A Major Democratic Victory Our midterm election forecast was correct: Democrats won a substantial victory. Even our initial call on the Senate, that Democrats had a surprisingly large probability of picking up seats, proved to be correct, with Republicans eking out just two gains in a year when Democrats were defending 10 seats in states that Trump carried in 2016. What about our all-important call that the election would have no impact on the markets? That is more difficult to assess, given that the S&P 500 has in fact collapsed in the lead-up to and aftermath of the election. However, we see little connection between the election outcome and the stock market’s performance. Neither do our colleagues or clients, who have largely stopped asking about the Democrats’ policy designs. In 2019, domestic politics may play a role in the markets. Impeachment risk is low, but, if it rears its head, it could prompt President Trump to seek relevance abroad, as his predecessors have done when they lost control of domestic policy. In addition, the Democratic Party’s sweeping House victory may suggest a political pendulum swing to the left in the 2020 presidential election. We will discuss both risks as part of our annual Five Black Swans report in early 2019. U.S. domestic politics was a collection of Red Herrings during much of President Obama’s presidency, and has produced strong tailwinds under President Trump (tax cuts in particular). This may change in 2019, with considerable risk to investors, and asset prices, ahead.     Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist roukayai@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      For our 2019 Outlook, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, “2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge,” dated December 14, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. For our past Strategic Outlooks, please visit gps.bcaresearch.com. 2      In part we like this cross because we also think that Mexico’s newly elected president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, is priced to lose by two touchdowns, whereas he may merely lose by a last-second field goal.    

Highlights There is more downside risk ahead as the geopolitical calendar is packed in May; Protectionism remains in play, but markets could also fall on Iran-U.S. tensions, military intervention in Syria, and Russia-West confrontation; Investors should expect volatility to go up as we approach a turbulent summer; We were wrong on Russia-West tensions peaking and are closing all of our Russian trades for now, but may look for new entry points soon; Go long a basket of NAFTA currencies versus the Euro and expect reflation to remain the "only game in town" in Japan. Feature "I'm not saying there won't be a little pain, but the market has gone up 40 percent, 42 percent so we might lose a little bit of it. But we're going to have a much stronger country when we're finished. So we may take a hit and you know what, ultimately we're going to be much stronger for it." President Donald Trump, April 6, 2018 Chart 1Teflon Trump Teflon Trump Teflon Trump There are times when conventional wisdom is spectacularly wrong. Last week was such a moment. Since Donald Trump became president, the "smart money" has believed that he was obsessed with the stock market. Therefore, the view went, none of his policies would threaten the bull market. We have pushed back against this assumption because our view is that geopolitical risks - specifically the lack of constraints on the executive branch in foreign and trade policy - would become investment relevant.1 This view has been correct thus far: we called the volatility spike and trade protectionism in 2018. Not only have President Trump's tariff pronouncements produced stock market drawdowns, but his popularity appears to be unaffected. Astonishingly, President Trump's approval rating collapsed as the stock market went up in 2017 and recovered as the stock market went in reverse this year (Chart 1)! It is therefore empirically incorrect that President Trump is constrained by the stock market. His actions over the past month, as well as his approval ratings, suggest that he is quite comfortable with volatility. There are two broad reasons why we never bought into the media hype. First, there is no real correlation, or only a weak one, between equity declines of 10% and presidential approval ratings (Chart 2). Generally, presidential approval rating does decline amidst market drawdowns of 10% or greater, but the effect on the presidency is only permanent if the momentum of the approval rating was already heading lower, otherwise the effect is minimal and temporary. Second, the median American does not really own stocks (Table 1). President Trump considers blue collar white voters his base and they care more about unemployment and wages, not their equity portfolios. At some point, equity market drawdowns will affect hard data and the real economy. This is the point at which President Trump will care about the stock market. Given that the market is already down 10% from the peak, we are not far away from this pain threshold. But in this way, President Trump is no different from any other president. Chart 2AThe Stock Market Mattered For Eisenhower, JFK, Bush Sr., And Obama... The Stock Market Mattered For Eisenhower, JFK, Bush Sr., And Obama... The Stock Market Mattered For Eisenhower, JFK, Bush Sr., And Obama... Chart 2B...But Not For Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, And Bush Jr. ...But Not For Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, And Bush Jr. ...But Not For Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, And Bush Jr. The pessimistic view on trade protectionism risk, that there is more downside to equities ahead, is therefore still in play. Investors should be careful not to overreact to positive developments, such as President Xi's speech at the Boao Forum where he largely reiterated previous Beijing promises to open up individual sectors to foreign investment. In fact, it is the investment community itself that is the target of President Trump's rhetoric. In order to convince Beijing that his threat of protectionism is credible, President Trump has to show that he is willing to incur pain at home, which explains the quote with which we began this report. Table 1Stock Ownership Is Concentrated Amongst The Wealthiest Households Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Expect Volatility... Of Volatility This is not dissimilar to President Trump's doctrine of "maximum pressure" which, when applied to North Korea, produced a significant bond rally last summer. The 10-year Treasury yield topped 2.39% on July 7 and then collapsed to a low of 2.05% in September.2 The vast majority of the yield decline, at the time, came from falling real yields as investors flocked into safe-haven assets amidst North Korean tensions and not lower inflation expectations. It is therefore dangerous to rely on conventional wisdom when assessing the limits of volatility or equity drawdowns. Any buoyant market reaction may in fact elicit a more aggressive policy from Washington. As if on cue, President Trump shocked the markets on April 7 by suggesting that he would impose another round of tariffs on a further $100bn worth of Chinese imports, bringing the total under threat to $160 billion. The announcement came after the market closed 0.89% up on April 6. Perhaps President Trump was irked that the market was so dismissive of his trade threats and decided to jolt it back to reality. In addition to trade, there are several other reasons to be bearish on risk assets as we approach May: Chart 3Inflation Will Pick Up In 2018 Inflation Will Pick Up In 2018 Inflation Will Pick Up In 2018 Chart 4Service Sector Wage Growth Is At A Cyclical Peak Service Sector Wage Growth Is At A Cyclical Peak Service Sector Wage Growth Is At A Cyclical Peak Inflation: Unemployment is low, with wage pressures starting to build (Chart 3). Meanwhile, teacher strikes in Red States like Oklahoma, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Arizona are signalling that public service sector wage pressures are building in the most fiscally prudent states. Service sector wages cannot be suppressed through automation or outsourcing and are therefore likely to add to inflationary pressures (Chart 4). The Fed remains in tightening mode, despite the mounting geopolitical risks. "Stroke of pen risk:" Another sign that President Trump is comfortable with market drawdowns is his increasingly aggressive rhetoric on Amazon. There is a rising probability that the current administration decides to up the regulatory pressure on the technology and retail giant, as well as a possibility that other technology companies like Facebook and Google face "stroke of pen" risks. Iran: This year's premier geopolitical risk is the potential for renewed U.S.-Iran tensions.3 Ahead of the all-important May 12 deadline - when the White House will decide whether to end the current waiver of economic sanctions against Iran - President Trump has staffed his cabinet with two hawks, new Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton. Meanwhile, tensions in Syria are building with potential for U.S. and Iranian forces to be directly implicated in a skirmish. The U.S. is almost certain to militarily respond to the alleged chemical attack by the Syrian government forces against the rebel-held Damascus suburb of Douma. Throughout it all, investors appear to remain unfazed by the rising probability that Iran's 2 million barrels of oil exports come under renewed sanction risk, mainly because the media is ignoring the risk (Chart 5). Chart 5The Media Is Ignoring Iran As A Risk The Media Is Ignoring Iran As A Risk The Media Is Ignoring Iran As A Risk Russia: As we discuss below, tensions between the West and Russia appear to be building up anew. Particularly concerning is the aforementioned chemical attack in Syria, which Moscow considers a "false flag operation." The Russian government hinted in mid-March that precisely such an attack may occur and that the U.S. would use it as a pretext to attack Syrian government forces and structures.4 Our view that tensions have peaked, elucidated in a recent report, therefore appears to have been spectacularly wrong. Chinese reforms: Now that Xi Jinping has finished setting up his new government, his initiatives are starting to be implemented. While some slight tax cuts are on the docket, and interbank rates have eased significantly, there is no sign of broad policy easing or economic recovery (Chart 6). Rather, both Xi and his economic czar Liu He have continued to stress the "Three Battles" of systemic financial risk, pollution, and poverty - the first two requiring tighter policy. Xi has stated that deleveraging will focus on state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and local governments. SOEs will have debt caps and will not be allowed to lend to local governments. Instead, local governments will have to borrow through formal bond markets, giving the central government greater control. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Housing says property restrictions will remain in place. All in all, the risk of negative surprises in China this year remains significant, with a likely negative impact on global growth.5 There is also a fundamental reason for equity market weakness: the market is likely coming to grips with a calendar 2019 EPS growth of a more reasonable 10% annual rate compared with this year's near 20% peak growth rate. This transition, which our colleague Anastasios Avgeriou of BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy has highlighted in recent research, will be turbulent.6 In addition, Anastasios has pointed out that stocks are reacting to a more bearish mix of soft and hard data (Chart 7), suggesting that not all of the market volatility is due to headline risk. Chart 6China Will Slow Down Further In 2018 China Will Slow Down Further In 2018 China Will Slow Down Further In 2018 Chart 7Trade Is Not The Only Risk To The Market Trade Is Not The Only Risk To The Market Trade Is Not The Only Risk To The Market How should investors make sense of these budding risks? Going forward, we would fade any enthusiasm or narratives of "peak pessimism" on trade protectionism. It is in the interest of the Trump administration that investors take his threats seriously. President Trump literally needs stocks to go down in order to show Beijing that he is serious. The summer months could be volatile as market confusion grows amidst the upcoming event risk (Table 2). This may be a good time to be risk-averse, with the old adage "sell in May and go away" appropriate this year. Table 2Protectionism: Upcoming Dates To Watch Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Expect Volatility... Of Volatility There are several reasons why protectionism is a much bigger deal than it was in the 1980s when investors last had to price a trade war between two major economies (Japan and the U.S. at the time): Chart 8This Time Is Different... Because Of Supply Chains... This Time Is Different... Because Of Supply Chains... This Time Is Different... Because Of Supply Chains... Chart 9...Globalization... ...Globalization... ...Globalization... Supply chains are a much bigger deal today than thirty years ago (Chart 8); The share of global exports as a percent of GDP is much higher today (Chart 9); Interest rates are much lower, leaving little room for policymakers to ease (Chart 10); Stock market valuations are higher, leaving stocks exposed to drawbacks (Chart 11); Unlike 1981-88, when Japan and the U.S. waged a nearly decade-long trade war while remaining allies in the Cold War, China and the U.S. are outright rivals. This increases the probability that Beijing's reprisal, given its constraints in retaliating against U.S. exports (Chart 12), could take a geopolitical turn. Chart 10...Policymaker Ammunition... ...Policymaker Ammunition... ...Policymaker Ammunition... Chart 11...And Valuations ...And Valuations ...And Valuations Chart 12China May Run Out Of U.S. Exports To Sanction Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Investors should therefore prepare for volatility of volatility. Amidst the confusion, there could be some not-so-positive news that the market overreacts to with optimism, and some not-so-negative news that the market reacts to with pessimism. In our six years of publishing geopolitically driven investment strategy, we have not seen a similar period where a confluence of risks and tensions are building up at the same time. May should therefore be a busy month. Mexico: A Silver Lining Amidst Mercantilism Risk? Mexico began the year with clouds over its head due to the Trump team's tough negotiating line on NAFTA. The third round of negotiations, in September 2017, ended on a bad note. The peso tumbled and headline and core inflation soared, portending both tighter monetary policy and weaker domestic demand.7 Today, however, the odds of renewing NAFTA have improved significantly. We have reduced our probability of Trump abrogating the trade deal from 50% to 20%. The administration appears to be focused on China and therefore looking to wrap up the NAFTA negotiations quickly over the summer. This would give time to send the new deal to the Mexican and U.S. congresses prior to the September changeover in Mexico's legislature and January changeover in the U.S. legislature. The U.S. has reportedly compromised on an earlier demand that NAFTA-traded automobiles have a U.S. domestic content of 50%.8 Meanwhile, inflation has peaked and the peso has firmed up (Chart 13), which will help buoy real incomes and boost purchasing power. Economic policy has been prudent, with central bank rate hikes restraining inflation and government spending cuts producing a primary budget surplus (and a much-reduced headline budget deficit of -1% of GDP) (Chart 14).9 Chart 13Mexico: Peso & Inflation Mexico: Peso & Inflation Mexico: Peso & Inflation Chart 14Mexico: Improved Macro Fundamentals Mexico: Improved Macro Fundamentals Mexico: Improved Macro Fundamentals In this more bullish context, the Mexican elections on July 1 are market-neutral. True, it is hard to present a strong pro-market outcome. The public is shifting to the left on the economic spectrum while the outgoing "pro-market" administration of Enrique Pena Nieto has lost credibility. The latest polling suggests that Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) is polling in the lower 30-percentile (around 33%), above his next competitors, Ricardo Anaya (PAN) at 26% and Jose Antonio Meade (PRI) at 14% (Chart 15). However, the latest data point of the admittedly volatile polling gives AMLO a much less commanding lead of 6-7% over Anaya than he had before. AMLO is polling around his performance in the 2006 and 2012 elections (35% and 32%, respectively), has increased his lead over the other candidates, and his National Regeneration Movement (MORENA) and "Together We'll Make History" coalition are also polling with double-digit leads (Chart 16). The general shift to the left is also apparent in the fact that Ricardo Anaya's PAN has been forced to combine with the left-wing PRD in order to garner votes. Chart 15AMLO's Lead Is Not Insurmountable Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Chart 16Likely No Majority In Congress Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Nevertheless, political risk is overstated for the following reasons: AMLO is not Hugo Chavez:10 True, he is a leftist, a populist, and has a reputation for egotism. He is Mexico's fitting anti-Trump. Nevertheless, he is also a known quantity, having run for president and engaged with the major parties for over a decade. While he elevates headline political risk, we would fade the risk based on the fact that Mexico is a relatively right-wing country (Chart 17), and his movement will probably not garner a majority in Congress (see next bullet). Notably, AMLO's rhetoric on Trump and NAFTA has been restrained, and his personnel decisions have been competent and orthodox. He has not suggested he will revoke new private Mexican oil concessions, under the outgoing government's privatization scheme, but only halt the auctions. AMLO will be constrained by Congress: The trend in Mexico is towards "pluralization" or fragmentation in Congress (see Chart 18), meaning that ruling parties will have to share power. This is not a negative development. As we recently pointed out, political plurality engenders stability by drawing protest parties into centrist coalitions and by allowing establishment parties to coopt protest narratives without having to actually protest or revolt.11 At this point in time, it is difficult to see how AMLO's MORENA garners enough support to get a majority in Congress. AMLO's closest challenger is right-wing and pro-market: If AMLO loses the election, Ricardo Anaya of PAN will not be scorned