Taiwan

Executive Summary Biden Can Take Risks Ahead Of Midterms The Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis The Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis News reports suggest House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will travel to Taiwan and meet with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen in the coming days. China has promised military counter-measures if she visits. Structural factors suggest US-China tensions over Taiwan could explode: China’s reversion to autocracy and hawkish foreign policy, Taiwan’s assertion of autonomy, and the US’s political instability and foreign policy reactiveness. Cyclical factors also suggest that tensions could escalate: China’s instability in the wake of Covid-19, the ramifications of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the budding Russo-Chinese alliance, the Biden administration’s domestic political vulnerability, and the Xi administration’s domestic political vulnerability. In particular, Xi cannot back down. A diplomatic crisis or military showdown is likely in the short run but not yet a full-scale war. Taiwan is harder to invade than Ukraine, the US is not attempting a radical boost to Taiwan’s military, Taiwan is not moving toward formal independence, and the Chinese economy is not yet collapsing beyond all hope. However, over the long run we fear that a Taiwan war is more likely than not. Tactically investors should prefer government bonds to equities, US equities to global, defensive sectors to cyclicals, and safe havens to risky assets. Investors should short Chinese and Taiwanese currencies and assets. Tactical Recommendation Inception Date Return LONG US SEMICONDUCTOR & SEMI EQUIPMENT / TAIWAN EQUITIES 2022-06-23 14.6% LONG KOREA/ SHORT TAIWAN EQUITIES 2020-03-27 -23.5% Bottom Line: Tactically investors should buy safe-haven assets and await a resolution of the US-China confrontation over Taiwan, which could cause a dramatic escalation in strategic tensions. Feature A fourth Taiwan Strait crisis is likely upon us. Speaker of the US House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi will visit Taiwan during her travel around Asia Pacific this week, according to the Wall Street Journal on August 1. Chinese President Xi Jinping warned US President Joe Biden in a phone conversation on July 28 that “those who play with fire will eventually get burned,” referring specifically to US relations with Taiwan. Chinese foreign ministry officials have threatened “forceful” countermeasures if Pelosi visits the island, explicitly saying that the People’s Liberation Army would respond in some way.   There is still some uncertainty over whether Pelosi will go. She delayed the trip in April. Rumors emerged over July that she would resume but President Joe Biden suggested on July 20 that US military officials opposed the trip, believed the timing to be inappropriate. Taiwan was not mentioned in Pelosi’s official itinerary published on July 31, which includes Singapore, Japan, South Korea, and Malaysia. But the Wall Street Journal report has been corroborated by US and Taiwanese officials. Assuming Pelosi goes, China will respond with some military show of force. The US may pretend that one hand (the White House, the Department of Defense) does not know what the other hand is doing (the House of Representatives). But China will not be convinced. There are three major reasons that we have predicted a fourth Taiwan Strait crisis: 1.   China’s reversion to autocracy and foreign policy hawkishness: After the Great Recession, China was forced into a painful downshift in potential economic growth, stemming from a contracting labor force, excessive debt, and changes in the international economy (Chart 1). As economic growth has slowed, China has pursued political centralization, economic mercantilism, military modernization, and foreign policy assertiveness, offering nationalism as a distraction from the disappointments of the new middle class. While China may not be ready to launch a full-scale invasion of Taiwan, it is willing to do so if the Communist Party regime’s survival is at stake. Chart 1China's Slowdown Leads To Hawkishness China's Slowdown Leads To Hawkishness China's Slowdown Leads To Hawkishness 2.   Taiwan’s reassertion of autonomy: Taiwanese people began to sour on mainland China with the Great Recession and increasingly developed an independent identity (Chart 2). China’s growing economic influence, combined with Xi Jinping’s re-centralization of power across Greater China, provoked a backlash in Taiwan beginning in 2013 that culminated in the nominally pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party gaining full control of the island in 2016. The US-China trade war, China’s imposition of control over critical buffer spaces (including the South China Sea and Hong Kong), and US export controls on advanced technologies thrust Taiwan into the middle of a strategic confrontation. While Taiwan is not seeking war or formal political independence, it is seeking closer ties with the US and democratic allies to protect against Beijing’s encroachment.     3.   US political instability and foreign policy reaction: The Great Recession brought the US’s latent political instability from a simmer to a boil. The Washington establishment withdrew from the war on terrorism only to face discontent at home and strategic competition from China and Russia. China intensified its acquisition of US technology while North Korea obtained a nuclear arsenal under China’s watch. A surge in populism led the US to initiate a trade war against China and to impose restrictions on critical technologies to slow China’s modernization. While the US political factions bickered over domestic policy, they both tapped into a popular consensus on economic nationalism and hawkishness toward China (Chart 3). While the US is struggling to curb Russia and Iran, its greatest long-term challenge stems from China and it is increasingly focused on containing China’s economy and strategic ambitions. Chart 2Taiwanese Souring On China The Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis The Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis Chart 3US Hawkish Consensus On China The Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis The Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis In addition, there are important cyclical reasons why investors should take very seriously the risk of a major geopolitical crisis emanating from Taiwan in the short run: The Covid-19 pandemic intensified US (and global) distrust of China and accelerated the divorce of the US and Chinese economies. It also threw the Chinese economy into a downward spin, threatening Xi Jinping’s personal security and the Communist Party’s regime security. Hypo-globalization reduces critical economic constraints on military conflict. The Ukraine war highlighted the willingness of ambitious strongman regimes to go to war to prevent neighboring countries from allying with the United States. Taiwan is critical to Chinese security just as Ukraine is critical to Russian. Taiwan, like Ukraine, lacks a mutual defense treaty with the US and yet is attempting to create a de facto treaty through political, economic, and military cooperation – a scenario that will incentivize Chinese military action if it ever believes the US will take irrevocable steps to increase its commitment to defend Taiwan. At the same time, the US will try to deter China more effectively, since its deterrence failed in the case of Ukraine, which entails upgrading the Taiwanese relationship. Hence China will feel threatened and accuse the US of altering the status quo. Russo-Chinese alliance prevents US-China reengagement. Russia threw itself into China’s arms by cutting off natural gas to Europe. China cannot reject Russia’s overture because it needs Russia’s alliance to break through American strategic containment in the coming years. China needs Russia’s natural resources and its cooperation in gaining economic access to Central Asia and the Middle East. The US cannot pursue strategic détente with China if China is allying with Russia, since a Russo-Chinese alliance poses an unprecedented threat to American global influence and security (Chart 4). The Democratic Party is desperate to mitigate looming election losses. President Biden’s approval rating has fallen to 39%, while headline inflation hits 9% and the economy slips into a technical recession. The Republican Party is lined up for a victory in the midterm elections, yet Democrats view the populist Republicans as an existential threat. Hence Biden and Democratic leaders like Pelosi are willing to take significant risks to salvage the election, including provoking foreign rivals. The administration is contemplating tougher export controls on China’s access to semiconductor manufacturing equipment and Congress is passing bipartisan legislation to make the US more competitive against China. Any major confrontation abroad would generate a patriotic rally among voters, as did the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, which saved the Democrats from heavy losses in the midterms that year (Chart 5). China’s domestic politics support a foreign confrontation. As Xi attempts to cement another five-to-ten years in power at the twentieth national party congress this fall, the pandemic restrictions, political repression, property bust, and economic slowdown ensure that he has little good news to celebrate at home. He could benefit from taking an aggressive stance against the imperialist Americans over Taiwan – and he cannot afford to back down or lose face. Ultimately China’s regime legitimacy is at stake in Taiwan so it is willing to take greater risks than the United States.   Chart 4US Cannot Engage With Russo-Chinese Behemoth US Cannot Engage With Russo-Chinese Behemoth US Cannot Engage With Russo-Chinese Behemoth Chart 5Biden Can Take Risks Ahead Of Midterms The Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis The Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis All of the above demonstrates that investors should not be complacent but should take risk off the table until the Pelosi trip blows over. A major diplomatic or geopolitical crisis will occur if Pelosi indeed visits Taiwan, for China will be required to react to uphold the credibility of its warnings, and Beijing will have a national and political interest in overreacting rather than underreacting. The Americans will then have a national and political interest in preserving their own credibility. This dynamic could lead to a major escalation in strategic tensions. Could a crisis lead to full-scale war? Yes it could but most likely it will not – at least not yet. Here are some important limitations, which investors should monitor closely. If these are reduced or overcome, then a larger conflict becomes more probable: Taiwan is harder to invade than Ukraine. Taiwan is an island and islands that are politically unified can only be subdued with enormous cost of blood and treasure even by the most powerful armies. Taiwan is critical to the global economy, unlike Ukraine. While it lacks defense treaties, it has stronger strategic partnerships than Ukraine did. The Chinese military has not fought an expeditionary war since Vietnam in 1979. The US sent aircraft carriers to the Taiwan Strait in each of the previous three crises since the 1950s, signaling that it is willing to defend Taiwan, and currently has at least two aircraft carriers in Asia Pacific (Map 1). China needs to be prepared for potential American and Japanese intervention if it is to attack Taiwan, which requires an advanced triad of nuclear arms.    