by financial markets. In 2006, AMLO looked like he would win the election but then lost to Felipe Calderon (PAN). Of course, a victory by Anaya is not very market positive either, as PAN is in an unstable coalition with the left-wing PRD and would also be constrained in Congress. Still, there would be a lower probability of reversing the outgoing PRI administration's policies than under AMLO. AMLO is unlikely to repeal NAFTA: Mexico's exports to NAFTA partners comprise 30% of GDP, and it would be exceedingly dangerous for a Mexican leader to provoke Trump on the issue. A plurality of the Mexican public (44%) supports the ongoing NAFTA negotiations as they have been handled by the current government (Chart 19), as of late February polling by the Wilson Center. The same polling shows that Mexicans are generally aware of how important NAFTA is for their economy. This is despite the polls showing that a majority of Mexicans have a negative view of the U.S., due largely to Trump's rhetoric (though that majority has fallen considerably since last year to 56%). In other words, anti-American sentiment is not turning the Mexican public against compromising on a new NAFTA deal. Chart 17Mexicans Lean Right Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Chart 18Mexico's Rising Political Plurality Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Finally, Mexico is more exposed to U.S. growth (which is charged with fiscal stimulus), and to BCA's robust outlook on oil prices (as opposed to our weaker metals outlook), while it is less exposed to weakening Chinese demand than other EMs (such as South Africa or Brazil).12 The peso looks particularly attractive relative to the latter two currencies (Chart 20). Chart 19Mexicans Want NAFTA To Survive Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Chart 20A Major Bottom In MXN's Cross? A Major Bottom In MXN's Cross? A Major Bottom In MXN's Cross? None of the above should suggest that the Mexican election will be a smooth affair. The rise of AMLO will create jitters in the marketplace, particularly as he faces off against Trump, who will continue to try to pressure Mexico over immigration and border security even once NAFTA negotiations are squared away. Nevertheless, the cyclical backdrop has improved while the major headwind of NAFTA abrogation seems to be abating. Bottom Line: Mexico's presidential campaign, election, and aftermath will give rise to plenty of occasion for volatility, particularly as President Trump and a likely President Obrador will not shy from a war of words. Nevertheless, Mexico's economic policy is stable and the NAFTA headwind is abating. We recommend going long Mexican local currency bonds relative to the EM benchmark. We also recommend that clients go long a NAFTA basket of currencies - the peso and the loonie - versus the euro. Our currency strategist - Mathieu Savary - has recently pointed out that the euro has moved ahead of long-term fundamentals and is ripe for a near-term correction.13 Japan: Abe Will Survive Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has come under rising public criticism in recent that is dragging down his approval ratings (Chart 21). Three separate scandals are weighing on his administration: one relating to the government's sale of land at knockdown prices to a nationalist school, Moritomo Gakuen, tied to Abe's wife; another relating to the discovery of "lost" journals of Japan Self-Defense Force activity during the Iraq war; another tied to the mishandling of statistics in promoting the government's new revisions to the labor law. Abe's popularity has tested lower lows in the past, but he is approaching the floor. And while Abe is still polling in line with the popular Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi at this stage in his term (Chart 22), nevertheless he is approaching his 65th month in office when Koizumi stepped down. Chart 21Abe's Approval Testing The Floor Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Chart 22Abe Holding At Koizumi's Levels Of Support Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Expect Volatility... Of Volatility More importantly, the all-important September leadership election is approaching. The challenges arising today are at least partly motivated by factions within the LDP that want to challenge Abe's leadership. Koizumi stepped aside in September 2006 because he could not contend for the LDP's leadership due to party rules that limited the leader to two consecutive three-year terms. Abe is not constrained on this front. He has already revised those rules to three terms, giving him until September 2021 to remain eligible as party leader. He wants to run again and incumbents are heavily favored in party elections. Abe also secured his second two-thirds supermajority in the House of Representatives, in October 2017. This was a remarkable feat and one that will make it difficult for contenders to convince the rank and file in Japan's prefectures that they can lead the party more effectively. While Abe's 38% approval is now slightly below the psychologically important 40% level, and below the LDP's overall approval rating (Chart 23), there is no alternative to the LDP heading into July 2019 elections for the House of Councillors. This is manifest from the October election result. Chart 23Still No Alternative To LDP Still No Alternative To LDP Still No Alternative To LDP What happens if Abe's popularity sinks into the 20-percentile range? Financial markets will selloff in anticipation that he will be ousted. He could conceivably survive a scrape with the upper 20% approval range, but markets will assume the worst once he dips beneath 30% in the average polling on a sustainable basis. Markets will also assume that the remarkably reflationary period in Japanese economic policy is coming to an end. Even when Abe's successor forms a government, investors may believe that the best of the reflationary push is over. We think that the market would be wrong to doubt Japan's inflationary push. First, if Abe is ousted, the LDP will remain in power: it has until October 2021 before it faces another general election that could deprive it of government control. (A loss in the upper house election in 2019 can prevent it from passing constitutional changes but not from running the country.) This ensures that policy will be continuous in the transition and that any changes in trajectory will be a matter of degree, not kind. Second, the phenomenon of "Abenomics" is not only Abe's doing but the LDP's answer to its first shocking experience in the political wilderness, from 2009-12. This experience taught the LDP that it needed to adopt bolder policies. The result was dovish monetary policy under Haruhiko Kuroda, who just began his second five-year term on April 9 and whose faction has the majority on the monetary policy board. Looser fiscal policy was another consequence - and ultimately it came to pass.14 It will be hard for a new LDP leader to tighten policy. Factions that are criticizing Abe or Kuroda today will find it harder to phase out stimulus once they are in office. Abe's successor will, like him, have to try policies that boost corporate investment, wages, the fertility rate, immigration, social spending and military spending.15 Without such initiatives, Japan will sink back into a deflationary spiral. As for BoJ policy, over the next 18 months the biggest challenges are meeting the 2% inflation target while the yen is rising due to both China's slowdown and trade war risks.16 Tokyo is also ostensibly required to hike the consumption tax in October 2019. This is more than enough to convince Kuroda to stand pat for the time being.17 In the meantime, Abe's push to revise the constitution is a significant factor in encouraging persistently loose monetary and fiscal policy. The national referendum on the matter could be held along with the early 2019 local elections or the July 2019 upper house election. It will be hard to win 50%+ of the popular vote and nigh impossible if the economy is failing. What should investors look for to determine if Abe's downfall is imminent? In addition to Abe's approval rating we will watch to see if the ongoing scandal probes produce any direct link to Abe, or if top cabinet ministers are forced to resign (like Finance Minister Taro Aso or Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera). It will also be a telling sign if Abe's "work-style" reforms to liberalize the labor market, which have received cabinet approval, wither in the Diet due to lack of party discipline (not our baseline view).18 But even granting Abe's survival, we would expect that China's slowdown and the U.S.-China trade war will keep the yen well bid. We are sticking with our tactical long JPY/EUR trade, which is up 2.6% thus far. Bottom Line: Shinzo Abe is likely to be re-elected as LDP leader in September and to lead his party in the charge toward the 2019 upper house election and constitutional referendum. Should he fall into the 20% of popular approval, the markets should sell off. His leadership and alliances have been remarkably reflationary and the policy tailwind could dwindle. We would fade this risk, but we still think the yen will remain buoyant due to China's internal dynamics and the U.S.-China trade war. We remain long yen/euro until we see signs that Washington and Beijing are able to defuse the immediate trade war. Russia: Tensions With The West Have Not Peaked Our view that tensions between Russia and the West would peak following President Putin's reelection has been spectacularly wrong.19 We still encourage clients to review the report, penned in early March, as it sets out the limits to Russia's aggressive foreign policy. The country is geopolitically a lot more constrained then investors think, and thus there are material limits to how far the Kremlin can take the rivalry with the West. What we did not account for is that such weakness is precisely the reason for the tensions. Specifically, the Trump administration - riding high following the success of its "maximum pressure" doctrine in the Korea imbroglio - smells blood. President Trump is betting that the view of Russian constraints is correct and therefore the time to pressure Putin - and prove his own anti-Kremlin credentials - is now. But has the market gotten ahead of itself? The expanded sanctions target specific individuals and companies - EN+ Group, GAZ Group, and Rusal - and yet the broad equity market in Russia has tumbled.20 Sberbank, which is nowhere mentioned in the sanctions, fell by an extraordinary 16% since the announcement. On one hand, there does appear to be a material step-up in sanctions. Despite being focused on specific companies, the new restrictions are designed to make the entire Russian secondary bond market "not clearable." The targeting of specific companies, therefore, was merely a shot-across-the-bow. The implication for the future - and the reason that Sberbank fell as much as it did - is that U.S. investors could be forbidden - or the compliance costs could rise by so much that they might as well be forbidden - from participating in Russian debt and equity markets in the future. On the other hand, our Russia geopolitical risk index has not priced in the renewed tensions (Chart 24). This means that either our currency-derived measure is wrong or the sell off in equity and debt markets is not translating into bearishness about the overall economy. Given our bullish oil outlook and our view of the limits of Russian aggression investors should expect, the index may actually be signaling that these tensions are an opportunity to buy Russian assets. Chart 24The Russia GPI Says No Risk The Russia GPI Says No Risk The Russia GPI Says No Risk That said, we have learned our lesson. There is no point in trying to catch a falling knife as the Kremlin and the White House square off over Syria and other geopolitical issues. As such, we are closing all of our Russia trades until we find a better entry point to capitalize on our structural view that there are material limits to geopolitical tensions between the West and Russia. The long Russia equities / short EM equities has been stopped out at 5% loss. Our buy South African / sell Russian 5-year CDS protection is down 20 bps and our long Russian / short Brazilian local currency government bonds is up 1.07 bps. Investment Implications In April 2017, we penned a report titled "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!," turning the old "sell in May and go away" adage on its head.21 At the time, investors were similarly facing a number of geopolitical risks, from the second round of French elections to concerns about President Trump's domestic agenda. However, we had a very high conviction view that these risks were overstated. This time around, we fear that the markets are mispricing constraints on President Trump. Geopolitical risks ahead of us are largely in the realm of foreign policy, where the U.S. Constitution gives the president large leeway. This includes trade policy. As such, it is much more difficult to have a high conviction view on how the Trump administration will act towards China, Iran, and Russia. Furthermore, the success of the "maximum pressure" doctrine has emboldened President Trump to talk tough, worry about consequences later. Investors have to understand that we are the target of President Trump's rhetoric. There is no better way for the White House to show China, Iran, and Russia that it is serious - that its threats are credible - than if it strongly counters the view that it will do nothing to harm domestic equities. We therefore expect further volatility in the markets. We propose that clients hedge the risks this summer with our "geopolitical protector portfolio" - equally-weighted basket of Swiss bonds and gold - which is currently up 1.46%, although adding 10-Year U.S. Treasurys to the mix may make sense as well. We would also recommend that clients expect both a spike in the VIX and a rise in the volatility of the VIX (volatility of volatility). Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com; and Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Have Bond Yields Peaked For The Cycle? No," dated September 12, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated March 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see "Russia says U.S. plans to strike Damascus, pledges military response," Reuters, dated March 13, 2018, available at reuters.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China," dated January 17, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Bumpier Ride," dated March 26, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see "US drops contentious demand for auto content, clearing path in NAFTA talks," Globe and Mail, March 21, 2018, available at www.theglobeandmail.com. 9 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EM: Perched On An Icy Cliff," dated March 29, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Update On Emerging Markets: Malaysia, Mexico, And The United States Of America," dated August 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Should Investors Fear Political Plurality?" dated November 29, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Outlook, "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "The Euro's Tricky Spot," dated February 2, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Japan: Kuroda Or No Kuroda, Reflation Ahead," dated February 7, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see "Japan: Abe Is Not Yet Dead, Long Live Abenomics," in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report; "The Wrath Of Cohn," dated July 26, 2017; and "Japan: Abenomics Will Survive Abe," in Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Is King Dollar Back?" dated October 4, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated March 28, 2018; and "Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China," dated February 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see Cory Baird, "BOJ Chief Haruhiko Kuroda Begins New Term By Vowing To Continue Stimulus In Pursuit Of 2% Inflation," Japan Times, April 9, 2018, available at www.japantimes.co.jp. 18 Please see "Work style reform legislation gets Abe Cabinet approval," Jiji Press, April 6, 2018, available at www.the-japan-news.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Vladimir Putin, Act IV," dated March 7, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see Department of the Treasury, "Ukraine Related Sanctions Regulations - 31 C.F.R. Part 589," dated April 7, 2018, available at treasury.gov. 21 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Multipolarity will peak in 2017 - geopolitical risks are spiking; Globalization is giving way to zero-sum mercantilism; U.S.-China relations are the chief risk to global stability; Turkey is the most likely state to get in a shooting war; Position for an inflation comeback; Go long defense, USD/EUR, and U.S. small caps vs. large caps. Feature Before the world grew mad, the Somme was a placid stream of Picardy, flowing gently through a broad and winding valley northwards to the English Channel. It watered a country of simple beauty. A. D. Gristwood, British soldier, later novelist. The twentieth century did not begin on January 1, 1900. Not as far as geopolitics is concerned. It began 100 years ago, on July 1, 1916. That day, 35,000 soldiers of the British Empire, Germany, and France died fighting over a couple of miles of territory in a single day. The 1916 Anglo-French offensive, also known as the Battle of the Somme, ultimately cost the three great European powers over a million and a half men in total casualties, of which 310,862 were killed in action over the four months of fighting. British historian A. J. P. Taylor put it aptly: idealism perished on the Somme. How did that happen? Nineteenth-century geopolitical, economic, and social institutions - carefully nurtured by a century of British hegemony - broke on the banks of the Somme in waves of human slaughter. What does this have to do with asset allocation? Calendars are human constructs devised to keep track of time. But an epoch is a period with a distinctive set of norms, institutions, and rules that order human activity. This "order of things" matters to investors because we take it for granted. It is a set of "Newtonian Laws" we assume will not change, allowing us to extrapolate the historical record into future returns.1 Since inception, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has argued that the standard assumptions about our epoch no longer apply.2 Social orders are not linear, they are complex systems. And we are at the end of an epoch, one that defined the twentieth century by globalization, the spread of democracy, and American hegemony. Because the system is not linear, its break will cause non-linear outcomes. Since joining BCA's Editorial Team in 2011, we have argued that twentieth-century institutions are undergoing regime shifts. Our most critical themes have been: The rise of global multipolarity;3 The end of Sino-American symbiosis;4 The apex of globalization;5 The breakdown of laissez-faire economics;6 The passing of the emerging markets' "Goldilocks" era.7 Our view is that the world now stands at the dawn of the twenty-first century. The transition is not going to be pretty. Investors must stop talking themselves out of left-tail events by referring to twentieth-century institutions. Yes, the U.S. and China really could go to war in the next five years. No, their trade relationship will not prevent it. Was the slaughter at the Somme prevented by the U.K.-German economic relationship? In fact, our own strategy service may no longer make sense in the new epoch. "Geopolitics" is not some add-on to investor's asset-allocation process. It is as much a part of that process as are valuations, momentum, bottom-up analysis, and macroeconomics. To modify the infamous Milton Friedman quip, "We are all geopolitical strategists now." Five Decade Themes: We begin this Strategic Outlook by updating our old decade themes and introducing a few new ones. These will inform our strategic views over the next half-decade. Below, we also explain how they will impact investors in 2017. From Multipolarity To ... Making America Great Again Our central theme of global multipolarity will reach its dangerous apex in 2017. Multipolarity is the idea that the world has two or more "poles" of power - great nations - that pursue their interests independently. It heightens the risk of conflict. Since we identified this trend in 2012, the number of global conflicts has risen from 10 to 21, confirming our expectations (Chart 1). Political science theory is clear: a world without geopolitical leadership produces hegemonic instability. America's "hard power," declining in relative terms, created a vacuum that was filled by regional powers looking to pursue their own spheres of influence. Chart 1Frequency Of Geopolitical Conflicts Increases Under Multipolarity Frequency Of Geopolitical Conflicts Increases Under Multipolarity Frequency Of Geopolitical Conflicts Increases Under Multipolarity The investment implications of a multipolar world? The higher frequency of geopolitical crises has provided a tailwind to safe-haven assets such as U.S. Treasurys.8 Ironically, the relative decline of U.S. power is positive for U.S. assets.9 Although its geopolitical power has been in relative decline since 1990, the U.S. bond market has become more, not less, appealing over the same timeframe (Chart 2) Counterintuitively, it was American hegemony - i.e. global unipolarity after the Soviet collapse - that made the rise of China and other emerging markets possible. This created the conditions for globalization to flourish and for investors to leave the shores of developed markets in search of yield. It is the stated objective of President-elect Donald Trump, and a trend initiated under President Barack Obama, to reduce the United States' hegemonic responsibilities. As the U.S. withdraws, it leaves regional instability and geopolitical disequilibria in its wake, enhancing the value-proposition of holding on to low-beta American assets. We are now coming to the critical moment in this process, with neo-isolationist Trump doubling down on President Obama's aloof foreign policy. In 2017, therefore, multipolarity will reach its apex, leading several regional powers - from China to Turkey - to overextend themselves as they challenge the status quo. Chaos will ensue. (See below for more!) The inward shift in American policy will sow the seeds for the eventual reversal of multipolarity. America has always profited from geopolitical chaos. It benefits from being surrounded by two massive oceans, Canada, and the Sonora-Chihuahuan deserts. Following both the First and Second World Wars, the U.S.'s relative geopolitical power skyrocketed (Chart 3). Chart 2America Is A Safe-Haven,##br## Despite (Because Of?) Relative Decline America Is A Safe-Haven, Despite (Because Of?) Relative Decline America Is A Safe-Haven, Despite (Because Of?) Relative Decline Chart 3America Is Chaos-Proof bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c3 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c3 Over the next 12-24 months, we expect the chief investment implications of multipolarity - volatility, tailwind to safe-haven assets, emerging-market underperformance, and de-globalization - to continue to bear fruit. However, as the U.S. comes to terms with multipolarity and withdraws support for critical twentieth-century institutions, it will create conditions that will ultimately reverse its relative decline and lead to a more unipolar tendency (or possibly bipolar, with China). Therefore, Donald Trump's curious mix of isolationism, anti-trade rhetoric, and domestic populism may, in the end, Make America Great Again. But not for the reasons he has promised-- not because the U.S. will outperform the rest of the world in an absolute sense. Rather, America will become great again in a relative sense, as the rest of the world drifts towards a much scarier, darker place without American hegemony. Bottom Line: For long-term investors, the apex of multipolarity means that investing in China and broader EM is generally a mistake. Europe and Japan make sense in the interim due to overstated political risks, relatively easy monetary policy, and valuations, but even there risks will mount due to their high-beta qualities. The U.S. will own the twenty-first century. From Globalization To ... Mercantilism "The industrial glory of England is departing, and England does not know it. There are spasmodic outcries against foreign competition, but the impression they leave is fleeting and vague ... German manufacturers ... are undeniably superiour to those produced by British houses. It is very dangerous for men to ignore facts that they may the better vaunt their theories ... This is poor patriotism." Ernest Edwin Williams, Made in Germany (1896) The seventy years of British hegemony that followed the 1815 Treaty of Paris ending the Napoleonic Wars were marked by an unprecedented level of global stability. Britain's cajoled enemies and budding rivals swallowed their wounded pride and geopolitical appetites and took advantage of the peace to focus inwards, industrialize, and eventually catch up to the U.K.'s economy. Britain, by providing expensive global public goods - security of sea lanes, off-shore balancing,10 a reserve currency, and financial capital - resolved the global collective-action dilemma and ushered in an era of dramatic economic globalization. Sound familiar? It should. As Chart 4 shows, we are at the conclusion of a similar period of tranquility. Pax Americana underpinned globalization as much as Pax Britannica before it. There are other forces at work, such as pernicious wage deflation that has soured the West's middle class on free trade and immigration. But the main threat to globalization is at heart geopolitical. The breakdown of twentieth-century institutions, norms, and rules will encourage regional powers to set up their own spheres of influence and to see the global economy as a zero-sum game instead of a cooperative one.11 Chart 4Multipolarity And De-Globalization Go Hand-In-Hand bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c4 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c4 At the heart of this geopolitical process is the end of Sino-American symbiosis. We posited in February that Charts 5 and 6 are geopolitically unsustainable.12 China cannot keep capturing an ever-increasing global market share for exports while exporting deflation; particularly now that its exports are rising in complexity and encroaching on the markets of developed economies (Chart 7). China's economic policy might have been acceptable in an era of robust global growth and American geopolitical confidence, but we live in a world that is, for the time being, devoid of both. Chart 5China's Share Of Global##br## Exports Has Skyrocketed... bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c5 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c5 Chart 6And Now China ##br##Is Exporting Deflation bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c6 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c6 China and the U.S. are no longer in a symbiotic relationship. The close embrace between U.S. household leverage and Chinese export-led growth is over (Chart 8). Today the Chinese economy is domestically driven, with government stimulus and skyrocketing leverage playing a much more important role than external demand. Exports make up only 19% of China's GDP and 12% of U.S. GDP. The two leading economies are far less leveraged to globalization than the conventional wisdom would have it. Chart 7China's Steady Climb Up ##br##The Value Ladder Continues Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Chart 8Sino-American ##br##Symbiosis Is Over bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c8 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c8 Chinese policymakers have a choice. They can double down on globalization and use competition and creative destruction to drive up productivity growth, moving the economy up the value chain. Or they can use protectionism - particularly non-tariff barriers, as they have been doing - to defend their domestic market from competition.13 We expect that they will do the latter, especially in an environment where anti-globalization rhetoric is rising in the West and protectionism is already on the march (Chart 9). Chart 9Protectionism On The March Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now The problem with this likely choice, however, is that it breaks up the post-1979 quid-pro-quo between Washington and Beijing. The "quid" was the Chinese entry into the international economic order (including the WTO in 2001), which the U.S. supported; the "quo" was that Beijing would open its economy as it became wealthy. Today, 45% of China's population is middle-class, which makes China potentially the world's second-largest market after the EU. If China decides not to share its middle class with the rest of the world, then the world will quickly move towards mercantilism - particularly with regard to Chinese imports. Mercantilism was a long-dominant economic theory, in Europe and elsewhere, that perceived global trade to be a zero-sum game and economic policy to be an extension of the geopolitical "Great Game" between major powers. As such, net export growth was the only way to prosperity and spheres of influence were jealously guarded via trade barriers and gunboat diplomacy. What should investors do if mercantilism is back? In a recent joint report with the BCA's Global Alpha Sector Strategy, we argued that investors should pursue three broad strategies: Buy small caps (or microcaps) at the expense of large caps (or mega caps) across equity markets as the former are almost universally domestically focused; Favor closed economies levered on domestic consumption, both within DM and EM universes; Stay long global defense stocks; mercantilism will lead to more geopolitical risk (Chart 10). Chart 10Defense Stocks Are A No-Brainer Defense Stocks Are A No-Brainer Defense Stocks Are A No-Brainer Investors should also expect a more inflationary environment over the next decade. De-globalization will mean marginally less trade, less migration, and less free movement of capital across borders. These are all inflationary. Bottom Line: Mercantilism is back. Sino-American tensions and peak multipolarity will impair coordination. It will harden the zero-sum game that erodes globalization and deepens geopolitical tensions between the world's two largest economies.14 One way to play this theme is to go long domestic sectors and domestically-oriented economies relative to export sectors and globally-exposed economies. The real risk of mercantilism is that it is bedfellows with nationalism and jingoism. We began this section with a quote from an 1896 pamphlet titled "Made in Germany." In it, British writer E.E. Williams argued that the U.K. should abandon free trade policies due to industrial competition from Germany. Twenty years later, 350,000 men died in the inferno of the Somme. From Legal To ... Charismatic Authority Legal authority, the bedrock of modern democracy, is a critical pillar of civilization that investors take for granted. The concept was defined in 1922 by German sociologist Max Weber. Weber's seminal essay, "The Three Types of Legitimate Rule," argues that legal-rational authority flows from the institutions and laws that define it, not the individuals holding the office.15 This form of authority is investor-friendly because it reduces uncertainty. Investors can predict the behavior of policymakers and business leaders by learning the laws that govern their behavior. Developed markets are almost universally made up of countries with such norms of "good governance." Investors can largely ignore day-to-day politics in these systems, other than the occasional policy shift or regulatory push that affects sector performance. Weber's original essay outlined three forms of authority, however. The other two were "traditional" and "charismatic."16 Today we are witnessing the revival of charismatic authority, which is derived from the extraordinary characteristics of an individual. From Russia and the U.S. to Turkey, Hungary, the Philippines, and soon perhaps Italy, politicians are winning elections on the back of their messianic qualities. The reason for the decline of legal-rational authority is threefold: Elites that manage governing institutions have been discredited by the 2008 Great Recession and subsequent low-growth recovery. Discontent with governing institutions is widespread in the developed world (Chart 11). Elite corruption is on the rise. Francis Fukuyama, perhaps America's greatest political theorist, argues that American political institutions have devolved into a "system of legalized gift exchange, in which politicians respond to organized interest groups that are collectively unrepresentative of the public as a whole."17 Political gridlock across developed and emerging markets has forced legal-rational policymakers to perform like charismatic ones. European policymakers have broken laws throughout the euro-area crisis, with the intention of keeping the currency union alive. President Obama has issued numerous executive orders due to congressional gridlock. While the numbers of executive orders have declined under Obama, their economic significance has increased (Chart 12). Each time these policymakers reached around established rules and institutions in the name of contingencies and crises, they opened the door wider for future charismatic leaders to eschew the institutions entirely. Chart 11As Institutional Trust Declines, ##br##Voters Turn To Charismatic Leaders As Institutional Trust Declines, Voters Turn To Charismatic Leaders As Institutional Trust Declines, Voters Turn To Charismatic Leaders Chart 12Obama ##br##The Regulator Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Furthermore, a generational shift is underway. Millennials do not understand the value of legal-rational institutions and are beginning to doubt the benefits of democracy itself (Chart 13). The trend appears to be the most pronounced in the U.S. and U.K., perhaps because neither experienced the disastrous effects of populism and extremism of the 1930s. In fact, millennials in China appear to view democracy as more essential to the "good life" than their Anglo-Saxon peers. Chart 13Who Needs Democracy When You Have Tinder? Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Charismatic leaders can certainly outperform expectations. Donald Trump may end up being FDR. The problem for investors is that it is much more difficult to predict the behavior of a charismatic authority than a legal-rational one.18 For example, President-elect Trump has said that he will intervene in the U.S. economy throughout his four-year term, as he did with Carrier in Indiana. Whether these deals are good or bad, in a normative sense, is irrelevant. The point is that bottom-up investment analysis becomes useless when analysts must consider Trump's tweets, as well as company fundamentals, in their earnings projections! We suspect that the revival of charismatic leadership - and the danger that it might succeed in upcoming European elections - at least partly explains the record high levels of global policy uncertainty (Chart 14). Markets do not seem to have priced in the danger fully yet. Global bond spreads are particularely muted despite the high levels of uncertainty. This is unsustainable. Chart 14Are Assets Fully Pricing In Global Uncertainty? Are Assets Fully Pricing In Global Uncertainty? Are Assets Fully Pricing In Global Uncertainty? Bottom Line: The twenty-first century is witnessing the return of charismatic authority and erosion of legal-rational authority. This should be synonymous with uncertainty and market volatility over the next decade. In 2017, expect a rise in EuroStoxx volatility. From Laissez-Faire To ... Dirigisme The two economic pillars of the late twentieth century have been globalization and laissez-faire capitalism, or neo-liberalism. The collapse of the Soviet Union ended the communist challenge, anointing the U.S.