Map 1US Aircraft Carriers Suggest Taiwan Risk Is Substantial The Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis The Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis The US is not sending any game-changing offensive weapon systems. Instead the US is sending a mere politician. China opposes anything resembling state-to-state relations but Taiwan’s defensive capability would not be improved. Hence China would not be forced to take aggressive military action. Instead China is attempting to set a very low bar for intervening in US-Taiwan political relations. Beijing can intervene in a way that enforces the new line but remains beneath the threshold of war. Going forward, US arms sales to Taiwan will be a much riskier affair and the delivery of a weapons system could trigger conflict (Chart 6). Chinese economy is not (yet) beyond help. China still has authoritarian powers to manipulate the domestic economy, suggesting that policy makers will intervene to slow down the property bust and stimulate activity. After Xi Jinping consolidates power, we expect a pro-growth strategy to be unveiled that will lead to a stabilization of growth in 2023. This is necessary for Xi to maintain domestic stability, which is existential to the regime and its long-term security. If stimulus and interventions fail utterly and China collapses into a full-blown financial crisis, then China will lose the ability to improve its security over the long run and the risk of conflict with foreign powers will rise. But as long as China’s economy is not collapsing, China maintains the prospect of building its influence and power over time and conquering Taiwan through absorption rather than extremely risky armed conflict (Chart 7). Chart 6US Arms Sales Could Trigger A Real Conflict US Arms Sales Could Trigger A Real Conflict US Arms Sales Could Trigger A Real Conflict Chart 7More Economic Stimulus Is Coming More Economic Stimulus Is Coming More Economic Stimulus Is Coming Taiwan is not moving toward formal independence. The Tsai Ing-wen administration is nominally in favor of independence but has chosen rhetorical sleight of hand over any formal change to Taiwan’s status. Taiwanese people support the status quo knowing that they will live in a war zone if they declare independence. The long-term problem stems from the fact that a clear majority opposes unification with the mainland (Chart 8). Taiwan and the US face elections in 2022 and 2024. If the Kuomintang stages a comeback in Taiwanese politics, or the Democrats win reelection in 2024, then China still has the ability to pursue its aims through diplomacy. Whereas if the Democratic Progressive Party remains in full control of Taiwan, and the Republicans regain the White House, Beijing may conclude that little can be gained through diplomacy. Especially if these US and Taiwanese parties proceed to press their interests aggressively. Chart 8Taiwanese Not Declaring Independence The Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis The Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis Hence the most likely outcome if Pelosi visits Taiwan is a US-China geopolitical crisis of some sort but not a full-scale war. A crisis short of war could establish a new set of red lines over Taiwan that could govern the US-China relationship in the medium term with reduced uncertainty. But it would bring very bad news in the short run and lead to a permanent deterioration in US-China relations and global stability over the long run, which markets must price first.   Bottom Line: Tactically investors should prefer government bonds to equities, US equities to global, defensive sectors to cyclicals, and safe havens to risky assets. Stay short Chinese and Taiwanese currencies and assets. While semiconductor stocks stand at risk, investors should favor US semiconductor companies over Chinese and Taiwanese (Chart 9). Chart 9Investors Should Seek Safe Havens Investors Should Seek Safe Havens Investors Should Seek Safe Havens Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix

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

Executive Summary Italy’s right-wing alliance, led by Brothers of Italy, will likely outperform in  the upcoming election. The new government will prioritize the economy, posing a risk to the EU’s united front against Russia. It is conducive to an eventual ceasefire, which is marginally positive for risk assets in 2023. We recommend investors underweight Italian assets on a tactical basis. China’s political risks will remain elevated until Xi consolidates power this fall, positive news will come after, if at all. Geopolitical risk in the Taiwan Strait will remain high and persistent until China and the US reach a new understanding. Separately, we are booking a 9% gain on our long US equities relative to UAE equities trade. Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Tactical Recommendation Inception Date Return LONG US / UAE EQUITIES (CLOSED) 2022-03-11 9.0% Bottom Line: Italy’s political turmoil suggests a more pragmatic policy toward Russia going forward. Europe’s energy cutoff will also motivate governments to negotiate with Russia. Feature In this report we update our GeoRisk Indicators, with a special focus on Italy’s newest political turmoil. Italy Over the past several months, we have argued that Italy was a source of political risk within the European Union and that the market underestimated the probability of an early Italian election. In the past two weeks, this forecast has become a reality (Chart 1). Chart 1Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator The grand coalition under Prime Minister Mario Draghi had fulfilled its two main purposes – to distribute EU recovery funds and secure an establishment politician in the Italian presidency. At the same time, headline inflation hit 8.5% in June, the highest since 1986, even as the Italian and global economy slowed down, Italian government bonds sold off, and Russia induced an energy crisis. The stagflationary economic environment is biting hard and the different coalition members are looking to their individual interests ahead of election season. On July 14, Giuseppe Conte, the former prime minister, pulled its populist Five Star Movement (M5S) out of Mario Draghi’s national unity government, triggering a new round of political turmoil in Italy. Draghi’s first resignation was rejected by Italian President Mattarella later that day. However, on July 21, the League and Forza Italia also defected from the grand coalition. After Draghi’s plan of reviving the coalition collapsed, President Mattarella accepted his resignation and called for a snap election to be held on September 25, ten months ahead of the original schedule. Based on the latest public opinion polls, right-wing political parties are well-positioned for the upcoming election. The far-right Brothers of Italy is now the front runner in the election race and is expected to win around 23% of the votes. Another far-right party, the League, is the third most popular party, with nearly 15% support despite a drop in support during its time within the grand coalition. In addition, the center-right Forza Italia receives 8.5% of the support. Together, the right-wing conservative bloc amounts to 46.5% of voting intentions. There is still positive momentum for Brothers of Italy to harvest more support given that they are the flag-bearer for anti-incumbent sentiment amid the stagflationary economy. By contrast, the left-wing parties – the Democrats, the Left, and the Greens – only command about 27%. The possibility of an extended left-wing coalition, even with the inclusion of the M5S, is looking slim. On July 25, Enrico Letta, the leader of the Democratic Party, publicly expressed his anger against party leader Giuseppe Conte and ruled out any electoral pact with the M5S because of the recent political chaos they caused. He stressed that the Democratic Party would seek ties with parties that had remained loyal to Draghi’s national unity. However, there are not many parties left for the Democrats to partner with. Apart from the Left and the Greens, the Democrats’ best chance would be the center-left Action Party and Italia Viva, which is led by Matteo Renzi, who served as the secretary of the Democratic Party from 2013 to 2018. However, these four parties are small and will not enable the Democrats to form a government. Courting M5S is the Democrats’ only chance to set up an alternative to the right-wing bloc, but that will require the election to force the two parties together. Related Report  Geopolitical StrategyLe Pen And Other Hurdles (GeoRisk Update) The Democratic Party was the biggest supporter of Draghi’s government, while the Brothers of Italy were the sole major opposition. Thus the September 25 election will be a race between these two major parties. Both are expected to outperform current polling, as they will attract the most supporters from each side. The other right-wing parties, Forza Italia and the League, will at least perform in line with their polling, while the other left-wing parties will underperform. In the meantime, M5S’ popularity will continue to decline – the party is bruised over its role in Draghi’s coalition and divided over how to respond to the Ukraine war. Foreign policy is a major factor in this election. Italy has the highest share of citizens in the Eurozone who support solving the Russia-Ukraine conflict through peaceful dialogue (52% versus the Eurozone average of 35%). Italy has long maintained pragmatic relations with Russia, including the Putin administration, as it imported 40% of its natural gas from there prior to 2022. The EU is struggling to maintain a united front against Russia, and war policy will be a key focal point among the different parties. Draghi and the Democratic Party are the strongest supporters of the EU’s oil embargo on Russia and decision to send arms to support Ukraine. On the other side, the right-wing Forza Italia and the League have been more equivocal due to their traditional friendship with Russia. What’s more important is the stance of the Brothers of Italy on Russia, as it is the largest party now and will probably lead a right-wing government after the election. On July 27, the three right-wing parties struck a deal to officially form an alliance in the upcoming election and whichever party wins the most votes would determine the next prime minister if the alliance wins. This deal puts Giorgia Meloni, the leader of Brothers of Italy, one step closer to becoming Italy’s first female PM. Giorgia Meloni, unlike her right-wing peers, has endorsed Draghi’s hawkish stance towards Russia. Recently, she stressed that Italy would keep sending arms to Ukraine if her party forms a government after the election. However, Meloni’s speech could be a tactical move to win the election more than an unshakeable policy position. First, like the other two right-wing parties, the Brothers of Italy have had close connections with Russia. After the 2018 Russian presidential election, Meloni congratulated Putin and claimed his victory was “the unequivocal will of Russians.” In addition, she is close to Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary and National Rally leader Marine Le Pen of France, both of whom have criticized the EU’s decision to provide military support to Kyiv. Hence her sharp change of stance this year seems calculated to avoid accusations of being pro-Russian. But that does not preclude a more pragmatic approach to Russia once in office. Second, Meloni has compromised other far-right positions to broaden her voter base. She has reversed the party’s original anti-EU stance and claimed it does not seek to leave the EU, as most European anti-establishment parties have had to do in order to make themselves electable. Being the only female in the election race, Meloni also pledged to protect women’s access to safe abortions in Italy, also a softer stance than before. Even if the Brothers of Italy distance themselves from some unpopular right-wing positions, including on Ukraine, they probably cannot form a government on their own. They will need to court Forza Italia and the League. These two parties prefer a more pragmatic approach to Russia and a peaceful resolution to the war. Thus while it will be hard to find a middle ground on the issue of Ukraine, the election will likely prevent Italy from taking a more confrontational stance toward Russia. It will probably do the opposite. Consider the context in which the next Italian government will operate. Russia declared on July 25 that it will further reduce natural gas supplies to Europe through Nord Stream 1, as we expected, bringing pipeline flows to 20% of its full capacity.  