-led "Washington Consensus" as the global "law of the land." The tenets of this epoch are free trade, fiscal discipline, low tax burden, and withdrawal of the state from the free market. Not all countries approached the new "order of things" with equal zeal, but most of them at least rhetorically committed themselves to asymptotically approaching the American ideal. Chart 15Debt Replaced Wages##br## In Laissez-Faire Economies Debt Replaced Wages In Laissez-Faire Economies Debt Replaced Wages In Laissez-Faire Economies The 2008 Great Recession put an end to the bull market in neo-liberal ideology. The main culprit has been the low-growth recovery, but that is not the full story. Tepid growth would have been digested without a political crisis had it not followed decades of stagnating wages. With no wage growth, households in the most laissez-faire economies of the West gorged themselves on debt (Chart 15) to keep up with rising cost of housing, education, healthcare, and childcare -- all staples of a middle-class lifestyle. As such, the low-growth context after 2008 has combined with a deflationary environment to produce the most pernicious of economic conditions: debt-deflation, which Irving Fisher warned of in 1933.19 It is unsurprising that globalization became the target of middle-class angst in this context. Globalization was one of the greatest supply-side shocks in recent history: it exerted a strong deflationary force on wages (Chart 16). While it certainly lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in developing nations, globalization undermined those low-income and middle-class workers in the developed world whose jobs were most easily exported. World Bank economist Branko Milanovic's infamous "elephant trunk" shows the stagnation of real incomes since 1988 for the 75-95 percentile of the global income distribution - essentially the West's middle class (Chart 17).20 It is this section of the elephant trunk that increasingly supports populism and anti-globalization policies, while eschewing laissez faire liberalism. In our April report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy," we posited that the pivot away from laissez-faire capitalism would be most pronounced in the economies of its greatest adherents, the U.S. and U.K. We warned that Brexit and the candidacy of Donald Trump should be taken seriously, while the populist movements in Europe would surprise to the downside. Why the gap between Europe and the U.S. and U.K.? Because Europe's cumbersome, expensive, inefficient, and onerous social-welfare state finally came through when it mattered: it mitigated the pernicious effects of globalization and redistributed enough of the gains to temper populist angst. Chart 16Globalization: A Deflationary Shock Globalization: A Deflationary Shock Globalization: A Deflationary Shock Chart 17Globalization: No Friend To DM Middle Class Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now This view was prescient in 2016. The U.K. voted to leave the EU, Trump triumphed, while European populists stumbled in both the Spanish and Austrian elections. The Anglo-Saxon median voter has essentially moved to the left of the economic spectrum (Diagram 1).21 The Median Voter Theorem holds that policymakers will follow the shift to the left in order to capture as many voters as possible under the proverbial curve. In other words, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are not political price-makers but price-takers. Diagram 1The Median Voter Is Moving To The Left In The U.S. And U.K. Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now How does laissez-faire capitalism end? In socialism or communism? No, the institutions that underpin capitalism in the West - private property, rule of law, representative government, and enforcement of contracts - remain strong. Instead, we expect to see more dirigisme, a form of capitalism where the state adopts a "directing" rather than merely regulatory role. In the U.S., Donald Trump unabashedly campaigned on dirigisme. We do not expand on the investment implications of American dirigisme in this report (we encourage clients to read our post-election treatment of Trump's domestic politics).22 But investors can clearly see the writing on the wall: a late-cycle fiscal stimulus will be positive for economic growth in the short term, but most likely more positive for inflation in the long term. Donald Trump's policies therefore are a risk to bonds, positive for equities (in the near term), and potentially negative for both in the long term if stagflation results from late-cycle stimulus. What about Europe? Is it not already quite dirigiste? It is! But in Europe, we see a marginal change towards the right, not the left. In Spain, the supply-side reforms of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy will remain in place, as he won a second term this year. In France, right-wing reformer - and self-professed "Thatcherite" - François Fillon is likely to emerge victorious in the April-May presidential election. And in Germany, the status-quo Grand Coalition will likely prevail. Only in Italy are there risks, but even there we expect financial markets to force the country - kicking and screaming - down the path of reforms. Bottom Line: In 2017, the market will be shocked to find itself face-to-face with a marginally more laissez-faire Europe and a marginally more dirigiste America and Britain. Investors should overweight European assets in a global portfolio given valuations, relative monetary policy (which will remain accommodative in Europe), a weak euro, and economic fundamentals (Chart 18), and upcoming political surprises. For clients with low tolerance of risk and volatility, a better entry point may exist following the French presidential elections in the spring. From Bias To ... Conspiracies As with the printing press, the radio, film, and television before it, the Internet has created a super-cyclical boom in the supply and dissemination of information. The result of the sudden surge is that quality and accountability are declining. The mainstream media has dubbed this the "fake news" phenomenon, no doubt to differentiate the conspiracy theories coursing through Facebook and Twitter from the "real news" of CNN and MSNBC. The reality is that mainstream media has fallen far short of its own vaunted journalistic standards (Chart 19). Chart 18Europe's Economy Is Holding Up Europe's Economy Is Holding Up Europe's Economy Is Holding Up Chart 19 "Mainstream Media" Is A Dirty Word For Many "Mainstream Media" Is A Dirty Word For Many We are not interested in this debate, nor are we buying the media narrative that "fake news" delivered Trump the presidency. Instead, we are focused on how geopolitical and political information is disseminated to voters, investors, and ultimately priced by the market. We fear that markets will struggle to price information correctly due to three factors: Low barriers to entry: The Internet makes publishing easy. Information entrepreneurs - i.e. hack writers - and non-traditional publications ("rags") are proliferating. The result is greater output but a decrease in quality control. For example, Facebook is now the second most trusted source of news for Americans (Chart 20). Cost-cutting: The boom in supply has squeezed the media industry's finances. Newspapers have died in droves; news websites and social-media giants have mushroomed (Chart 21). News companies are pulling back on things like investigative reporting, editorial oversight, and foreign correspondent desks. Foreign meddling: In this context, governments have gained a new advantage because they can bring superior financial resources and command-and-control to an industry that is chaotic and cash-strapped. Russian news outlets like RT and Sputnik have mastered this game - attracting "clicks" around the world from users who are not aware they are reading Russian propaganda. China has also raised its media profile through Western-accessible propaganda like the Global Times, but more importantly it has grown more aggressive at monitoring, censoring, and manipulating foreign and domestic media. Chart 20Facebook Is The New Cronkite? Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Chart 21The Internet Has Killed Journalism Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now The above points would be disruptive enough alone. But we know that technology is not the root cause of today's disruptions. Income inequality, the plight of the middle class, elite corruption, unchecked migration, and misguided foreign policy have combined to create a toxic mix of distrust and angst. In the West, the decline of the middle class has produced a lack of socio-political consensus that is fueling demand for media of a kind that traditional outlets can no longer satisfy. Media producers are scrambling to meet this demand while struggling with intense competition from all the new entrants and new platforms. What is missing is investment in downstream refining and processing to convert the oversupply of crude information into valuable product for voters and investors.23 Otherwise, the public loses access to "transparent" or baseline information. Obviously the baseline was never perfect. Both the Vietnam and Iraq wars began as gross impositions on the public's credulity: the Gulf of Tonkin Incident and Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. But there was a shared reference point across society. The difference today, as we see it, is that mass opinion will swing even more wildly during a crisis as a result of the poor quality of information that spreads online and mobilizes social networks more rapidly than ever before. We could have "flash mobs" in the voting booth - or on the steps of the Supreme Court - just like "flash crashes" in financial markets, i.e. mass movements borne of passing misconceptions rather than persistent misrule. Election results are more likely to strain the limits of the margin of error, while anti-establishment candidates are more likely to remain viable despite dubious platforms. What does this mean for investors? Fundamental analysis of a country's political and geopolitical risk is now an essential tool in the investor toolkit. If investors rely on the media, and the market prices what the media reports, then the same investors will continue to get blindsided by misleading probabilities, as with Brexit and Trump (Chart 22). While we did not predict these final outcomes, we consistently advised clients, for months in advance, that the market probabilities were too low and serious hedging was necessary. Those who heeded our advice cheered their returns, even as some lamented the electoral returns. Chart 22Get Used To Tail-Risk Events Get Used To Tail-Risk Events Get Used To Tail-Risk Events Bottom Line: Keep reading BCA's Geopolitical Strategy! Final Thoughts On The Next Decade The nineteenth century ended in the human carnage that was the Battle of the Somme. The First World War ushered in social, economic, political, geopolitical, demographic, and technological changes that drove the evolution of twentieth-century institutions, rules, and norms. It created the "order of things" that we all take for granted today. The coming decade will be the dawn of the new geopolitical century. We can begin to discern the ordering of this new epoch. It will see peak multipolarity lead to global conflict and disequilibrium, with globalization and laissez-faire economic consensus giving way to mercantilism and dirigisme. Investors will see the benevolent deflationary impulse of globalization evolve into state intervention in the domestic economy and the return of inflation. Globally oriented economies and sectors will underperform domestic ones. Developed markets will continue to outperform emerging markets, particularly as populism spreads to developing economies that fail to meet expectations of their rising middle classes. Over the next ten years, these changes will leave the U.S. as the most powerful country in the world. China and wider EM will struggle to adapt to a less globalized world, while Europe and Japan will focus inward. The U.S. is essentially a low-beta Great Power: its economy, markets, demographics, natural resources, and security are the least exposed to the vagaries of the rest of the world. As such, when the rest of the world descends into chaos, the U.S. will hide behind its Oceans, and Canada, and the deserts of Mexico, and flourish. Five Themes For 2017: Our decade themes inform our view of cyclical geopolitical events and crises, such as elections and geopolitical tensions. As such, they form our "net assessment" of the world and provide a prism through which we refract geopolitical events. Below we address five geopolitical themes that we expect to drive the news flow, and thus the markets, in 2017. Some themes are Red Herrings (overstated risks) and thus present investment opportunities, others are Black Swans (understated risks) and are therefore genuine risks. Europe In 2017: A Trophy Red Herring? Europe's electoral calendar is ominously packed (Table 1). Four of the euro area's five largest economies are likely to have elections in 2017. Another election could occur if Spain's shaky minority government collapses. Table 1 Europe In 2017 Will Be A Headline Risk Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now We expect market volatility to be elevated throughout the year due to the busy calendar. In this context, we advise readers to follow our colleague Dhaval Joshi at BCA's European Investment Strategy. Dhaval recommends that BCA clients combine every €1 of equity exposure with 40 cents of exposure to VIX term-structure, which means going long the nearest-month VIX futures and equally short the subsequent month's contract. The logic is that the term structure will invert sharply if risks spike.24 While we expect elevated uncertainty and lots of headline risk, we do not believe the elections in 2017 will transform Europe's future. As we have posited since 2011, global multipolarity increases the logic for European integration.25 Crises driven by Russian assertiveness, Islamic terrorism, and the migration wave are not dealt with more effectively or easily by nation states acting on their own. Thus far, it appears that Europeans agree with this assessment: polling suggests that few are genuinely antagonistic towards the euro (Chart 23) or the EU (Chart 24). In our July report called "After BREXIT, N-EXIT?" we posited that the euro area will likely persevere over at least the next five years.26 Chart 23Support For The Euro Remains Stable Support For The Euro Remains Stable Support For The Euro Remains Stable Chart 24Few Europeans Want Out Of The EU Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Take the Spanish and Austrian elections in 2016. In Spain, Mariano Rajoy's right-wing People's Party managed to hold onto power despite four years of painful internal devaluations and supply-side reforms. In Austria, the establishment candidate for president, Alexander Van der Bellen, won the election despite Austria's elevated level of Euroskepticism (Chart 24), its central role in the migration crisis, and the almost comically unenthusiastic campaign of the out-of-touch Van der Bellen. In both cases, the centrist candidates survived because voters hesitated when confronted with an anti-establishment choice. Next year, we expect more of the same in three crucial elections: The Netherlands: The anti-establishment and Euroskeptic Party for Freedom (PVV) will likely perform better than it did in the last election, perhaps even doubling its 15% result in 2012. However, it has no chance of forming a government, given that all the other parties contesting the election are centrist and opposed to its Euroskeptic agenda (Chart 25). Furthermore, support for the euro remains at a very high level in the country (Chart 26). This is a reality that the PVV will have to confront if it wants to rule the Netherlands. Chart 25No Government For Dutch Euroskeptics Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Chart 26The Netherlands & Euro: Love Affair The Netherlands & Euro: Love Affair The Netherlands & Euro: Love Affair France: Our high conviction view is that Marine Le Pen, leader of the Euroskeptic National Front (FN), will be defeated in the second round of the presidential election.27 Despite three major terrorist attacks in the country, unchecked migration crisis, and tepid economic growth, Le Pen's popularity peaked in 2013 (Chart 27). She continues to poll poorly against her most likely opponents in the second round, François Fillon and Emmanuel Macron (Chart 28). Investors who doubt the polls should consider the FN's poor performance in the December 2015 regional elections, a critical case study for Le Pen's viability in 2017.28 Chart 27Le Pen's Polling: ##br##Head And Shoulder Formation? Le Pen's Polling: Head And Shoulder Formation? Le Pen's Polling: Head And Shoulder Formation? Chart 28Le Pen Will Not Be##br## Next French President Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Germany: Chancellor Angela Merkel's popularity is holding up (Chart 29), the migration crisis has abated (Chart 30), and there remains a lot of daylight between the German establishment and populist parties (Chart 31). The anti-establishment Alternative für Deutschland will enter parliament, but remain isolated. Chart 29Merkel's Approval Rating Has Stabilized Merkel's Approval Rating Has Stabilized Merkel's Approval Rating Has Stabilized Chart 30Migration Crisis Is Abating bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c30 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c30 Chart 31There Is A Lot Of Daylight... bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c31 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c31 The real risk in 2017 remains Italy. The country has failed to enact any structural reforms, being a laggard behind the reform poster-child Spain (Chart 32). Meanwhile, support for the euro remains in the high 50s, which is low compared to the euro-area average (Chart 33). Polls show that if elections were held today, the ruling Democratic Party would gain a narrow victory (Chart 34). However, it is not clear what electoral laws would apply to the contest. The reformed electoral system for the Chamber of Deputies remains under review by the Constitutional Court until at least February. This will make all the difference between further gridlock and a viable government. Chart 32Italy Is Europe's bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c32 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c32 Chart 33Italy Lags Peers On Euro Support bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c33 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c33 Chart 34Italy's Next Election Is Too Close To Call bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c34 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c34 Investors should consider three factors when thinking about Italy in 2017: The December constitutional referendum was not a vote on the euro and thus cannot serve as a proxy for a future referendum.29 The market will punish Italy the moment it sniffs out even a whiff of a potential Itexit referendum. This will bring forward the future pain of redenomination, influencing voter choices. Benefits of the EU membership for Italy are considerable, especially as they allow the country to integrate its unproductive, poor, and expensive southern regions.30 Sans Europe, the Mezzogiorno (Southern Italy) is Rome's problem, and it is a big one. The larger question is whether the rest of Italy's euro-area peers will allow the country to remain mired in its unsustainable status quo. We think the answer is yes. First, Italy is too big to fail given the size of its economy and sovereign debt market. Second, how unsustainable is the Italian status quo? OECD projections for Italy's debt-to-GDP ratio are not ominous. Chart 35 shows four scenarios, the most likely one charting Italy's debt-to-GDP rise from 133% today to about 150% by 2060. Italy's GDP growth would essentially approximate 0%, but its impressive budget discipline would ensure that its debt load would only rise marginally (Chart 36). Chart 35So What If Italy's Debt-To-GDP Ends Up At 170%? bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c35 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c35 Chart 36Italy Has Learned To Live With Its Debt Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now This may seem like a dire prospect for Italy, but it ensures that the ECB has to maintain its accommodative stance in Europe even as the Fed continues its tightening cycle, a boon for euro-area equities as a whole. In other words, Italy's predicament would be unsustainable if the country were on its own. Its "sick man" status would be terminal if left to its own devices. But as a patient in the euro-area hospital, it can survive. And what happens to the euro area beyond our five-year forecasting horizon? We are not sure. Defeat of anti-establishment forces in 2017 will give centrist policymakers another electoral cycle to resolve the currency union's built-in flaws. If the Germans do not budge on greater fiscal integration over the next half-decade, then the future of the currency union will become murkier. Bottom Line: Remain long the nearest-month VIX futures and equally short the subsequent month's contract. We have held this position since September 14 and it has returned -0.84%. The advantage of this strategy is that it is a near-perfect hedge when risk assets sell off, but pays a low price for insurance. Investors with high risk tolerance who can stomach some volatility should take the plunge and overweight euro-area equities in a global equity portfolio. Solid global growth prospects, accommodative monetary policy, euro weakness, and valuations augur a solid year for euro-area equities. Politics will be a red herring as euro-area stocks climb the proverbial wall of worry in 2017. U.S.