Energy prices will go up even as European economic activity and industry will suffer greater strains. If Meloni is elected as the new prime minister this September, she will have to keep talking tough on Russia while simultaneously seeking a solution to soaring energy prices and economic crisis. This solution will be diplomacy – unless Russia seeks to expand its invasion all the way to Moldova. A right-wing victory is the most likely outcome based on opinion polling, the negative cyclical economy, and the underlying structural factors supporting populism in Italy that we have monitored for years. Such a coalition will not be pro-Russian but it will be pragmatic and focused on salvaging Italy’s economy, which means it will be highly inclined toward diplomacy. If Russia halts its military advance – does not attempt to conquer southwestern Ukraine to Moldova – then this point will be greatly reinforced. Italy will become a new veto player within the European Union when it comes to any major new sanctions on Russia. While Europeans will continue diversifying their energy mix away from Russia, it will be much harder for the EU to implement a natural gas embargo in the coming years if Italy as well as Hungary oppose it. Even if we are wrong, and the Democratic Party or other left-wing parties surprise to the upside in the election, the new coalition will most likely have to focus on mitigating the economic crisis and thus pursuing diplomacy with Russia. That is, as long as Russia pushes for a ceasefire after it achieves its military aims in Donetsk, the last holdout within the south-southeastern territories Russia is trying to conquer. Bottom Line: Due to persistent political uncertainty, we recommend investors underweight Italian stocks and bonds at least until a new government takes shape, which could take months even after the election. However, government bonds will remain vulnerable if a right-wing coalition assumes power, since it will pursue loose fiscal policies and will eschew structural reforms. Overall Italy’s early elections will lead to a new government that is focused on short-term economic growth, likely including pragmatism toward Russia. From an investment point of view that will not be a negative development, though much depends on whether Russia expands its invasion or declares victory after Donetsk. Russia Market-based measures of Russian geopolitical risk are rebounding after subsiding from peak levels hit during the invasion of Ukraine in February (Chart 2). Chart 2Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia’s continued tightening of natural gas supplies (and food exports) this week is precisely what we predicted would happen despite a wave of wishful thinking from investors over the past month. The optimists claimed that Russia would resume Nord Stream 1 pipeline flows after a regular “maintenance” period. They also said that Canada’s cooperation in resolving some “technical” issues around turbines would stabilize natural gas supply. The truth is that Russia is seeking to achieve its war aims in Ukraine. Until it has achieved its aims, it will use a range of leverage, including tightening food and energy supplies. Most likely Russia will halt the advance after completing the conquest of the Donbas region and land-bridge to Crimea. Then it will seek to legitimize its conquests through a ceasefire agreement. However, it could launch a new phase of the war to try to take Odessa and Transniestria, which would cement European resolve, even in Italy, and trigger a new round of sanctions. Bottom Line: Russia faces a fork in the road once it completes the conquest of Donetsk. Most likely it will declare victory and start pushing for a ceasefire late this year or early next year. Movement toward a ceasefire would reduce geopolitical risk for global financial markets in 2023. But there is still a substantial risk that Russia could expand the invasion to eastern Moldova, which would escalate the overarching Russia-West conflict and sustain the high level of geopolitical risk for markets. China Chinese political and geopolitical risk will continue to rise and the bounce in Chinese relative equity performance is faltering as we expected (Chart 3). Chart 3China: GeoRisk Indicator China: GeoRisk Indicator China: GeoRisk Indicator China’s leaders will hold their secretive annual meeting at Beidaihe in August ahead of the critical Communist Party national congress this fall. General Secretary Xi Jinping is attempting to cement himself as the paramount leader in China, comparable to Chairman Mao Zedong, transforming China’s governance from that of single-party rule to single-person rule. The reversion to autocratic government is coinciding with a historic economic slowdown consisting of cyclical factors (weak domestic demand, weakening foreign demand, draconian Covid-19 restrictions) and structural factors (labor force contraction, property sector bust, social change and unrest). Both Xi and US President Biden face major domestic political challenges in the coming months with the party congress and the US midterm election. Hence they are holding talks to try to stabilize relations. But we do not think they will succeed. China cannot reject Russia’s strategic overture, while the US cannot afford to re-engage with a China that is partnering with Russia in a challenge to the liberal-democratic world order. In addition, US policies are erratic and the US cannot credibly promise China that it will not pursue a containment strategy even if China offers trade concessions. Bottom Line: China-related political and geopolitical risks will remain very high until at least after the twentieth party congress. At that point we expect President Xi to loosen a range of policies to stabilize the economy and foreign trade relations. These policies may bring positive news in 2023, though China’s biggest macroeconomic and geopolitical problems remain structural in nature and we remain underweight Chinese assets. Taiwan For many years we have warned of a “fourth Taiwan Strait crisis” due to the unsustainable geopolitical situation between China, Taiwan, and the United States. After the war in Ukraine we argued that the US would try to boost its strategic deterrence around Taiwan, since it failed to deter Russia from invading Ukraine, but that the increased commitment to Taiwan would in fact provoke China (Chart 4). Chart 4Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Until the US and China reach a new understanding over Taiwan, we argued that the region would be susceptible to rising tensions and crisis points that would send investors fleeing from risky assets, especially risky regional assets. It is possible that we have arrived at this crisis now, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi making preparations to visit Taiwan, China pledging “forceful” countermeasures if she does, President Biden suggesting that the US military thinks Pelosi should not visit, and Biden and Xi preparing for a phone conversation. In essence China is giving an ultimatum and setting a new bar, and a very low bar, for taking some kind of action on Taiwan, i.e. the mere visit of a US House speaker, which has happened before (House Speaker Newt Gingrich in 1997). China’s purpose is to lay the groundwork for preventing the US from upgrading Taiwan relations in any more substantial way, whether political or military. If the Biden administration calls off the Pelosi visit, then American relations with Taiwan will have been curtailed, at least for this administration. If Biden goes forward with the visit, then Beijing will need to respond with an aggressive show of force to prevent any future president from repeating the exercise or building on it. And if this show threatens US personnel or security, a full-blown diplomatic or military crisis could ensue. While we doubt it would lead to full-scale war, it could lead to a frightening confrontation. Biden may want to stabilize relations with China, since he is primarily focused on countering Russia, but his options are limited. China cannot save him from inflation but it can solidify the public perception that he is weak. Hence he is more likely to maintain his administration’s hawkish approach. Biden’s approval rating is 38% and his party faces a drubbing in the midterm elections. A confrontation with Russia, China, Iran, or anyone else would likely help his party by producing a public rally around the flag. Any unilateral concessions will merely strengthen Xi’s power consolidation at the party congress, which is detrimental to US interests. Only if the Biden administration pursues a dovish policy of re-engagement that is subsequently confirmed by the 2024 presidential election will there be potential for a substantial US-China economic re-engagement. We are pessimistic. Bottom Line: Taiwan-related geopolitical risk will rise in the short run. If there is a new US-China understanding over Taiwan, then regional and global geopolitical risk will decline over the medium term. But we remain short Taiwanese assets. Investment Takeaways Investors should remain defensively positioned until the US midterm election ends with congressional gridlock; the Chinese party congress is over and Xi Jinping launches a broad pro-growth policy; and Russia starts pushing for a ceasefire in Ukraine. We also expect that markets will need to get over new, unexpected oil supply shocks arising from the failure of US-Iran nuclear negotiations, which remains off the radar and therefore a source of negative surprises. Any US-Iran nuclear deal would be a major positive surprise that postpones this risk for a few years. Having said that, we are booking a 9% gain on our long US versus UAE equity trade for technical reasons. Democrats have reached a deal to pass a budget reconciliation bill in an effort to mitigate midterm election losses. This development reinforces the 65% odds of passage that we have maintained for this bill’s passage in our US Political Strategy reports since last year.   Yushu Ma Research Analyst yushu.ma@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Appendix UK Chart 5UK: GeoRisk Indicator United Kingdom: GeoRisk Indicator United Kingdom: GeoRisk Indicator Germany Chart 6Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator France Chart 7France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator Spain Chart 8Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Canada Chart 9Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Australia Chart 10Australia: GeoRisk Indicator Australia: GeoRisk Indicator Australia: GeoRisk Indicator Korea Chart 11Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil Chart 12Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey Chart 13Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator South Africa Chart 14South Africa: GeoRisk Indicator South Africa: GeoRisk Indicator South Africa: GeoRisk Indicator Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix "Batting Average": Geopolitical Strategy Trades Geopolitical Calendar

Executive Summary China: GeoRisk Indicator China: GeoRisk Indicator China: GeoRisk Indicator A new equilibrium between NATO, which now includes Sweden and Finland, and Russia needs to be reestablished before geopolitical risks in Europe subside. Russia aims to inflict a recession on the EU which will revive dormant geopolitical risks embedded in each country. Investors should ignore the apparent drop in China’s geopolitical risk as it could rise further until Xi Jinping consolidates power at the Party Congress this fall. Stay on the sideline on Brazilian, South African, Australian, and Canadian equities despite the commodity bull market, at least until China’s growth stabilizes. Korean risk will rise, albeit by less than Taiwanese risk. The US political cycle ensures that Biden may take further actions against adversaries in Europe, Middle East, and East Asia, putting a floor under global geopolitical risk. Tactical Recommendation Inception Date Return LONG GLOBAL AEROSPACE & DEFENSE / BROAD MARKET EQUITIES 2020-11-27 9.3% Bottom Line: Geopolitical risk will rise in the near term. Stay long gold and global defensive stocks. Feature This month we update our GeoRisk Indicators and make observations about the status of political risk for each territory, and where risks are underrated or overrated by global financial markets. Russia GeoRisk Indicator Our “Original” quantitative measure of Russian political risk – the Russian “geopolitical risk premium” shown in the dotted red line below – has fallen to new lows (Chart 1). One must keep in mind that this geopolitical premium is operating under the assumption of a “free market” but the Russian market in the past few months had been anything but free. The Russian government and central bank had been manipulating the ruble and preventing capital outflows. Hence, Russian assets and any indicator derived from it does not reflect its true risk premium, merely the resolve of its government in the geopolitical struggle. Chart 1Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator While the Russia Risk Premium accurately detected the build-up in tensions before the invasion of Ukraine this year, today it gives the misleading impression that Russian geopolitical risk is low. In reality the risk level remains high due to the lack of strategic stability between Russia and the West, particularly the United States, and particularly over the question of NATO enlargement. Our “Old” Russia GeoRisk Indicator remains elevated but has slightly fallen back. This measure failed to detect the rise in risk ahead of this year’s invasion of Ukraine. We predicted the war based on non-market variables, including qualitative analysis. As a result of the failure of our indicator, we devised a “New” Russia GeoRisk Indicator after this year’s invasion, shown as the green line below. This measure provides the most accurate reading. It is pushing the upper limits, which we truncated at 4, as it did during the invasion of Georgia in 2008 and initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014. Related Report  Geopolitical StrategyThird Quarter Geopolitical Outlook: Thunder And Lightning Has Russian geopolitical risk peaked for Europe and the rest of the world? Not until a new strategic equilibrium is established between the US and Russia. That will require a ceasefire in Ukraine and a US-Russia understanding about the role of Finland and Sweden within NATO. However, Hungary is signaling that the EU should impose no further sanctions on Russia. Russia’s cutoff of natural gas exports to Europe will create economic hardship that will start driving change in European governments or policies. A full ban on Russian natural gas may not be implemented in the coming years due to lack of EU unanimity. Still, the EU cannot lift sanctions on Russia because that would enable economic recovery and hence military rehabilitation, which could enable new aggression. Also, Russia will not relinquish the territories it has taken from Ukraine even if President Putin exits the scene. No Russian leader will have the political capital to do that given the sacrifices that Russia has made. Bottom Line: Russia’s management of the ruble is distorting some of our risk indicators. Russia remains un-investable for western investors. Substantial sanction relief will not come until late in the decade, if at all. UK GeoRisk Indicator British political risk is rising, and it may surpass the peaks of the Brexit referendum period in 2016 now that Scotland is pursuing another independence referendum (Chart 2). Chart 2United Kingdom: GeoRisk Indicator United Kingdom: GeoRisk Indicator United Kingdom: GeoRisk Indicator New elections are not due until January 25, 2025 and the ruling Conservative Party has every reason to avoid an election over the whole period so that inflation can come down and the economy can recover. But an early election is possible between now and 2025. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has become a liability to his party but he is still a more compelling leader than the alternatives. If Johnson is replaced, then the change of leadership will only temporarily boost the Tories’ public approval. It will ultimately compound the party’s difficulties by dividing the party without resolving the Scottish question.  Regardless, the Tories face stiff headwinds in the coming referendum debate and election, having been in power since 2010 and having suffered a series of major shocks (Brexit, the pandemic, inflation). Bottom Line: The US dollar is not yet peaking against pound sterling, As from a global geopolitical perspective it can go further. Investors should stay cautious about the pound in the short term. But they should prefer the pound to eastern European currencies exposed to Russian instability. Germany GeoRisk Indicator German political risk spiked around the time of the 2021 election and has since subsided, including over the course of the Ukraine war (Chart 3). However, risk will rise again now that Germany has declared that it is under “economic attack” from Russia, which is cutting natural gas in retaliation to Germany’s oil embargo. Chart 3Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator This spike in strategic tensions should not be underrated. Germany is entering a new paradigm in which Russian aggression has caused a break with the past policy of Ostpolitik, or economic engagement. Germany will have to devote huge new resources to energy security and national defense and will have to guard against Russia for the foreseeable future. Domestic political risk will also rise as the economy weakens and industrial activity is rationed. Germany does not face a general election until October 26, 2025. Early elections are rare but cannot be ruled out over the next few years. The ruling coalition does not have a solid foundation. It only has a 57% majority in the Bundestag and consists of an ideological mix of parties (a “traffic light” coalition of Social Democrats, Greens, and Free Democrats). Still, Germany’s confrontation with Russia will keep the coalition in power for now. Bottom Line: From a geopolitical point of view, there is not yet a basis for the dollar to peak and roll over against the euro. That is not likely until there is a ceasefire in Ukraine and/or a new NATO-Russia understanding. France GeoRisk Indicator French political risks are lingering at fairly high levels in the wake of the general election and will only partially normalize given the likelihood of European recession and continued tensions around Russia (Chart 4). Chart 4France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator President Emmanuel Macron was re-elected, as expected, but his Renaissance party (previously En Marche) lost its majority and Macron will struggle to win over 39 deputies to gain a majority of 289 seats in the Assembly. He will, however, be able to draw from an overall right-wing ideological majority – especially the Republicans – when it comes to legislative compromises. The election produced some surprises. The right-wing, anti-establishment National Rally of Marine Le Pen, which usually performs poorly in legislative elections, won 89 seats. The left-wing alliance (NUPES) underperformed opinion polls and has not formed a unified bloc within the Assembly. Still, the left will be a powerful force as it will command 151 seats (the sum of the left-wing anti-establishment leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s La France Insoumise party and the Communists, Socialists, and Greens). Macron’s key reform – raising the average retirement age from 62 to 65 – will require an ad hoc majority in the Assembly. The Republicans, with 74 seats, can provide the necessary votes. But some members have already refused to side with Macron on this issue. Macron will most likely get support from the populist National Rally on immigration, including measures to make it harder to be naturalized or obtain long-term residence permits, and measures making it easier to expel migrants whose asylum applications have been refused. France will remain hawkish on immigration, but Macron will be able to rein in the populists. On energy and the environment, Macron may be able to cooperate with the Left on climate measures, but ultimately any cooperation will be constrained by the fact that Mélenchon opposes nuclear power. The Republicans and the National Rally will support Macron’s bid to shore up France’s nuclear energy sector. Popular opinion will hold up for France’s energy security in the face of Russian weaponization of natural gas. Macron and Mélenchon will clash on domestic security. Police violence has emerged as a major source of controversy since the Yellow Vest protests. Macron and the Right will protect the police establishment while the Left will favor reforms, notably the concept of “proximity police,” which would entail police officers patrolling in a small area to create stronger, more personal links between the police and the population; officers being under the control of the mayor and prefect; and ultimately most officers not carrying lethal weapons, and the ban of physically dangerous arrest techniques. Grievances over the police as well as racial inequality will likely erupt into significant social unrest in the coming years. As a second-term president without a single-party majority, Macron will increasingly focus on foreign policy. He will aim to become the premier European leader on the world stage. He will seek to revive France’s historic role as a leading diplomatic power and arbiter of Europe. He will strengthen France’s position in the EU and NATO, keep selling arms to the Middle East, and maintain a French military presence in the Sahel. Macron will favor Ukraine’s membership in the EU but also a ceasefire with Russia. He will face a difficult decision on whether to join Israeli and American military action against Iran should the latter reach nuclear breakout capacity and pursue weaponization. Bottom Line: The outperformance of French equities is stretched relative to EMU counterparts. But France will not underperform until the EU’s natural gas crisis begins to subside and a new equilibrium is established with Russia. Italy GeoRisk Indicator Italy is perhaps the weakest link in Europe both economically and strategically (Chart 5). Elections are due by June 2023 but could come earlier as the ruling coalition is showing strains. A change of government would likely compromise the EU’s attempt to maintain a unified front against Russia over the war in Ukraine. Chart 5Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Before the war Italy received 40% of its natural gas from Russia and maintained pragmatic relations with the Putin administration. Now Russia is reducing flows to Italy by 50%, forcing the country into an energy crisis at a time when expected GDP growth had already been downgraded to 2.3% this year and 1.7% in 2023. Meanwhile Italian sovereign bond spreads over German bunds have risen by 64 basis points YTD as a result of the global inflation. The national unity coalition under Prime Minister Mario Draghi came together for two purposes. First, to distribute the EU’s pandemic recovery funds across the country, which amounted to 191.5 billion euros in grants and cheap loans for Italy, 27% of the EU’s total recovery fund and 12% of Italy’s GDP. Second, to elect an establishment politician in the Italian presidency to constrain future populist governments (i.e. re-electing President Sergio Mattarella). Now about 13% of the recovery funds have been distributed in 2021, the economy is slowing, Russia is cutting off energy, and elections are looming. The coalition is no longer stable. Coalition members will jockey for better positioning and pursue their separate interests. The anti-establishment Five Star Movement has already split, with leader Luigi di Maio walking out. Five Star’s popular support has fallen to 12%. The most popular party in the country is now the right-wing, anti-establishment Brothers of Italy, who receive 23% support in polling. Matteo Salvini, leader of the League, another right-wing populist party, has seen its public support fall to 15% and will be looking for opportunities. On the whole, far-right parties command 38% of popular voting intentions, while far-left parties command 17% and centrist parties command 39%. Italy’s elections will favor anti-incumbent parties, especially if the country falls into recession. These parties will be more pragmatic toward Russia and less inclined to expand the EU’s stringent sanctions regime. Implementing a ban on Russian natural gas by 2027 will become more difficult if Italy switches. Italy will be more inclined to push for a ceasefire. A substantial move toward ceasefire will improve investor sentiment, although, again, a durable new strategic equilibrium cannot be established until the US and Russia come to an understanding regarding Finland, Sweden, and NATO enlargement. Bottom Line: Investors should steer clear of Italian government debt and equities