-Russia Détente: A Genuine Investment Opportunity Trump's election is good news for Russia. Over the past 16 years, Russia has methodically attempted to collect the pieces from the Soviet collapse. Putin sought to defend the Russian sphere of influence from outside powers (Ukraine and Belarus, the Caucasus, Central Asia). Putin also needed to rally popular support at various times by distracting the public. We view Ukraine and Syria through this prism. Lastly, Russia acted aggressively because it needed to reassure its allies that it would stand up for them.31 And yet the U.S. can live with a "strong" Russia. It can make a deal if the Trump administration recognizes some core interests (e.g. Crimea) and calls off the promotion of democracy in Russia's sphere, which Putin considers an attempt to undermine his rule. As we argued during the Ukraine invasion, it is the U.S., not Russia, which poses the greatest risk of destabilization.32 The U.S. lacks constraints in this theater. It can be aggressive towards Russia and face zero consequences: it has no economic relationship with Russia and does not stand directly in the way of any Russian reprisals, unlike Europe. That is why we think Trump and Putin will reset relations. Trump's team may be comfortable with Russia having a sphere of influence, unlike the Obama administration, which explicitly rejected this idea. The U.S. could even pledge not to expand NATO further, given that it has already expanded as far as it can feasibly and credibly go. Note, however, that a Russo-American truce may not last long. George W. Bush famously "looked into Putin's eyes and ... saw his soul," but relations soured nonetheless. Obama went further with his "Russian reset," removing European missile defense plans from Poland and the Czech Republic. These are avowed NATO allies, and this occurred merely one year after Russian troops marched on Georgia. And yet Moscow and Washington ended up rattling sabers and meddling in each other's internal affairs anyway. Chart 37Thaw In Russian-West##br## Cold War Is Bullish Europe bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c37 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c37 Ultimately, U.S. resets fail because Russia is in structural decline and attempting to hold onto a very large sphere of influence whose citizens are not entirely willing participants.33 Because Moscow must often use blunt force to prevent the revolt of its vassal states (e.g. Georgia in 2008, Ukraine in 2014), it periodically revives tensions with the West. Unless Russia strengthens significantly in the next few years, which we do not expect, then the cycle of tensions will continue. On the horizon may be Ukraine-like incidents in neighboring Belarus and Kazakhstan, both key components of the Russian sphere of influence. Bottom Line: Russia will get a reprieve from U.S. pressure. While we expect Europe to extend sanctions through 2017, a rapprochement with Washington will ultimately thaw relations between Europe and Russia by the end of that year. Europe will benefit from resuming business as usual. It will face less of a risk of Russian provocations via the Middle East and cybersecurity. The ebbing of the Russian geopolitical risk premium will have a positive effect on Europe, given its close correlation with European risk assets since the crisis in Ukraine (Chart 37). Investors who want exposure to Russia may consider overweighing Russian equities to Malaysian. BCA's Emerging Market Strategy has initiated this position for a 55.6% gain since March 2016 and our EM strategists believe there is more room to run for this trade. We recommend that investors simply go long Russia relative to the broad basket of EM equities. The rally in oil prices, easing of the geopolitical risk premium, and hints of pro-market reforms from the Kremlin will buoy Russian equities further in 2017. Middle East: ISIS Defeat Is A Black Swan In February 2016, we made two bold predictions about the Middle East: Iran-Saudi tensions had peaked;34 The defeat of ISIS would entice Turkey to intervene militarily in both Iraq and Syria.35 The first prediction was based on a simple maxim: sustained geopolitical conflict requires resources and thus Saudi military expenditures are unsustainable when a barrel of oil costs less than $100. Saudi Arabia overtook Russia in 2015 as the globe's third-largest defense spender (Chart 38)! Chart 38Saudi Arabia: Lock And Load Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now The mini-détente between Iran and Saudi Arabia concluded in 2016 with the announced OPEC production cut and freeze. While we continue to see the OPEC deal as more of a recognition of the status quo than an actual cut (because OPEC production has most likely reached its limits), nevertheless it is significant as it will slightly hasten the pace of oil-market rebalancing. On the margin, the OPEC deal is therefore bullish for oil prices. Our second prediction, that ISIS is more of a risk to the region in defeat than in glory, was highly controversial. However, it has since become consensus, with several Western intelligence agencies essentially making the same claim. But while our peers in the intelligence community have focused on the risk posed by returning militants to Europe and elsewhere, our focus remains on the Middle East. In particular, we fear that Turkey will become embroiled in conflicts in Syria and Iraq, potentially in a proxy war with Iran and Russia. The reason for this concern is that the defeat of the Islamic State will create a vacuum in the Middle East that the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds are most likely to fill. This is unacceptable to Turkey, which has intervened militarily to counter Kurdish gains and may do so in the future. We are particularly concerned about three potential dynamics: Direct intervention in Syria and Iraq: The Turkish military entered Syria in August, launching operation "Euphrates Shield." Turkey also reinforced a small military base in Bashiqa, Iraq, only 15 kilometers north of Mosul. Both operations were ostensibly undertaken against the Islamic State, but the real intention is to limit the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds. As Map 1 illustrates, Kurds have expanded their territorial control in both countries. Map 1Kurdish Gains In Syria & Iraq Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Conflict with Russia and Iran: President Recep Erdogan has stated that Turkey's objective in Syria is to remove President Bashar al-Assad from power.36 Yet Russia and Iran are both involved militarily in the country - the latter with regular ground troops - to keep Assad in power. Russia and Turkey did manage to cool tensions recently. Yet the Turkish ground incursion into Syria increases the probability that tensions will re-emerge. Meanwhile, in Iraq, Erdogan has cast himself as a defender of Sunni Arabs and has suggested that Turkey still has a territorial claim to northern Iraq. This stance would put Ankara in direct confrontation with the Shia-dominated Iraqi government, allied with Iran. Turkey-NATO/EU tensions: Tensions have increased between Turkey and the EU over the migration deal they signed in March 2016. Turkey claims that the deal has stemmed the flow of migrants to Europe, which is dubious given that the flow abated well before the deal was struck. Since then, Turkey has threatened to open the spigot and let millions of Syrian refugees into Europe. This is likely a bluff as Turkey depends on European tourists, import demand, and FDI for hard currency (Chart 39). If Erdogan acted on his threat and unleashed Syrian refugees into Europe, the EU could abrogate the 1995 EU-Turkey customs union agreement and impose economic sanctions. The Turkish foray into the Middle East poses the chief risk of a "shooting war" that could impact global investors in 2017. While there are much greater geopolitical games afoot - such as increasing Sino-American tensions - this one is the most likely to produce military conflict between serious powers. It would be disastrous for Turkey. The broader point is that the redrawing of the Middle East map is not yet complete. As the Islamic State is defeated, the Sunni population of Iraq and Syria will remain at risk of Shia domination. As such, countries like Turkey and Saudi Arabia could be drawn into renewed proxy conflicts to prevent complete marginalization of the Sunni population. While tensions between Turkey, Russia, and Iran will not spill over into oil-producing regions of the Middle East, they may cloud Iraq's future. Since 2010, Iraq has increased oil production by 1.6 million barrels per day. This is about half of the U.S. shale production increase over the same time frame. As such, Iraq's production "surprise" has been a major contributor to the 2014-2015 oil-supply glut. However, Iraq needs a steady inflow of FDI in order to boost production further (Chart 40). Proxy warfare between Turkey, Russia, and Iran - all major conventional military powers - on its territory will go a long way to sour potential investors interested in Iraqi production. Chart 39Turkey Is Heavily Dependent On The EU Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Chart 40Iraq Is The Big, And Cheap, Hope bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c40 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c40 This is a real problem for global oil supply. The International Energy Agency sees Iraq as a critical source of future global oil production. Chart 41 shows that Iraq is expected to contribute the second-largest increase in oil production by 2020. And given Iraq's low breakeven production cost, it may be the last piece of real estate - along with Iran - where the world can get a brand-new barrel of oil for under $13. In addition to the risk of expanding Turkish involvement in the region, investors will also have to deal with the headline risk of a hawkish U.S. administration pursuing diplomatic brinkmanship against Iran. We do not expect the Trump administration to abrogate the Iran nuclear deal due to several constraints. First, American allies will not go along with new sanctions. Second, Trump's focus is squarely on China. Third, the U.S. does not have alternatives to diplomacy, since bombing Iran would be an exceedingly complex operation that would bog down American forces in the Middle East. When we put all the risks together, a geopolitical risk premium will likely seep into oil markets in 2017. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy argues that the physical oil market is already balanced (Chart 42) and that the OPEC deal will help draw down bloated inventories in 2017. This means that global oil spare capacity will be very low next year, with essentially no margin of safety in case of a major supply loss. Given the political risks of major oil producers like Nigeria and Venezuela, this is a precarious situation for the oil markets. Chart 41Iraq Really Matters For Global Oil Production Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Chart 42Oil Supply Glut Is Gone In 2017 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c42 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c42 Bottom Line: Given our geopolitical view of risks in the Middle East, balanced oil markets, lack of global spare capacity, the OPEC production cut, and ongoing capex reductions, we recommend clients to follow BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy view of expecting widening backwardation in the new year.37 U.S.-China: From Rivalry To Proxy Wars President-elect Trump has called into question the U.S.'s adherence to the "One China policy," which holds that "there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China" and that the U.S. recognizes only the People's Republic of China as the legitimate Chinese government. There is widespread alarm about Trump's willingness to use this policy, the very premise of U.S.-China relations since 1978, as a negotiating tool. And indeed, Sino-U.S. relations are very alarming, as we have warned our readers since 2012.38 Trump is a dramatic new agent reinforcing this trend. Trump's suggestion that the policy could be discarded - and his break with convention in speaking to the Taiwanese president - are very deliberate. Observe that in the same diplomatic document that establishes the One China policy, the United States and China also agreed that "neither should seek hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region or in any other region." Trump is initiating a change in U.S. policy by which the U.S. accuses China of seeking hegemony in Asia, a violation of the foundation of their relationship. The U.S. is not seeking unilaterally to cancel the One China policy, but asking China to give new and durable assurances that it does not seek hegemony and will play by international rules. Otherwise, the U.S. is saying, the entire relationship will have to be revisited and nothing (not even Taiwan) will be off limits. The assurances that China is expected to give relate not only to trade, but also, as Trump signaled, to the South China Sea and North Korea. Therefore we are entering a new era in U.S-China relations. China Is Toast Asia Pacific is a region of frozen conflicts. Russia and Japan never signed a peace treaty. Nor did China and Taiwan. Nor did the Koreas. Why have these conflicts lain dormant over the past seventy years? Need we ask? Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong have seen their GDP per capita rise 14 times since 1950. China has seen its own rise 21 times (Chart 43). Since the wars in Vietnam over forty years ago, no manner of conflict, terrorism, or geopolitical crisis has fundamentally disrupted this manifestly beneficial status quo. As a result, Asia has been a region synonymous with economics - not geopolitics. It developed this reputation because its various large economies all followed Japan's path of dirigisme: export-oriented, state-backed, investment-led capitalism. This era of stability is over. The region has become the chief source of geopolitical risk and potential "Black Swan" events.39 The reason is deteriorating U.S.-China relations and the decline in China's integration with other economies. The Asian state-led economic model was underpinned by the Pax Americana. Two factors were foundational: America's commitment to free trade and its military supremacy. China was not technically an ally, like Japan and Korea, but after 1979 it sure looked like one in terms of trade surpluses and military spending (Chart 44).40 For the sake of containing the Soviet Union, the U.S. wrapped East Asia under its aegis. Chart 43The Twentieth Century Was Kind To East Asia Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Chart 44Asia Sells, America Rules bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c44 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c44 It is well known, however, that Japan's economic model led it smack into a confrontation with the U.S. in the 1980s over its suppressed currency and giant trade surpluses. President Ronald Reagan's economic team forced Japan to reform, but the result was ultimately financial crisis as the artificial supports of its economic model fell away (Chart 45). Astute investors have always suspected that a similar fate awaited China. It is unsustainable for China to seize ever greater market share and drive down manufacturing prices without reforming its economy to match G7 standards, especially if it denies the U.S. access to its vast consumer market. Today there are signs that the time for confrontation is upon us: Since the Great Recession, U.S. household debt and Chinese exports have declined as a share of GDP, falling harder in the latter than the former, in a sign of shattered symbiosis (see Chart 8 above). Chinese holdings of U.S. Treasurys have begun to decline (Chart 46). China's exports to the U.S., both as a share of total exports and of GDP, have rolled over, and are at levels comparable to Japan's 1980s peaks (Chart 47). China is wading into high-tech and advanced industries, threatening the core advantages of the developed markets. The U.S. just elected a populist president whose platform included aggressive trade protectionism against China. Protectionist "Rust Belt" voters were pivotal to Trump's win and will remain so in future elections. China is apparently reneging on every major economic promise it has made in recent years: the RMB is depreciating, not appreciating, whatever the reason; China is closing, not opening, its capital account; it is reinforcing, not reforming, its state-owned companies; and it is shutting, not widening, access to its domestic market (Chart 48). Chart 45Japan's Crisis Followed Currency Spike bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c45 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c45 Chart 46China Backing Away From U.S. Treasuries bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c46 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c46 There is a critical difference between the "Japan bashing" of the 1980s-90s and the increasingly potent "China bashing" of today. Japan and the U.S. had established a strategic hierarchy in World War II. That is not the case for the U.S. and China in 2017. Unlike Japan, Korea, or any of the other Asian tigers, China cannot trust the United States to preserve its security. Far from it - China has no greater security threat than the United States. The American navy threatens Chinese access to critical commodities and export markets via the South China Sea. In a world that is evolving into a zero-sum game, these things suddenly matter. Chart 47The U.S. Will Get Tougher On China Trade bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c47 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c47 Chart 48China Is De-Globalizing bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c48 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c48 That means that when the Trump administration tries to "get tough" on longstanding American demands, these demands will not be taken as well-intentioned or trustworthy. We see Sino-American rivalry as the chief geopolitical risk to investors in 2017: Trump will initiate a more assertive U.S. policy toward China;41 It will begin with symbolic or minor punitive actions - a "shot across the bow" like charging China with currency manipulation or imposing duties on specific goods.42 It will be critical to see whether Trump acts arbitrarily through executive power, or systematically through procedures laid out by Congress. The two countries will proceed to a series of high-level, bilateral negotiations through which the Trump administration will aim to get a "better deal" from the Xi administration on trade, investment, and other issues. The key to the negotiations will be whether the Trump team settles for technical concessions or instead demands progress on long-delayed structural issues that are more difficult and risky for China to undertake. Too much pressure on the latter could trigger a confrontation and broader economic instability. Chart 49China's Demographic Dividend Is Gone bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c49 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c49 The coming year may see U.S.