until after the next election. Spain GeoRisk Indicator Infighting and power struggles within the People’s Party (PP) have provided temporary relief for the ruling Socialist Worker’s Party (PSOE) and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez. However, with Alberto Nunez Feijoo elected as the new leader of PP on April 2, the People’s Party quickly recovered from its setback. It not only retook the first place in the general election polling, but also scored a landslide victory in the Andalusia regional election. Andalusia is the most populous autonomous community in Spain, contributing 17% of the seats in the lower house. The Andalusian regional election was a test run for the parties before next year’s general election. Historically, Andalusia was PSOE’s biggest stronghold, but it was ousted by the center-right People’s Party-Citizens coalition in 2018. Since then, the People’s party has consolidated their presence and popularity in Andalusia. The snap election in June, weeks after Feijoo was elected as the new national party leader, expanded PP’s seats in the regional parliament. It now has an absolute majority in the regional parliament while the Socialists suffered its worst defeat. With the sweeping victory in Andalusia, the People’s Party is well positioned for next year’s general election. In addition, the ruling Socialist Worker’s Party continues to suffer from the stagflationary economic condition. In May, Spain recorded the second highest inflation figure in more than 30 years, slightly below its March number. Furthermore, the recent deadly Melilla incident which resulted in dozens of migrants’ death, also caused some minor setbacks within Sanchez’s ruling coalition. His far-left coalition partner joined the opposition parties in condemning Sanchez for being complacent toward the Moroccan police. The pressure is on the Socialists now, and political risk will rise in the coming months, till after the election (Chart 6). Chart 6Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Bottom Line: Domestic political risk will remain elevated in this polarized country, as elections are due by December 2023 and could come sooner. Populism may return if Europe suffers a recession. Russia aims to inflict a recession on the EU which is negative for cyclical markets like Spain, but Spain benefits from Europe’s turn to liquefied natural gas and has little to fear from Russia. Investors should favor Spanish stocks relative to Italian stocks. Turkey GeoRisk Indicator Turkey faces extreme political and economic instability between now and the general election due by June 2023 (Chart 7). Chart 7Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Almost any country would see the incumbent ruling party thrown from power under Turkey’s conditions. The ruling Justice and Development Party has been in charge since 2002, the country’s economy has suffered over that period, and today inflation is running at 73% while unemployment stands at 11%. However, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is doing everything he can with his recently expanded presidential powers to stay in office. He is making amends with the Gulf Arab states and seeking their economic support. He is also warming relations with Israel, as Turkey seeks to diversify away from Russian gas and Israel/Egypt are potential suppliers. He is doubling down on military distractions across the Middle East and North Africa. And he waged a high-stakes negotiation with the West over Finnish and Swedish accession to NATO. Russian aggression poses a threat to Turkish national interests. Turkey ultimately agreed to Finnish and Swedish membership after a show of Erdoğan strong hands in negotiating with the West over their membership, to show his domestic audience that he is one of the big boys ahead of the election. A risk to this view is that Erdoğan stages military operations against Greek-controlled Cyprus. This would initiate a crisis within NATO and put Finnish and Swedish accession on hold for a longer period. Bottom Line: Investors should not attempt to bottom-feed Turkish lira or stocks and should sell any rallies ahead of the election. A decisive election that removes Erdoğan from power is the best case for Turkish assets, while a decisive Erdoğan victory is second best. Worse scenarios include indecisive outcomes, a contested or stolen election, a constitutional breakdown, or a military coup. China GeoRisk Indicator China’s geopolitical risk is falling and relative equity performance is picking up now that the government has begun easing monetary, fiscal, and regulatory policy to try to secure the economic recovery (Chart 8). Chart 8China: GeoRisk Indicator China: GeoRisk Indicator China: GeoRisk Indicator Easing regulation on Big Tech has spurred a rebound in heavily sold Chinese tech shares, while the Politburo will likely signal a pro-growth turn in policy at its July economic meeting. The worst news of the country’s draconian “Covid Zero” policy is largely priced, while positive news regarding domestic vaccines, vaccine imports, or anti-viral drugs could surprise the market. However, none of these policy signals are reliable until Xi Jinping consolidates power at the twentieth national party congress sometime between September and November (likely October). Chinese stimulus could fail to pick up as much as the market hopes and policy signals could reverse or could continue to contradict themselves. After the party congress, we expect the Xi administration to intensify its efforts to stabilize the economy. The economic work conference in December will release a pro-growth communique. The March legislative session will provide more government support for the economy if needed. However, short-term measures to stabilize growth should not be mistaken for a major reacceleration, as China will continue to struggle with debt-deflation as households and corporations deleverage and the economic model transitions to a post-manufacturing model. Bottom Line: A Santa Claus rally in the fourth quarter, and/or a 2023 rally, is likely, both for offshore and onshore equities. But long-term investors, especially westerners, should steer clear of Chinese assets. China’s reversion to autocracy and confrontation with the United States will ultimately result in tariffs and sanctions and geopolitical crises and will keep risk premiums high. Taiwan GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan’s geopolitical risk has spiked as expected due to confrontation with China. Tensions will remain high through the Taiwanese midterm election on November 26, the Chinese party congress, and the US midterm (Chart 9). But China is not ready to stage a full-scale military conflict over Taiwan yet – that risk will grow over in the later 2020s and 2030s, depending on whether the US and China provide each other with adequate security assurances. Chart 9Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Still, Taiwan is the epicenter of global geopolitical risk. China insists that it will be unified with the mainland eventually, by force if not persuasion. China’s potential growth is weakening so it is losing the ability to absorb Taiwan through economic attraction over time. Meanwhile the Taiwanese people do not want to be absorbed – they have developed their own identity and prefer the status quo (or independence) over unification. Taiwan does not have a mutual defense treaty with the United States and yet the US and Taiwan are trying to strengthen their economic and military bonds. This situation is both threatening to China and yet not threatening enough to force China to forswear the military option. At some point China could believe it must assert control over Taiwan before the US increases its military commitment. Meanwhile China, the US, Japan, South Korea, and Europe are all adopting policies to promote semiconductor manufacturing at home, and/or outside Taiwan, so that their industries are not over-reliant on Taiwan. That means Taiwan will lose its comparative advantage over time. Bottom Line: Structurally remain underweight Taiwanese equities. Korea GeoRisk Indicator The newly elected President Yoon reaffirmed the strong military tie between Korea and the US, when he hosted President Biden in Seoul in May. Both Presidents expressed interests in expanding cooperation into new areas like semiconductors, economic security, and stability in the Indo-Pacific region. The new administration is also finding ways to improve relations with Japan, which soured in the past few years over the issue of forced labor during the Japanese occupation of Korea. A way forward is yet to be found, but a new public-private council will be launched on July 4 to seek potential solutions before the supreme court ruling in August which could further damage bilateral ties. President Yoon’s various statements throughout the NATO summit in Madrid on wanting a better relationship with Japan and to resolve historical issues showed this administration’s willingness towards a warming of the relations between the two countries, a departure from the previous administration. On the sideline of the NATO summit, Yoon also engaged with European leaders, dealing Korean defense products, semiconductors, and nuclear technologies, with a receptive European audience eager to bolster their defense, secure supply chain, and diversify energy source. North Korea ramped up its missile tests this year as it tends to do during periods of political transitions in South Korea. It is also rumored to be preparing for another nuclear test. Provocations will continue as the North is responding to the hawkish orientation of the Yoon administration. Investors should expect a rise in geopolitical risk in the peninsular, but on a relative basis, due to its strong alliance network, Korean risk will be lower compared to Taiwan (Chart 10). Korea will benefit from a rebound in China in the near term, but in the long-term, it is a secure source of semiconductors and high-tech exports, as Greater China will be mired in long-term geopolitical instability. Chart 10Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Bottom Line: Overweight South Korean equities relative to emerging markets as a play on Chinese stimulus. Overweight Korea versus Taiwan. Australia GeoRisk Indicator Australia’s Labor Party ultimately obtained a one-seat majority in the House of Representatives following the general election in May (77 seats where 76 are needed). It does not have a majority in the Senate, where it falls 13 seats short of the 39 it needs. It will rely on the Green Party (12 seats) and a few stragglers to piece together ad hoc coalitions to pass legislation. Hence Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s domestic agenda will be heavily constrained. Pragmatic policies to boost the economy are likely but major tax hikes and energy sector overhauls are unlikely (Chart 11). Chart 11Australia: GeoRisk Indicator Australia: GeoRisk Indicator Australia: GeoRisk Indicator Fortunately for Albanese, his government is taking power in the wake of the pandemic, inflation, and Chinese slowdown, so that there is a prospect for the macroeconomic context to improve over his term in office. This could give him a tailwind. But for now he is limited. Like President Biden in the US, Albanese can attempt to reduce tensions with China after Xi Jinping consolidates power. But also like Biden, he will not have a basis for broad and durable re-engagement, since China’s regional ambitions threaten Australian national security over the long run. Global commodity supply constraints give Australia leverage over China. Bottom Line: Stay neutral on Australian currency and equities until global and Chinese growth stabilize. Brazil GeoRisk Indicator It would take a bolt of lightning to prevent former President Lula da Silva from winning re-election in Brazil’s October 2 first round election. Lula is more in line with the median voter than sitting President Jair Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro’s term has been marred with external shocks, following on a decade of recession and malaise. Polls may tighten ahead of the election but Lula is heavily favored. While ideologically to the left, Lula is a known quantity to global investors (Chart 12). However, Bolsonaro may attempt to cling to power, straining the constitutional system and various