-China relations start with a bang and end with a whimper, as Trump's initial combativeness gives way to talks. But make no mistake: Sino-U.S. rivalry and distrust will worsen over the long run. That is because China faces a confluence of negative trends: The U.S. is turning against it. Geopolitical problems with its periphery are worsening. It is at high risk of a financial crisis due to excessive leverage. The middle class is a growing political constraint on the regime. Demographics are now a long-term headwind (Chart 49). The Chinese regime will be especially sensitive to these trends because the Xi administration will want stability in the lead up to the CCP's National Party Congress in the fall, which promises to see at least some factional trouble.43 It no longer appears as if the rotation of party leaders will leave Xi in the minority on the Politburo Standing Committee for 2017-22, as it did in 2012.44 More likely, he will solidify power within the highest decision-making body. This removes an impediment to his policy agenda in 2017-22, though any reforms will still take a back seat to stability, since leadership changes and policy debates will absorb a great deal of policymakers' attention at all levels for most of the year.45 Xi will also put in place his successors for 2022, putting a cap on rumors that he intends to eschew informal term limits. Failing this, market uncertainty over China's future will explode upward. The midterm party congress will thus reaffirm the fact that China's ruling party and regime are relatively unified and centralized, and hence that China has relatively strong political capabilities for dealing with crises. Evidence does not support the popular belief that China massively stimulates the economy prior to five-year party congresses (Chart 50), but we would expect all means to be employed to prevent a major downturn. Chart 50Not Much Evidence Of Aggressive Stimulus Ahead Of Five-Year Party Congresses bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c50 bca.gps_so_2016_12_14_c50 What this means is that the real risks of the U.S.-China relationship in 2017 will emanate from China's periphery. Asia's Frozen Conflicts Are Thawing Today the Trump administration seems willing to allow China to carve a sphere of influence - but it is entirely unclear whether and where existing boundaries would be redrawn. Here are the key regional dynamics:46 The Koreas: The U.S. and Japan are increasingly concerned about North Korea's missile advances but will find their attempts to deal with the problem blocked by China and likely by the new government in South Korea.47 U.S. threats of sanctioning China over North Korea will increase market uncertainty, as will South Korea's political turmoil and (likely) souring relations with the U.S. Taiwan: Taiwan's ruling party has very few domestic political constraints and therefore could make a mistake, especially when emboldened by an audacious U.S. leadership.48 The same combination could convince China that it has to abandon the post-2000 policy of playing "nice" with Taiwan.49 China will employ discrete sanctions against Taiwan. Hong Kong: Mainland forces will bring down the hammer on the pro-independence movement. The election of a new chief executive will appear to reinforce the status quo but in reality Beijing will tighten its legal, political, and security grip. Large protests are likely; political uncertainty will remain high.50 Japan: Japan will effectively receive a waiver from Trump's protectionism and will benefit from U.S. stimulus efforts; it will continue reflating at home in order to generate enough popular support to pass constitutional revisions in 2018; and it will not shy away from regional confrontations, since these will enhance the need for the hawkish defense component of the same revisions. Vietnam: The above issues may provide Vietnam with a chance to improve its strategic position at China's expense, whether by courting U.S. market access or improving its position in the South China Sea. But the absence of an alliance with the U.S. leaves it highly exposed to Chinese reprisals if it pushes too far. Russia: Russia will become more important to the region because its relations with the U.S. are improving and it may forge a peace deal with Japan, giving it more leverage in energy negotiations with China.51 This may also reinforce the view in Beijing that the U.S. is circling the wagons around China. What these dynamics have in common is the emergence of U.S.-China proxy conflicts. China has long suspected that the Obama administration's "Pivot to Asia" was a Cold War "containment" strategy. The fear is well-grounded but the reality takes time to materialize, which is what we will see playing out in the coming years. The reason we say "proxy wars" is because several American allies are conspicuously warming up to China: Thailand, the Philippines, and soon South Korea. They are not abandoning the U.S. but keeping their options open. The other ASEAN states also stand to benefit as the U.S. seeks economic substitutes for China while the latter courts their allegiance.52 The problem is that as U.S.-China tensions rise, these small states run greater risks in playing both sides. Bottom Line: The overarching investment implications of U.S.-China proxy wars all derive from de-globalization. China was by far the biggest winner of globalization and will suffer accordingly (Chart 51). But it will not be the biggest loser, since it is politically unified, its economy is domestically driven, and it has room to maneuver on policy. Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore are all chiefly at risk from de-globalization over the long run. Chart 51Globalization's Winners Will Be De-Globalization's Losers Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Japan is best situated to prosper in 2017. We have argued since well before the Bank of Japan's September monetary policy shift that unconventional reflation will continue, with geopolitics as the primary motivation for the country's "pedal to the metal" strategy.53 We will look to re-initiate our long Japanese equities position in early 2017. ASEAN countries offer an opportunity, though country-by-country fundamentals are essential. Brexit: The Three Kingdoms The striking thing about the Brexit vote's aftermath is that no recession followed the spike in uncertainty, no infighting debilitated the Tory party, and no reversal occurred in popular opinion. The authorities stimulated the economy, the people rallied around the flag (and ruling party), and the media's "Bregret" narrative flopped. That said, Brexit also hasn't happened yet.54 Formal negotiations with Europe begin in March, which means uncertainty will persist for much of the year as the U.K. and EU posture around their demands for a post-exit deal. However, improving growth prospects for Britain, Europe, and the U.S. all suggest that the negotiations are less likely to take place in an atmosphere of crisis. That does not mean that EU negotiators will be soft. With each successive electoral victory for the political establishment in 2017, the European negotiating position will harden. This will create a collision of Triumphant Tories and Triumphant Brussels. Still, the tide is not turning much further against the U.K. than was already the case, given how badly the U.K. needs a decent deal. Tightercontrol over the movement of people will be the core demand of Westminster, but it is not necessarily mutually exclusive with access to the common market. The major EU states have an incentive to compromise on immigration with the U.K. because they would benefit from tighter immigration controls that send highly qualified EU nationals away from the U.K. labor market and into their own. But the EU will exact a steep price for granting the U.K. the gist of what it wants on immigration and market access. This could be a hefty fee or - more troublingly for Britain - curbs on British financial-service access to euro markets. Though other EU states are not likely to exit, the European Council will not want to leave any doubt about the pain of doing so. The Tories may have to accept this outcome. Tory strength is now the Brexit voter base. That base is uncompromising on cutting immigration, and it is indifferent, or even hostile, to the City. So it stands to reason that Prime Minister Theresa May will sacrifice the U.K.'s financial sector in the coming negotiations. The bigger question is what happens to the U.K. economy in the medium and long term. First, it is unclear how the U.K. will revive productivity as lower labor-force growth and FDI, and higher inflation, take shape. Government "guidance" of the economy - dirigisme again - is clearly the Tory answer. But it remains to be seen how effectively it will be done. Second, what happens to the United Kingdom as a nation? Another Scottish independence referendum is likely after the contours of the exit deal take shape, especially as oil prices gin up Scottish courage to revisit the issue. The entire question of Scotland and Northern Ireland (both of which voted to stay in the EU) puts deeper constitutional and governmental restructuring on the horizon. Westminster is facing a situation where it drastically loses influence on the global stage as it not only exits the European "superstate" but also struggles to maintain a semblance of order among the "three kingdoms." Bottom Line: The two-year timeframe for exit negotiations ensures that posturing will ratchet up tensions and uncertainty throughout the year - invoking the abyss of a no-deal exit - but our optimistic outlook on the end-game (eventual "soft Brexit") suggests that investors should fade the various crisis points. That said, the pound is no longer a buy as it rises to around 1.30. Investment Views De-globalization, dirigisme, and the ascendancy of charismatic authority will all prove to be inflationary. On the margin, we expect less trade, less free movement of people, and more direct intervention in the economy. Given that these are all marginally more inflationary, it makes sense to expect the "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," as our colleague Peter Berezin argued in July.55 That said, Peter does not expect the bond bull market to end in a crash - and neither do we. There are many macroeconomic factors that will continue to suppress global yields: the savings glut, search for yield, and economic secular stagnation. In addition, we expect peak multipolarity in 2017 and thus a rise in geopolitical conflict. This geopolitical context will keep the U.S. Treasury market well bid. However, clients may want to begin switching their safe-haven exposure to gold. In a recent research report on safe havens, we showed that gold and Treasurys have changed places as safe havens in the past.56 Only after 2000 did Treasurys start providing a good hedge to equity corrections due to geopolitical and financial risks. The contrary is true for gold - it acted as one of the most secure investments during corrections until that time, but has since become correlated with S&P 500 total returns. As deflationary risks abate in the future, we suspect that gold will return to its safe-haven status. In addition to safe havens, U.S. and global defense stocks will be well bid due to global multipolarity. We recommend that clients go long S&P 500 aerospace and defense relative to global equities on a strategic basis. We are also sticking with our tactical trade of long U.S. defense / short U.S. aerospace. On the equity front, we have closed our post-election bullish trade of long S&P 500 / short gold position for an 11.53% gain in just 22 days of trading. We are also closing our long S&P 600 / short S&P 100 position - a play on de-globalization - for an 8.4% gain. Instead, we are initiating a strategic long U.S. small caps / short U.S. large caps, recommended jointly with our colleague Anastasios Avgeriou of the BCA Global Alpha Sector Strategy. We are keeping our EuroStoxx VIX term-structure hedge due to mounting political risk in Europe. However, we are looking for an opening into European stocks in early 2017. For now, we are maintaining our long USD/EUR - return 4.2% since July - and long USD/SEK - return 2.25% since November. The first is a strategic play on our view that the ECB has to remain accommodative due to political risks in the European periphery. The latter is a way to articulate de-globalization via currencies, given that Sweden is one of the most open economies in the world. We are converting it from a tactical to a strategic recommendation. Finally, we are keeping our RMB short in place - via 12-month NDF. We do not think that Beijing will "blink" and defend its currency more aggressively just because Donald Trump is in charge of America. China is a much more powerful country than in the past, and cannot allow RMB appreciation at America's bidding. Our trade has returned 7.14% since December 2015. With the dollar bull market expected to continue and RMB depreciating, the biggest loser will be emerging markets. We are therefore keeping our strategic long DM / short EM recommendation, which has returned 56.5% since November 2012. We are particularly fond of shorting Brazilian and Turkish equities and are keeping both trades in place. However, we are initiating a long Russian equities / short EM equities. As an oil producer, Russia will benefit from the OPEC deal and the ongoing risks to Iraqi stability. In addition, we expect that removing sanctions against Russia will be on table for 2017. Europe will likely extend the sanctions for another six months, but beyond that the unity of the European position will be in question. And the United States is looking at a different approach. We wish our clients all the best in health, family, and investing in 2017. Thank you for your confidence in BCA's Geopolitical Strategy. Marko Papic Senior Vice President Matt Gertken Associate Editor Jesse Anak Kurri Research Analyst 1 In Michel Foucault's famous The Order of Things (1966), he argues that each period of human history has its own "episteme," or set of ordering conditions that define that epoch's "truth" and discourse. The premise is comparable to Thomas Kuhn's notion of "paradigms," which we have referenced in previous Strategic Outlooks. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2012," dated January 27, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2013," dated January 16, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think," dated October 4, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Underestimating Sino-American Tensions," dated November 6, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy?" dated April 13, 2016, and "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2014 - Stay The Course: EM Risk - DM Reward," dated January 23, 2014, and Special Report, "The Coming Bloodbath In Emerging Markets," dated August 12, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Stairway To (Safe) Haven: Investing In Times Of Crisis," dated August 25, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 A military-security strategy necessary for British self-defense that also preserved peace on the European continent by undermining potential aggressors. 11 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Trump And Trade," dated December 8, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Mercantilism Is Back," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taking Stock Of China's Reforms," dated May 13, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "De-Globalization," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see Max Weber, "The Three Types Of Legitimate Rule," Berkeley Publications in Society and Institutions 4 (1): 1-11 (1958). Translated by Hans Gerth. Originally published in German in the journal Preussische Jahrbücher 182, 1-2 (1922). 16 We do not concern ourselves with traditional authority here, but the obvious examples are Persian Gulf monarchies. 17 Please see Francis Fukuyama, Political Order And Political Decay (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2014). See also our review of this book, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Transformative Vs. Transactional Leadership," dated September 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see Irving Fisher, "The Debt-deflation Theory of Great Depressions," Econometrica 1(4) (1933): 337-357, available at fraser.stlouisfed.org. 20 Please see Milanovic, Branko, "Global Income Inequality by the Numbers: in History and Now," dated November 2012, Policy Research Working Paper 6250, World Bank, available at worldbank.org. 21 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 23 In some way, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy was designed precisely to fill this role. It is difficult to see what would be the point of this service if our clients could get unbiased, investment-relevant, prescient, high-quality geopolitical news and analysis from the press. 