institutions. A military coup is unlikely but incidents of insubordination cannot be ruled out. Once Lula is inaugurated, a market riot may be necessary to discipline his new administration and ensure that his policies do not stray too far into left-wing populism. Chart 12Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil’s macroeconomic context is less favorable than it was when Lula first ruled. During the 2000s he rode the wave of Chinese industrialization and a global commodity boom. Today China is slipping into a balance sheet recession and the next wave of industrialization has not yet taken off. Brazil’s public debt dynamics discourage a structural overweight on Brazil within emerging markets. At least Brazil is geopolitically secure – far separated from the conflicts marring Russia, East Europe, China, and East Asia. It also has a decade of bad news behind it that is already priced. Bottom Line: Stay neutral Brazilian assets until global and Chinese growth stabilize and the crisis-prone election season is over. South Africa GeoRisk Indicator South Africa’s economy continues to face major headwinds amid persistent structural issues that have yet to be adequately addressed and resolved by policy makers. The latest bout of severe energy supply cuts by the state-run energy producer, Eskom, serve as a reminder to investors that South Africa’s economy is still dealing with a major issue of generating an uninterrupted supply of electricity. Each day that electricity supply is cut to businesses and households, the local economy stalls. Among other macroeconomic issues such as high unemployment and rising inflation, low-income households which are too the median voter, are facing increasing hardships. The political backdrop is geared toward further increases in political risk going forward (Chart 13). Chart 13South Africa: GeoRisk Indicator South Africa: GeoRisk Indicator South Africa: GeoRisk Indicator Fiscal reform and austerity are underway but won’t last long enough to make a material difference in government finances. The 2024 election is not that far out and the ruling political party, the ANC, will look to quell growing economic pressures to shore up voter support and reinforce its voter base. Fiscal austerity will unwind. Meanwhile, the bull market in global metal prices stands to moderate on weakening global growth, which reduces a tailwind for the rand, South African equities relative to other emerging markets, and government coffers, reducing our reasons for slight optimism on South Africa until global growth stabilizes. Bottom Line: Shift to a neutral stance on South Africa until global and Chinese growth stabilize. Canada GeoRisk Indicator Canadian political risk has spiked since the pandemic (Chart 14). Populist politics can grow over time in Canada, especially if the property sector goes bust. However, the country is geopolitically secure and benefits from proximity to the US economy. Chart 14Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Global commodity supply constraints create opportunities for Canada as governments around the world pursue fiscal programs directed at energy security, national defense, and supply chain resilience. Bottom Line: Stay neutral Canadian currency and equities. While Canada benefits from the high oil price and robust US economy, rising interest rates pose a threat to its high-debt model, while US growth faces disappointments due to Europe’s and China’s troubles.     Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Yushu Ma Research Analyst yushu.ma@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com Guy Russell Senior Analyst GuyR@bcaresearch.com Alice Brocheux Research Associate alice.brocheux@bcaresearch.com Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights We reformatted and added three sections to our existing trade tables: strategic themes, cyclical asset allocations and tactical investment recommendations. An extensive audit of our current trade book shows that our country and sector allocation recommendations have been successful. Of the eight open trades in our book, six have so far generated positive returns. We now recommend closing three out of the eight positions, based on a review of the original basis and subsequent performance of our trades. We have also added one cyclical and two tactical trades. We will look for opportunities to propose new trades to our book in the coming months. Feature In this week's report, we introduce our newly formatted trade tables (on Page 15), which include the following: Strategic themes (structural views beyond 18 months) Cyclical asset allocations within Chinese financial markets (in the next 6 to 18 months) Tactical trades (investment recommendations for the next 0 to 6 months) We revisited the original basis and subsequent performance of our open trades as part of an audit of our trade book. We maintain five of the eight trades and will add one cyclical and two tactical trades. Our new features and the rationale for retaining or closing each trade are presented below. Strategic Themes The new Strategic Themes section now includes the following market relevant structural forces: President Xi Jinping’s “common prosperity” policy initiative, which is intended to narrow the nation’s wealth gap; a demographic shift of a shrinking population by 2025; and secular disputes between the US and China (Table 1). Table 1 Introducing New Trade Tables Introducing New Trade Tables These structural aspects will have a macro impact on China’s policy landscape, economy and financial markets. Investors should consider whether the themes point toward a reflationary policy bias; whether they will have a medium- to long-term effect on corporate earnings; and whether these themes will, on a structural basis, warrant higher/lower risk premiums for owning Chinese stocks. Cyclical Equity Index Allocation Recommendations (Relative To MSCI All Country World) Table 2 is a summary of our cyclical recommendations for Greater China equity indexes. We recommend the following equity index allocations within a global equity portfolio, for the next 6 to 18 months: Table 2 Introducing New Trade Tables Introducing New Trade Tables Underweight MSCI China (Chinese investable stocks). Underweight MSCI China A Onshore (Chinese onshore or A-share stocks). Neutral stance on MSCI Hong Kong Index. Overweight MSCI Taiwan Index. Chart 1Chinese Stocks Substantially Underperformed Global Equities Chinese Stocks Substantially Underperformed Global Equities Chinese Stocks Substantially Underperformed Global Equities Our recommendation to underweight MSCI China Index and MSCI China A Onshore Index were extremely successful in 2021 (Chart 1). We will continue to maintain an underweight stance for the time being, based on our concern that the current policy easing measures will be insufficient to revive China’s slowing economy. We expect policy stimulus to step up in the coming months and economic growth to start improving by mid-2022. However, corporate profits are set to disappoint in the first half of the year. This implies that Chinese share prices will remain volatile with substantial downside risks. Chinese investable stocks are in oversold territory and will likely rebound in the near term in both absolute and relative terms (discussed in the Tactical Recommendations section on Page 14) (Chart 2). Nonetheless, on a cyclical basis, they face challenges both from the impact of a slowing economy on earnings growth and ongoing regulatory and geopolitical risks. Our model suggests high odds (70%) of a considerable earnings contraction in Chinese investable stocks in the next 6 to 12 months. We recommend investors upgrade their allocation to the MSCI Hong Kong Index from underweight to neutral within a global equity portfolio. The MSCI Hong Kong equity index appears to be very cheap compared with global equities (Chart 3). Chart 2Chinese Investable Stocks Are Oversold Chinese Investable Stocks Are Oversold Chinese Investable Stocks Are Oversold Chart 3MSCI HK Equities Are Cheap MSCI HK Equities Are Cheap MSCI HK Equities Are Cheap The MSCI Hong Kong equity index includes Hong Kong-domiciled companies and not mainland issuers listed in Hong Kong. Rising US Treasury yields will be a headwind to Hong Kong-domiciled company stock performance because the HKD is pegged to the USD and therefore Hong Kong bond yields tend to follow the direction of bond yields in the US. Chart 4MSCI HK Index Is Defensive In Nature MSCI HK Index Is Defensive In Nature MSCI HK Index Is Defensive In Nature However, an offsetting factor is that due to composition changes over time, the MSCI Hong Kong equity index has become much more defensive and tends to perform better than the emerging Asian and EM equity benchmarks during turbulent times (Chart 4). The weight of insurance companies and diversified financials account for over 40% of the MSCI Hong Kong Index, compared with property stocks, which take up 20% of the equity market cap. The insurance and diversified financials subsectors are less vulnerable to escalating short-term interest rates compared with property stocks. During risk-off phases, the defensive nature in the MSCI Hong Kong Index will support its performance relative to the some of the more industrial- and tech-heavy EM and global equity indexes. We maintain an overweight stance on the MSCI Taiwan Index relative to global equities. The trade (see discussion in the Cyclical Equity And Sector Trades section) has brought an impressive 40% rate of return since its inception in 2019. Cyclical Recommended Asset Allocation (Within Chinese Onshore Assets) Image We recommend an underweight position in equities in China’s onshore multi-asset portfolios (Table 3). Chinese onshore stocks are not cheap and will likely underperform onshore government bonds as the economy struggles to regain its footing. Chart 5Total Returns In Chinese Onshore Stocks Have Barely Kept Up With Onshore GB Total Returns In Chinese Onshore Stocks Have Barely Kept Up With Onshore GB Total Returns In Chinese Onshore Stocks Have Barely Kept Up With Onshore GB Chart 5 shows that in the past decade total returns in Chinese onshore stocks have barely kept up with that in onshore long-duration government bonds. During policy easing cycles Chinese onshore stocks generated positive excess returns over government bonds, however, the outperformance has been extremely volatile and very brief. Given that we do not expect Beijing to allow a significant overshoot in stimulus this year, there is a good chance that the returns in Chinese onshore stocks will underperform onshore government bonds. Cyclical Equity And Sector Trades Our rationale for retaining or closing each trade is described below. Chart 6Chinese Onshore Stocks Outperformance Has Been Passive Chinese Onshore Stocks Outperformance Has Been Passive Chinese Onshore Stocks Outperformance Has Been Passive Long China A-Shares/Short Chinese Investable Stocks (Maintain) We initiated this trade in March 2021. The recommendation has been our most successful trade, generating a 40+% return since then (Chart 6). China’s internet platform giants have a large weight in the MSCI Investable index and they remain vulnerable (Chart 7). Although China’s antitrust regulations may have passed the peak of intensity, they will not be rolled back and multiple compression in these stocks will likely continue in 2022. In contrast, the A-share index is heavily weighted in value stocks. The trade is in line with our view that the global investment backdrop has shifted in favor of global value versus growth stocks due to an above-trend US expansion and climbing US bond yields in the next 6 to 12 months. The relative ratio between China A-shares and investable stocks is overbought and will likely pull back in the near term (Chart 8). However, the cyclical and structural outlook continues to favor onshore stocks versus the investable universe. Chart 7Sizable Underperformance In Investable Consumer Discretionary Stocks Sizable Underperformance In Investable Consumer Discretionary Stocks Sizable Underperformance In Investable Consumer Discretionary Stocks Chart 8A Near-Term Pullback In Relative Ratio Is Likely A Near-Term Pullback In Relative Ratio Is Likely A Near-Term Pullback In Relative Ratio Is Likely Long CSI500/Short Broad A-Share Market (Maintain) The CSI500 index, which comprises 500 