24 Please see BCA European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Roller Coaster," dated March 31, 2016, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 25 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Europe's Geopolitical Gambit: Relevance Through Integration," dated November 2011, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 26 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "After BREXIT, N-EXIT?" dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 27 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "Will Marine Le Pen Win?" dated November 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 28 Despite winning an extraordinary six of the 13 continental regions in France in the first round, FN ended up winning zero in the second round. This even though the election occurred after the November 13 terrorist attack that ought to have buoyed the anti-migration, law and order, anti-establishment FN. The regional election is an instructive case of how the French two-round electoral system enables the establishment to remain in power. 29 Please see BCA European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Italy: Asking The Wrong Question," dated December 1, 2016, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 30 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 31 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Cold War Redux?" dated March 12, 2014, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Russia: To Buy Or Not To Buy?" dated March 20, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 32 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Russia-West Showdown: The West, Not Putin, Is The 'Wild Card,'" dated July 31, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 33 Please see BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Russia's Trilemma And The Coming Power Paralysis," dated February 21, 2012, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 34 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Middle East: Saudi-Iranian Tensions Have Peaked," in Monthly Report, "Mercantilism Is Back," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 35 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Scared Yet? Five Black Swans For 2016," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 36 President Erdogan, speaking at the first Inter-Parliamentary Jerusalem Platform Symposium in Istanbul in November 2016, said that Turkey "entered [Syria] to end the rule of the tyrant al-Assad who terrorizes with state terror... We do not have an eye on Syrian soil. The issue is to provide lands to their real owners. That is to say we are there for the establishment of justice." 37 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "2017 Commodity Outlook: Energy," dated December 8, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 38 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?" dated September 25, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 39 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think," dated October 4, 2013, and "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II," dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 40 In recent years, however, China's "official" defense budget statistics have understated its real spending, possibly by as much as half. 41 Please see "U.S. Election Update: Trump, Presidential Powers, And Investment Implications" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Socialism Put," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 42 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 43 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Myths About Chinese Politics," dated August 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 44 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "China: Two Factions, One Party - Part II," dated September 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 45 The National Financial Work Conference will be one key event to watch for an updated reform agenda. 46 Please see "East Asia: Tensions Simmer ... Will They Boil?" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Partem Mirabilis," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 47 Please see "North Korea: A Red Herring No More?" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Partem Mirabilis," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 48 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Scared Yet? Five Black Swans For 2016," dated February 10, 2016, and "Taiwan's Election: How Dire Will The Straits Get?" dated January 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 49 The Trump administration has signaled a policy shift through Trump's phone conversation with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen. The "One China policy" is the foundation of China-Taiwan relations, and U.S.-China relations depend on Washington's acceptance of it. The risk, then, is not so much an overt change to One China, a sure path to conflict, but the dynamic described above. 50 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Hong Kong: From Politics To Political Economy," dated September 8, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 51 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Can Russia Import Productivity From China?" dated June 29, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 52 Please see "Thailand: Upgrade Stocks To Overweight And Go Long THB Versus KRW" in BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "The EM Rally: Running Out Of Steam?" dated October 19, 2016, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Philippine Elections: Taking The Shine Off Reform," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 53 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Japan: The Emperor's Act Of Grace," dated June 8, 2016, and "Unleash The Kraken: Debt Monetization And Politics," dated September 26, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 54 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "BREXIT Update: Brexit Means Brexit, Until Brexit," dated September 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 55 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 56 Please see Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Stairway To (Safe) Haven: Investing In Times Of Crisis," dated August 15, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Trump's foreign policy proposals will exacerbate geopolitical risks. Sino-American relations are the chief risk - they will determine global stability. A Russian reset will benefit Europe, especially outside the Russian periphery. Trump will retain the gist of the Iran nuclear deal. Turkey and North Korea are wildcards. Feature Chart 1Market Rally Redoubled After Trump's Win Market Rally Redoubled After Trump's Win Market Rally Redoubled After Trump's Win Financial markets rallied sharply after the election of Donald Trump and the resulting prospect of lower taxes, fewer regulations, and greater fiscal thrust (Chart 1). But is the euphoria justified in light of Trump's unorthodox views on U.S. foreign policy and trade? Is Trump's "normalization" amid the transition to the White House a reliable indicator that the geopolitical status quo will largely be preserved? We believe Trump's election marks a substantial increase in geopolitical risk that is being understated by markets.1 This is not because of his personality, though that is not particularly reassuring, but rather because of his policy proposals. If acted on, Trump's geopolitical agenda would exacerbate global trends that are already underway: Waning U.S. Dominance: American power, relative to other nations, has been declining in recent years as a result of the emergence of new economic and military powers like China and India (Chart 2). If Trump allows himself to be sucked into another conflict despite his campaign promises - say, by overturning the nuclear deal with Iran - he could embroil the U.S. at a time when it is relatively weak. Multipolarity: America's relative decline has emboldened various other nations to pursue their interests independently, increasing global friction and creating a world with multiple "poles" of influence.2 If Trump keeps his word on reducing foreign commitments he will speed along this historically dangerous process. Lesser powers like Russia and Turkey will try to fill vacuums created by the U.S. with their own ambitions, with competition for spheres of influence potentially sparking conflict. Multipolarity has already increased the incidence of global conflicts (Chart 3). De-Globalization: The greatest risk of the incoming administration is protectionism. Trump ran on an overtly protectionist platform. Democratic-leaning economic patriots in the American "Rust Belt" handed him the victory (Chart 4), and he will enact policies to maintain these pivotal supporters in 2018 and 2020 elections. This will hasten the decline of trade globalization, which we signaled was peaking back in 2014.3 It does not help that multipolarity and collapse of globalization have tended to go hand in hand in the past. And historically speaking, big reversals in global trade do not end well (Chart 5). Chart 2U.S. Power Eroding In A Relative Sense U.S. Power Eroding In A Relative Sense U.S. Power Eroding In A Relative Sense Chart 3Multipolarity Increases Conflict Frequency bca.gis_sr_2016_12_02_c3 bca.gis_sr_2016_12_02_c3 Chart 4 Chart 5Declines In Global Trade Preceded World Wars Declines In Global Trade Preceded World Wars Declines In Global Trade Preceded World Wars In what follows we assess what we think are likely to be the most important geopolitical effects of Trump's "America First" policies. We see Russia and Europe as the chief beneficiaries, and China and Iran as the chief risks. A tougher stance on China, in particular, will feed broader strategic distrust; the combination of internal and external pressures on China will ensure that the latter will not be as flexible as in the past. For the past five years, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has stressed that the deterioration in Sino-American cooperation is the greatest geopolitical risk for investors - and the world. Trump's election will accelerate this process. Trump And Eurasia Chart 6 Trump's election is clearly a boon for Russia. Over the past 16 years, Russia has methodically attempted to collect the pieces from the Soviet collapse. The purpose of Putin's assertiveness has been to defend the Russian sphere of influence (namely Ukraine and Belarus in Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia) from outside powers: the U.S. and NATO seemed eager to "move in for the kill" after Russia emerged from the ashes. Putin also needed to rally popular support at various times by distracting the public with "rally around the flag" operations. We view Ukraine and Syria through this analytical prism. Lastly, Russia acted aggressively because it needed to reassure its allies that it would stand up for them.4 And yet the U.S. can live with a "strong" Russia. It can make a deal with Russia if the Trump administration recognizes some core interests (e.g. Crimea) and calls off the "democracy promotion" activities that Putin considers to be directly aimed at the Kremlin. As we argued during the Ukraine invasion, it is the U.S., not Russia, which poses the greatest risk of destabilization.5 That is because the U.S. lacks constraints. It can be aggressive towards Russia and face zero consequences: it has no economic relationship with Russia (Chart 6) and does not stand directly in the way of any retaliation, as Europe does. That is why we think Trump and Putin will manage to reset relations. The U.S. can step back and allow Russia to control its sphere of influence. Trump's team may be comfortable with the concept, unlike the Obama administration, whose Vice-President Joe Biden famously pronounced that America "will not recognize any nation having a sphere of influence." We could even see the U.S. pledging not to expand NATO from this point onwards, given that it has already expanded as far as it can feasibly and credibly go. Note, however, that a Russo-American truce may not last long. George W. Bush famously "looked into Putin's eyes and ... saw his soul," but relations soured nonetheless. Obama went further with his "Russian reset," removing European missile defense plans from avowed NATO allies Poland and Czech Republic merely one year after Russian troops invaded Georgia. And yet Moscow and Washington ended up rattling sabers and meddling in each other's internal affairs. Ultimately, U.S. resets fail because Russia is in a structural decline as a great power and is attempting to hold on to a very large sphere of influence whose denizens are not entirely willing participants.6 Because Moscow often must use blunt force to prevent the revolt of its vassal states (e.g. Georgia in 2008, Ukraine in 2014), it renews tensions with the West. Unless Russia strengthens significantly in the next few years, we would expect the cycle to continue. On the horizon may be Ukraine-like incidents in neighboring Belarus and Kazakhstan, both key components of the Russian sphere of influence. Bottom Line: Russia will get a reprieve from U.S. pressure under Trump. While we expect Europe to extend sanctions through the end of 2017, a rapprochement with Washington could ultimately thaw relations by the end of next year. Europe stands to benefit, being able to resume business as usual with Russia and face less of a risk of Russian provocations via the Middle East, like in Syria. The recent decline in refugee flows will be made permanent with Russia's cooperation. The losers will be states in the Russian periphery that will feel less secure about American, EU and NATO backing, particularly Ukraine, but also Turkey. Countries like Belarus, which enjoyed playing Moscow against the West in the past, will lose the ability to do so. Once the U.S. abandons plans to prop up pro-West regimes in the Russian sphere of influence, Europeans will drop their designs to do the same as well. Trump And The Middle East Trump's "America First" foreign policy promises to be Obama's "geopolitical deleveraging" on steroids. He is opposed to American adventurism and laser-focused on counter-terrorism and U.S. domestic security. He also wants to deregulate the U.S. energy sector aggressively to encourage even greater energy independence (Chart 7). The chief difference from Obama - and a major risk to global stability - is Iran, where Trump could overturn the Obama administration's 2015 nuclear deal, potentially setting the two countries back onto the path of confrontation. Nevertheless, this deal never depended on Obama's preferences but was rooted in a strategic logic that still holds:7 Iraqi stability: The U.S. needed to withdraw troops from Iraq without creating a power vacuum that would open up a regional war or vast terrorist safe haven. With the advent of the Islamic State, this plan clearly failed. However, Iran did provide a Shia-led central government that has maintained security for investments and oil outflows (Chart 8). Iranian defenses: Bombing Iran is extremely difficult logistically, and the U.S. did not want to force the country into a corner where asymmetric warfare, like cutting off shipping in the Straits of Hormuz, seemed necessary. Despite growing American oil production, the U.S. will always care about the transit of oil through the Straits of Hormuz, as this impacts global oil prices.8 China's emergence: Strategic threats grew rapidly in Asia while the U.S. was preoccupied in Iraq and Afghanistan. China has emerged as a more technologically advanced and assertive global power that threatens to establish hegemony in the region. The deal with Iran was therefore a crucial piece of President Obama's "Pivot to Asia" strategy. Chart 7U.S. Becoming More Energy Independent U.S. Becoming More Energy Independent U.S. Becoming More Energy Independent Chart 8U.S. Policy Boosts Iraqi And Iranian Oil bca.gis_sr_2016_12_02_c8 bca.gis_sr_2016_12_02_c8 None of the above will change with Obama's moving on. Nor will the other powers that participated in sanctioning Iran (Germany, France, the U.K., Russia, and China) be convinced to re-impose sanctions now, just as they gain access to Iranian resources and markets. It is also not clear why Trump would seek confrontation with Iran in light of his desire to improve relations with Russia and concentrate U.S. firepower on ISIS - both objectives make Iran the ideal and obvious partner. Trump will therefore begrudgingly agree to the détente with Iran, perhaps after tweaking some aspects of the deal to save face. Meanwhile, it will serve the hawks in both countries if they can go back to calling each other "Satan." Iran itself is comfortable with the current situation, so it does not have an incentive to reverse the deal. It controls almost half of Iraq (and specifically the portion of Iraq that produces oil), its ally Hezbollah is safe in Lebanon, its ally Bashar Assad will win in Syria (more so with Trump in charge!), and its allies in Yemen (Houthi rebels) are a status quo power secure in a mountain fortress in the north of the country. It is hard to see where Trump would dislodge Iranian influence if he sought to do so. The U.S. is a powerful country that could put a lot of resources into rolling back Iranian influence, but the logic for such a move simply does not exist. Trump will also maintain Obama's aloof policy toward Saudi Arabia, which keeps it constrained (Chart 9).9 The country is in some ways the stereotype of the "ungrateful ally" that Trump wants to downgrade. For instance, Trump supported the law allowing victims of the September 11 attacks to sue the kingdom (a law that Obama tried unsuccessfully to veto). He has blamed the Saudis for the rise of ISIS and the failure to take care of Syrian refugees. His primary focus is on preventing terrorists from striking the U.S., and to that end he wants to cooperate with Russia and stabilize the region's regimes. This entails the relative neglect of Sunni groups under Shia rule in Syria and Iraq. Indeed, the few issues where the Saudis will welcome Trump - opposition to the Iran nuclear deal, support for Egypt's military ruler Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, and opposition to aggressive democracy promotion - are so far rhetorical, not concrete, commitments. Chart 9Saudi Arabia Sees The U.S. Stepping Back Saudi Arabia Sees The U.S. Stepping Back Saudi Arabia Sees The U.S. Stepping Back Will Trump get sucked into the region to intervene against ISIS? We do not think so. A bigger risk is Turkey.10 President Recep Erdogan may think that Trump will either be too complacent about Turkish interests in Syria, or that Trump is in fact a "kindred nationalist spirit" who will not prevent Turkey from pursuing its own sphere of influence in Syria and northern Iraq. Trump's foreign policy of "offshore balancing" would call for the U.S. to prevent Turkey from resurrecting any kind of regional empire, especially if it risks a war with Russia and Iran or comes at the cost of regional influence for American allies like the Kurds.11 