SMID-cap companies, has outperformed the broad A-share market by 32% since mid-February (Chart 9). We think the outperformance in SMID stocks has not fully run its course. Historically, SMID-caps tend to outperform large caps in the late phase of an economic recovery and the valuation premia in small cap stocks remains near decade lows (Chart 10). In addition, the government’s increasing efforts to support small- and medium-sized corporates will help to shore up confidence in those companies. Therefore, SMID will probably continue to outperform large cap stocks this year. Chart 9A Low Valuation Premia And More Policy Support Will Help Lift Prices Of SMID-Caps A Low Valuation Premia And More Policy Support Will Help Lift Prices Of SMID-Caps A Low Valuation Premia And More Policy Support Will Help Lift Prices Of SMID-Caps Chart 10SMID-Caps Tend To Outperform Large-Caps In Late Business Cycle SMID-Caps Tend To Outperform Large-Caps In Late Business Cycle SMID-Caps Tend To Outperform Large-Caps In Late Business Cycle Long MSCI Taiwan Index/Short MSCI All Country World (Maintain) The MSCI Taiwan equity index has consistently outperformed global equities since mid-2019, mostly driven by the rally in Taiwanese semiconductor stocks. Global chip supply shortages since the COVID pandemic have further boosted the sector’s outperformance (Chart 11). Furthermore, Chart 12 highlights improvements in the cyclical case for Taiwanese stocks as an aggregate. Panels 1 & 2 show an uptick in the new export orders component of Taiwanese manufacturing PMI. The new export orders component has historically coincided with both Taiwanese exports to China and the relative Taiwanese manufacturing PMI on a cyclical basis. As such, the economic fundamentals also support a continued outperformance in Taiwanese stocks. Chart 11A Great Run In MSCI Taiwan Equity Index And Semis A Great Run In MSCI Taiwan Equity Index And Semis A Great Run In MSCI Taiwan Equity Index And Semis Chart 12Exports To China, 12-Month Forward EPS, And Relative Stock Prices: All Likely To Improve Exports To China, 12-Month Forward EPS, And Relative Stock Prices: All Likely To Improve Exports To China, 12-Month Forward EPS, And Relative Stock Prices: All Likely To Improve Long Chinese Onshore Industrial Stocks/Short MSCI China A Index (Maintain) This trade, initiated in September last year, has brought a slightly positive return as of today. Our view was based on improving manufacturing investment and policy support for the sector, even though China’s business cycle had already peaked. Chart 13China Onshore Industrials Closely Track Economic Fundamentals China Onshore Industrials Closely Track Economic Fundamentals China Onshore Industrials Closely Track Economic Fundamentals While we maintain the trade for now, we will monitor credit growth in Q1 to assess whether to close the trade. The sector’s performance is highly correlated with our BCA China Activity Index and the Li Keqiang Leading Indicator (Chart 13). A bottoming in both indicators in mid-2022 would suggest that investors should maintain the trade. The caveat, however, is that the sector’s valuations have already become extreme, indicating that the bar may be higher for the sector to outperform even when economic fundamentals improve in 2H22. We will watch for signs of an overshoot in stimulus in the coming three to six months. Conversely, credit growth in Q1 that is at or below expectations will warrant closing this trade. Long Domestic Semiconductor Sector/Short Global Semiconductor Benchmark (Close) Replace with: Long Domestic Semiconductor Sector/Short MSCI China A Onshore The trade has been our biggest loser since its inception in August 2020. Although Chinese onshore semiconductor stocks outperformed the broad A-share market by a large margin, they have underperformed their global peers (Chart 14). Thus, we are closing the trade and replacing it with long Chinese onshore semis relative to the broad A-share market. We remain bullish on Chinese semi stocks, on both a structural and cyclical basis. Secular pressures from the US and the West to curb the advancement of Chinese technology will encourage China’s authorities to double down on supporting state-led technology programs. Moreover, prices of Chinese onshore semis have plummeted since November last year, bringing their lofty valuations closer to long-term trend and providing a better cyclical risk-reward profiles for these stocks (Chart 15). Chart 14Chinese Onshore Semis Underperformed Global... Chinese Onshore Semis Underperformed Global... Chinese Onshore Semis Underperformed Global... Chart 15...But Outperformed Domestic Broad Market ...But Outperformed Domestic Broad Market ...But Outperformed Domestic Broad Market Long Domestic Consumer Discretionary/Short Broad A-Share Market (Close) Chart 16A Trend Reversal In Chinese Onshore Consumer Discretionary Stocks Performance A Trend Reversal In Chinese Onshore Consumer Discretionary Stocks Performance A Trend Reversal In Chinese Onshore Consumer Discretionary Stocks Performance We placed the trade in May 2020 when China’s economy and household discretionary consumption showed a strong rebound from the deep slump in Q1 2020. As strength waned in the country’s domestic demand for housing, housing-related durable goods and automobiles, the sector’s relative performance also started to dwindle from its peak in the fall of last year (Chart 16). Going forward, even though China’s economy will start to improve on a cyclical basis, domestic consumer discretionary sector will face non-trivial headwinds. The performance of its subsectors, such as hotels, restaurants, and services, will remain subdued due to China’s zero tolerance COVID policy that leads to frequent lockdowns and travel restrictions (Chart 17). Moreover, the internet and direct-marketing retail subsectors are facing tighter regulations, which lowers the sector’s profitability and valuations (Chart 18). Chart 17Domestic COVID Flareups Pose Significant Threat To Chinese Consumer Services Sector Performance Domestic COVID Flareups Pose Significant Threat To Chinese Consumer Services Sector Performance Domestic COVID Flareups Pose Significant Threat To Chinese Consumer Services Sector Performance Chart 18Online Retailing Also Faces Regylatory Pressures Online Retailing Also Faces Regylatory Pressures Online Retailing Also Faces Regylatory Pressures Short Hong Kong 10-Year Government Bond/Long US 10-Year Treasury (Maintain) In the past decade, Hong Kong's 10-year government bond yield has been consistently below that of the US, even though Hong Kong has an exchange rate pegged to the US dollar and its monetary policy is directly tied to that of the US. Chart 19The US-HK Yield Gap Should Widen In The Coming Months The US-HK Yield Gap Should Widen In The Coming Months The US-HK Yield Gap Should Widen In The Coming Months The US-Hong Kong 10-year yield spread has substantially narrowed since early 2020 when the US Fed aggressively cut its policy rate. In the coming 6-12 months, however, the spread will likely widen given that the Fed will start to normalize rates (Chart 19, top panel). Chart 19 (bottom panel) highlights that the relative total return profile of the trade (in unhedged terms) trends higher over time due to the carry advantage. Although cyclically the relative total return will likely reverse to its trend line and argues for a short stance on US Treasury, we think it is too early to close the trade. The USD will likely remain strong in the near term, and we have yet to turn positive on Chinese and Hong Kong assets over a 6 to 18-mont time horizon. Therefore, we maintain this trade until the USD starts to weaken, and foreign investment flows into China and Hong Kong shows sustainable momentum. Long USD-CNH (Close) We are closing this trade, which we initiated in May 2020 when tensions between the US and China were rising. The trade has lost more than 10% since its inception because the RMB exchange rate was boosted in 2021 by China’s record current account surplus, wide interest rate differentials and speculation that tension between the US and China would abate. Chart 20A Weaker USD Will Prevent Sizable RMB Depreciation A Weaker USD Will Prevent Sizable RMB Depreciation A Weaker USD Will Prevent Sizable RMB Depreciation We expect all three favorable conditions supporting the RMB to start reversing in 1H22, suggesting downward pressure on the RMB. However, over a longer period of 6 to 18 months the US dollar also has the potential to trend lower, preventing the RMB from any sizable depreciation (Chart 20). The dollar strength in the past year has been the result of both speculative flows into the US dollar based on rising interest rate expectations and portfolio inflows into the US equity markets.  In the next 6 to 18 months, however, our Foreign Exchange Strategist Chester Ntonifor predicts that the dollar could begin a paradigm shift, whereby any actions by the Fed could eventually lead to a weakening of the US dollar. Higher rates than the market expects will initially boost the US dollar, but will also undermine the US equity market leadership, reversing the substantial portfolio inflows from recent years. On the flip side, fewer rate hikes will severely unwind higher rate expectations in the US relative to other developed markets. Chester further predicts that the DXY could touch 98 in the near term but will break below 90 in the next 12-18 months. Tactical Recommendations (0-6 months) We are initiating two tactical trades to go long on the MSCI China Index and MSCI Hong Kong Index relative to global equities. Relative to global stocks, Chinese investable equities are very oversold and offer value. In addition, while US tech stocks are entering a rollercoaster phase due to higher bond yields in the US, Chinese tech stocks will also fall but by a lesser degree because China’s monetary policy cycle is less affected by the Fed’s policy decisions. In other words, Chinese investable stocks may passively outperform global equities. Nonetheless, as noted in our previous reports, Chinese investable stocks face both cyclical and structural challenges. Hence the overweight stance on these stocks is strictly a tactical play rather than a cyclical one. We favor the MSCI Hong Kong Index versus global equities for similar reasons as Chinese investable stocks. The Hong Kong equity index is also technically oversold. Since the composition of the index has become more defensive, it will likely outperform in risk-off phases. In addition, if the US dollar rallies in the near term, share prices of Hong Kong-domiciled companies will materially outperform.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Strategic View Cyclical Recommendations Tactical Recommendations