Turkey will also be starkly at odds on Syria and ISIS. This means Turkey and the U.S. could see already tense relations get substantially worse in 2017. We would not be surprised to see President Trump threaten Erdogan with expulsion from NATO within his first term. Bottom Line: The biggest risk to our view is that Trump rejects the consensus of the intelligence and defense establishment and pushes Iran too far, leading to conflict. We do not think this will happen, but his rhetoric on the nuclear deal has been consistently negative and he seems likely to favor "Middle East hands" for top cabinet positions. He could involve the country in new Middle East entanglements if he does not show discipline in adhering to his non-interventionist preferences - particularly if he overreacts to an attack. Nonetheless, we believe that America's policy of geopolitical deleveraging from the Middle East will continue. Trump may have a mandate to be tough on terrorism from his voters, but he definitely does not have a free hand to commit military resources to the region. Trump And Asia Trump criticized China furiously during the campaign, declaring that he would name China a currency manipulator on his first day in office and threatening to impose a 45% tariff on Chinese imports. However, there is a familiar pattern of China bashing in U.S. presidential elections that leads to no sharp changes in policy.12 Will Trump be different? Some would argue that relations may actually improve, given how bad they already are. First, Trump's chief concern is to fire up the U.S. economy's animal spirits, and that would support China's ailing economy as long as he does not couple his tax cuts and fiscal stimulus with aggressive protectionist measures (Chart 10). Proponents of this view would point out that Trump's tougher measures may be called off when he realizes that the Chinese current account surplus has fallen sharply in recent years (Chart 11), and that the PBoC is propping up the RMB, not suppressing it. Similarly, Trump's China-bashing trade advisor, the former steel executive Dan DiMicco, may not get much traction given that the U.S. has largely shifted to Brazilian steel imports (Chart 12). In short, the U.S. could take a somewhat tougher stance on specific trade spats without provoking a vicious spiral of discriminatory actions. The fact that the U.S. is more exposed than ever to trade with emerging markets only reinforces the idea that it does not want to spark a real trade war (Chart 13). Chart 10A Trump Boom, Sans Protectionism, Would Lift Chinese Growth A Trump Boom, Sans Protectionism, Would Lift Chinese Growth A Trump Boom, Sans Protectionism, Would Lift Chinese Growth Chart 11China's Economy Rebalancing China's Economy Rebalancing China's Economy Rebalancing Chart 12China Already Lost The China Already Lost The "Steel Wars" China Already Lost The "Steel Wars" Chart 13A Reason To Eschew Protectionism A Reason To Eschew Protectionism A Reason To Eschew Protectionism Second, the Obama administration's "Pivot to Asia" and attempts to undermine China's economic influence in the region through the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) have aggravated China with little substantive gain. By contrast, Trump may emphasize American business access to China over Chinese citizens' freedoms - which could reduce the risk of conflict. He may not go beyond symbolic protectionist moves, like the currency manipulation charge, and meanwhile canceling the never-ratified TPP would be a net gain for China.13 In essence, Trump, despite his populist rhetoric, could prove both pragmatic and willing to inherit the traditional Republican stance of business-oriented positive engagement with China. Chart 14 This is a compelling argument and we take it seriously. But it is not our baseline case. Rather, we think Trump will eventually take concrete populist steps that will mark a departure from U.S. policy in recent memory. As mentioned, it was protectionist blue-collar voters in the Midwest who gave Trump the White House, and he will need to retain their loyalty in coming elections. Moreover, the secular flatlining of American wages and the growth of income inequality have moved the median U.S. voter to the left of the economic spectrum, as we have argued.14 Neo-liberal economic policy has fewer powerful proponents than in the recent past. Thus, in the long run, we expect the grand renegotiation with China to fall short of market hopes, and Sino-American tensions to resume their upward trajectory.15 Why are we so pessimistic? Three main reasons: The "Thucydides Trap": Sino-U.S. tensions are fundamentally driven not by trade disputes but by the U.S.'s fear of China's growing capability and ambition.16 Great conflicts in history have often occurred when a new economic and military power emerged and tried to alter the regional political arrangements set up by the dominant power. This was as true in late nineteenth-century Europe, with the rise of Germany vis-à-vis the U.K. and France (Chart 14), as it was in ancient Greece. The rise of Japan in the first half of the twentieth century had a similar effect in Asia (Chart 15). Trump could, of course, endorse Xi's idea of a "new type of great power relations," which is supposed to avoid this problem. But nobody knows what that would look like, and greater trade openness is the only conceivable foundation for it. Chart 15AThe Disruptive Rise Of Germany The Disruptive Rise Of Germany The Disruptive Rise Of Germany Chart 15BThe Disruptive Rise Of Japan The Disruptive Rise Of Japan The Disruptive Rise Of Japan China's economic imbalances: A caustic dose of trade remedies from the Trump administration will compound internal economic pressures in China resulting from rampant credit expansion, misallocation of capital, excessive money printing, and capital outflows (Chart 16).17 The combination of internal and external pressures is potentially fatal and China's leaders will fight it. Otherwise, they risk either the fate of the Soviets or of the Asian strongman regimes that succumbed to democracy after embracing capitalism fully. Instead, China will avoid rushing its structural reforms (it is, after all, currently closing its capital account), and protect its consumer market, which it hopes to be the growth engine going forward. This is not a strong basis for the "better deal" that Trump will demand. President Trump will want China to open up further to U.S. manufacturing, tech, and service exports. Economics and the security dilemma: China and the U.S. will not be able to prevent economic tensions from spilling over into broader strategic tensions. Compare the spike in trade tensions with Japan in the 1980s, when Japanese exports to the U.S. peaked and the U.S. strong-armed Japan into appreciating its currency (Chart 17). The U.S. had nurtured Japan and South Korea out of their post-war devastation by running large trade deficits and enabling them to focus on manufacturing exports while minimizing spending on defense. China joined this system in the 1980s and has largely resembled the formal U.S. allies (Chart 18). Given that China has largely followed Japan's path, it was inevitable that the U.S. would eventually lose patience and become more competitive with China. China has seized a greater share of the U.S. market than Japan had done at that time, and its exports are even more important to the U.S. as a share of GDP (Chart 19). Comparing the exchange rates then and now, the Trump administration will be able to argue that China's currency is overdue for appreciation (Chart 20). However, in the 1980s, the U.S. and Japan faced no risk of military conflict - their strategic hierarchy was entirely settled in 1945. The U.S. and China have no such understanding. There is no way of assuring China that U.S. economic pressure is not about strategic dominance. In fact, it is about that. So while China may be cajoled into promising faster reforms - given that its trade surplus with the U.S. is the only thing that stands between it and current account deficits (Chart 21) - nevertheless it will tend to dilute and postpone these reforms for the sake of its own security, putting Trump's resolve to the test. Chart 16Flashing Red Light On China's Economy Flashing Red Light On China's Economy Flashing Red Light On China's Economy Chart 17The U.S. Forced Structural Changes On Japan The U.S. Forced Structural Changes On Japan The U.S. Forced Structural Changes On Japan Chart 18Asia Sells, America Rules Asia Sells, America Rules Asia Sells, America Rules Chart 19The U.S. Will Get Tougher On China Trade The U.S. Will Get Tougher On China Trade The U.S. Will Get Tougher On China Trade Chart 20China Drags Its Feet On RMB Appreciation China Drags Its Feet On RMB Appreciation China Drags Its Feet On RMB Appreciation Chart 21A Reason For China To Kowtow A Reason For China To Kowtow A Reason For China To Kowtow Trump's victory may also heighten Beijing's fears that it is being surrounded by the U.S. and its partners. That is because Trump will make the following developments more likely: Better Russian relations: From a bird's eye view, Trump's thaw with Putin could mark an inversion of Nixon's thaw with Mao. China is the only power today that can stand a comparison with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The U.S. at least needs to make sure the Sino-Russian relationship does not become too warm (Chart 22).18 Russo-Japanese peace treaty: The two sides are already working on a treaty, never signed after World War II. Aside from their historic territorial dispute, the U.S. has been the main impediment by demanding Japan help penalize Russia after the invasion of Ukraine. Yet negotiations have advanced regardless, and Japanese air force scrambles against Russia have fallen while those against China have continued to spike (Chart 23). The best chance for a deal since the 1950s is now, with Abe and Putin both solidly in power until 2018. This would reduce Russian dependency on China for energy markets and capital investment, and free up Japan's security establishment to focus on China and North Korea. American allies are not defecting: The United States armed forces are deeply embedded in the Asia Pacific region and setbacks to the "pivot" policy should not be mistaken for setbacks to U.S. power in the absolute.19 U.S. allies like Thailand, the Philippines, and (soon) South Korea are in the headlines for seeking to warm up ties with China, but there is no hard evidence that they will turn away from the U.S. security umbrella. Rather, the pivot reassured them of U.S. commitment, giving them the flexibility to focus on boosting their economies, which means sending emissaries to Beijing. The problem is that Beijing knows this and will therefore still suspect that a "containment" strategy is underfoot over time. Better Indian relations: The Bush administration made considerable progress in improving ties with India. Trump also seems India-friendly, which would be supported by better ties with Russia and Iran. India could therefore become a greater obstacle to China's influence in South and Southeast Asia. Chart 22Energy A Solid Foundation For Sino-Russian Ties Energy A Solid Foundation For Sino-Russian Ties Energy A Solid Foundation For Sino-Russian Ties Chart 23Japan's Strategic Predicament Japan's Strategic Predicament Japan's Strategic Predicament From the above, we can draw three main conclusions: The U.S. role in the Pacific will determine global geopolitical stability under the Trump administration. The primary question is whether China is willing and able to accede to enough of Trump's demands to ensure that the U.S. and China have at least "one more fling," a further extension to the post-1979 trade relationship. It is possible that China is simply unable to do so and in the face of any concrete sanctions by Trump, will batten down the hatches, rally people around the flag, and shore up the state-led economy. There may be a tactical U.S.-China "improvement" over the next year - relative to the worst fears of trade war under Trump - but it will not be durable. The year 2017 will be the year of Trump's "honeymoon," while Xi Jinping will be focused on internal politics ahead of the Communist Party's crucial National Party Congress in the fall.20 Thus, after Trump gives China a "shot across the bow," like charging it with currency manipulation, the two sides will likely settle down at the negotiating table and send positive signals to the world about their time-tried ability to manage tensions. Financial markets will see through Trump's initially symbolic actions and begin to behave as if nothing has changed in U.S.-China relations. However, this calm will be deceiving, since economic and security tensions will eventually rise to the surface again, likely in a more disruptive way than ever before. China's periphery will be decisive, especially the Korean peninsula. The Koreas could become the locus of East Asia tensions for two reasons. First, North Korea's nuclear weaponization has reached a level that is truly alarming to the U.S. and Japan.21 New sanctions, if enforced, have real teeth because they target commodity exports (Chart 24). The problem is that China is unlikely to enforce them and South Korean politics are likely to turn more China-friendly and more pacific toward the North with the impending change of ruling parties. This will leave the U.S. and Japan with legitimate security grievances but less of an ability to change the outcome through non-military means. That is an arrangement ripe for confrontation. Separately, China's worsening relations with Taiwan, Vietnam's resistance to China's power-grab in the South China Sea, and conflicts between India and Pakistan will be key barometers of regional stability vis-à-vis China. Chart 24Will China Cut Imports From Here? Will China Cut Imports From Here? Will China Cut Imports From Here? The risk to this view, again, is that a Middle East crisis could distract the Trump administration. This would mark an excellent opportunity for China to build on its growing regional sway, and it would delay our baseline view that the Asia Pacific is now the chief source of geopolitical risk in the world. Investment Conclusions There is no geopolitical risk premium associated with Sino-American tensions. Our clients, colleagues, and friends in the industry are at a loss when we ask how one should hedge tensions in the region. This is a major risk for investors as the market will have to price emerging tensions quickly. Broadly speaking, Sino-American tensions will reinforce the ongoing de-globalization. If the top two global economies are at geopolitical loggerheads, they are more likely to see their geopolitical tensions spill over to the economic sphere. Unwinding globalization implies that inflation will make a comeback, as the reduction in flows of goods, services, capital, and people gradually increases supply constraints. This is primarily bad for bonds, which have enjoyed a bull market for the past three decades that we see reversing.22 At the same time, these trends suggest that investors should favor consumer-oriented sectors and countries relative to their export-reliant counterparts, and small-to-medium sized businesses over externally-exposed multinationals. BCA Geopolitical Strategy's long S&P 600 / short S&P 100 trade is up 7.4% since inceptionon November 9. Finally, these trends, combined with the associated geopolitical risks of various powers struggling for elbow room, warrant a continuation of the Geopolitical Strategy theme of favoring Developed Markets over Emerging Markets, which has made a 45.5% return since inception in November 2012. The centrality of China risk only reinforces this view. Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see our initial discussion of Trump's foreign policy, "U.S. Election Update: Trump, Presidential Powers, And Investment Implications," in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Socialism Put," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization: All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, and, more recently, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see "In Focus - Cold War Redux?" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "It's A Long Way Down From The 'Wall Of Worry,'" dated March 2014, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Russia: To Buy Or Not To Buy?" dated March 20, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Russia-West Showdown: The West, Not Putin, Is The 'Wild Card,'" dated July 31, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Russia's Trilemma And The Coming Power Paralysis," dated February 21, 2012, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Out Of The Vault: Explaining The U.S.-Iran Détente," dated July 15, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "End Of An Era For Oil And The Middle East," dated April 8, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Saudi Arabia's Choice: Modernity Or Bust," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Turkey: Strategy After The Attempted Coup," dated July 18, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see John J. Meirsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, "The Case For Offshore Balancing: A Superior U.S. Grand Strategy," Foreign Affairs, July/August 2016, available at www.foreignaffairs.com. 12 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy, "China As A Currency Manipulator?" dated November 24, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 13 One of his foreign policy advisors, former CIA head James Woolsey, has floated the idea that the U.S. could turn positive about Chinese initiatives like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the One Belt One Road program to link Eurasian economies. Please see Woolsey, "Under Donald Trump, the US will accept China's rise - as long as it doesn't challenge the status quo," South China Morning Post, dated November 10, 2016, available at www.scmp.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy?" dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Joint Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II," dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see Graham Allison, "The Thucydides Trap: Are The U.S. And China Headed For War?" The Atlantic, September 24, 2015, available at www.theatlantic.com. 17 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB," dated November 23, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Can Russia Import Productivity From China?" dated June 29, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Philippine Elections: Taking The Shine Off Reform," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "De-Globalization," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see "North Korea: A Red Herring No More?" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Partem Mirabilis," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com.