Highlights Our three strategic themes over the long run: (1) great power rivalry (2) hypo-globalization (3) populism and nationalism. The implications are inflationary over the long run. Nations that gear up for potential conflict and expand the social safety net to appease popular discontent will consume a lot of resources. Our three key views for 2022: (1) China’s reversion to autocracy (2) America’s policy insularity (3) petro-state leverage. The implications are mostly but not entirely inflationary: China will ease policy, the US will pass more stimulus, and energy supply may suffer major disruptions. Stay long gold, neutral US dollar, short renminbi, and short Taiwanese dollar. Stay tactically long global large caps and defensives. Buy aerospace/defense and cyber-security stocks. Go long Japanese and Mexican equities – both are tied to the US in an era of great power rivalry. Feature Chart 1US Resilience US Resilience US Resilience Global investors have not yet found a substitute for the United States. Despite a bout of exuberance around cyclical non-US assets at the beginning of 2021, the year draws to a close with King Dollar rallying, US equities rising to 61% of global equity capitalization, and the US 30-year Treasury yield unfazed by inflation fears (Chart 1). American outperformance is only partly explained by its handling of the lingering Covid-19 pandemic. The US population was clearly less restricted by the virus (Chart 2). But more to the point, the US stimulated its economy by 25% of GDP over the course of the crisis, while the average across major countries was 13% of GDP. Americans are still more eager to go outdoors and the government has been less stringent in preventing them (Chart 3). Chart 2 ​​​​​ Chart 3Social Restrictions Short Of Lockdown Social Restrictions Short Of Lockdown Social Restrictions Short Of Lockdown ​​​​​​ Going forward, the pandemic should decline in relevance, though it is still possible that a vaccine-resistant mutation will arise that is deadlier for younger people, causing a new round of the crisis. The rotation into assets outside the US will be cautious. Across the world, monetary and credit growth peaked and rolled over this year, after the extraordinary effusion of stimulus to offset the social lockdowns of 2020 (Chart 4). Government budget deficits started to normalize while central banks began winding down emergency lending and bond-buying. More widespread and significant policy normalization will get under way in 2022 in the face of high core inflation. Tightening will favor the US dollar, especially if global growth disappoints expectations. Chart 4Waning Monetary And Credit Stimulus Waning Monetary And Credit Stimulus Waning Monetary And Credit Stimulus Chart 5Global Growth Stabilization Global Growth Stabilization Global Growth Stabilization Global manufacturing activity fell off its peak, especially in China, where authorities tightened monetary, fiscal, and regulatory policy aggressively to prevent asset bubbles from blowing up (Chart 5). Now China is easing policy on the margin, which should shore up activity ahead of an important Communist Party reshuffle in fall 2022. The rest of the world’s manufacturing activity is expected to continue expanding in 2022, albeit less rapidly. This trend cuts against US outperformance but still faces a range of hurdles, beginning with China. In this context, we outline three geopolitical themes for the long run as well as three key views for the coming 12 months. Our title, “The Gathering Storm,” refers to the strategic challenge that China and Russia pose to the United States, which is attempting to form a balance-of-power coalition to contain these autocratic rivals. This is the central global geopolitical dynamic in 2022 and it is ultimately inflationary. Three Strategic Themes For The Long Run The international system will remain unstable in the coming years. Global multipolarity – or the existence of multiple, competing poles of political power – is the chief destabilizing factor. This is the first of our three strategic themes that will persist next year and beyond (Table 1). Our key views for 2022, discussed below, flow from these three strategic themes. Table 1Strategic Themes For 2022 And Beyond 2022 Key Views: The Gathering Storm 2022 Key Views: The Gathering Storm 1. Great Power Rivalry Multipolarity – or great power rivalry – can be illustrated by the falling share of US economic clout relative to the rest of the world, including but not limited to strategic rivals like China. The US’s decline is often exaggerated but the picture is clear if one looks at the combined geopolitical influence of the US and its closest allies to that of the EU, China, and Russia (Chart 6). Chart 6 China’s rise is the most destabilizing factor because it comes with economic, military, and technological prowess that could someday rival the US for global supremacy. China’s GDP has surpassed that of the US in purchasing power terms and will do so in nominal terms in around five years (Chart 7). Chart 7 True, China’s potential growth is slowing and Chinese financial instability will be a recurring theme. But that very fact is driving Beijing to try to convert the past 40 years of economic success into broader strategic security. Chart 8America's Global Role Persists (If Lessened) America's Global Role Persists (If Lessened) America's Global Role Persists (If Lessened) ​​​​​ Since China is capable of creating an alternative political order in Asia Pacific, and ultimately globally, the United States is reacting. It is penalizing China’s economy and seeking to refurbish alliances in pursuit of a containment policy. The American reaction to the loss of influence has been unpredictable, contradictory, and occasionally belligerent. New isolationist impulses have emerged among an angry populace in reaction to gratuitous wars abroad and de-industrialization. These impulses appeared in both the Obama and Trump administrations. The Biden administration is attempting to manage these impulses while also reinforcing America’s global role. The pandemic-era stimulus has enabled the US to maintain its massive trade deficit and aggressive defense spending. But US defense spending is declining relative to the US and global economy over time, encouraging rival nations to carve out spheres of influence in their own neighborhoods (Chart 8). Russia’s overall geopolitical power has declined but it punches above its weight in military affairs and energy markets, a fact which is vividly on display in Ukraine as we go to press. The result is to exacerbate differences in the trans-Atlantic alliance between the US and the European Union, particularly Germany. The EU’s attempt to act as an independent great power is another sign of multipolarity, as well as the UK’s decision to distance itself from the continent and strengthen the Anglo-American alliance. If the US and EU do not manage their differences over how to handle Russia, China, and Iran then the trans-Atlantic relationship will weaken and great power rivalry will become even more dangerous. 2. Hypo-Globalization The second strategic theme is hypo-globalization, in which the ancient process of globalization continues but falls short of its twenty-first century potential, given advances in technology and governance that should erode geographic and national boundaries. Hypo-globalization is the opposite of the “hyper-globalization” of the 1990s-2000s, when historic barriers to the free movement of people, goods, and capital seemed to collapse overnight. Chart 9From 'Hyper-Globalization' To Hypo-Globalization From 'Hyper-Globalization' To Hypo-Globalization From 'Hyper-Globalization' To Hypo-Globalization The volume of global trade relative to industrial production  peaked with the Great Recession in 2008-10 and has declined slowly but surely ever since (Chart 9). Many developed markets suffered the unwinding of private debt bubbles, while emerging economies suffered the unwinding of trade manufacturing. Periods of declining trade intensity – trade relative to global growth – suggest that nations are turning inward, distrustful of interdependency, and that the frictions and costs of trade are rising due to protectionism and mercantilism. Over the past two hundred years globalization intensified when a broad international peace was agreed (such as in 1815) and a leading imperial nation was capable of enforcing law and order on the seas (such as the British empire). Globalization fell back during times of “hegemonic instability,” when the peace settlement decayed while strategic and naval competition eroded the global trading system. Today a similar process is unfolding, with the 1945 peace decaying and the US facing the revival of Russia and China as regional empires capable of denying others access to their coastlines and strategic approaches (Chart 10).1 Chart 10Hypo-Globalization And Hegemonic Instability Hypo-Globalization And Hegemonic Instability Hypo-Globalization And Hegemonic Instability Chart 11Hypo-Globalization: Temporary Trade Rebound Hypo-Globalization: Temporary Trade Rebound Hypo-Globalization: Temporary Trade Rebound No doubt global trade is rebounding amid the stimulus-fueled recovery from Covid-19. But the upside for globalization will be limited by the negative geopolitical environment (Chart 11). Today governments are not behaving as if they will embark on a new era of ever-freer movement and ever-deepening international linkages. They are increasingly fearful of each other’s strategic intentions and using fiscal resources to increase economic self-sufficiency. The result is regionalization rather than globalization. Chinese and Russian attempts to revise the world order, and the US’s attempt to contain them, encourages regionalization. For example, the trade war between the US and China is morphing into a broader competition that limits cooperation to a few select areas, despite a change of administration in the United States. The further consolidation of President Xi Jinping’s strongman rule will exacerbate this dynamic of distrust and economic divorce. Emerging Asia and emerging Europe live on the fault lines of this shift from globalization to regionalism, with various risks and opportunities. Generally we are bullish EM Asia and bearish EM Europe. 3. Populism And Nationalism A third strategic theme consists of populism and nationalism, or anti-establishment political sentiment in general. These forces will flare up in various forms across the world in 2022 and beyond. Even as unemployment declines, the rise in food and fuel inflation will make it difficult for low wage earners to make ends meet. The “misery index,” which combines unemployment and inflation, spiked during the pandemic and today stands at 10.8% in the US and 11.4% in the EMU, up from 5.2% and 8.1% before the pandemic, respectively (Chart 12). Large budget deficits and trade deficits, especially in the US and UK, feed into this inflationary environment. Most of the major developed markets have elected new governments since the pandemic, with the notable exception of France and Spain. Thus they have recapitalized their political systems and allowed voters to vent some frustration. These governments now have some time to try to mitigate inflation before the next election. Hence policy continuity is not immediately in jeopardy, which reduces uncertainty for investors. By contrast, many of the emerging economies face higher inflation, weak growth, and are either coming upon elections or have undemocratic political systems. Either way the result will be a failure to address household grievances promptly. The misery index is trending upward and governments are continually forced to provide larger budget deficits to shore up growth, fanning inflation (Chart 13). Chart 12DM: Political Risk High But New Governments In Place DM: Political Risk High But New Governments In Place DM: Political Risk High But New Governments In Place ​​​​​ Chart 13EM: Political Risk High But Governments Not Recapitalized EM: Political Risk High But Governments Not Recapitalized EM: Political Risk High But Governments Not Recapitalized ​​​​​​ Chart 14EM Populism/Nationalism Threatens Negative Surprises In 2022 EM Populism/Nationalism Threatens Negative Surprises In 2022 EM Populism/Nationalism Threatens Negative Surprises In 2022 Just as social and political unrest erupted after the Great Recession, notably in the so-called “Arab Spring,” so will new movements destabilize various emerging markets in the wake of Covid-19. Regime instability and failure can lead to big changes in policies, large waves of emigration, wars, and other risks that impact markets. The risks are especially high unless and until Chinese imports revive. Investors should be on the lookout for buying opportunities in emerging markets once the bad news is fully priced. National and local elections in Brazil, India, South Korea, the Philippines, and Turkey will serve as market catalysts, with bad news likely to precede good news (Chart 14). Bottom Line: These three themes – great power rivalry, hypo-globalization, and populism/nationalism – are inflationary in theory, though their impact will vary based on specific events. Multipolarity means that governments will boost industrial and defense spending to gear up for international competition. Hypo-globalization means countries will attempt to put growth on a more reliable domestic foundation rather than accept dependency on an unreliable international scene, thus constraining supplies from abroad. Populism and nationalism will lead to a range of unorthodox policies, such as belligerence abroad or extravagant social spending at home. Of course, the inflationary bias of these themes can be upset if they manifest in ways that harm growth and/or inflation expectations, which is possible. But the general drift will be an inflationary policy setting. Inflation may subside in 2022 only to reemerge as a risk later. Three Key Views For 2022 Within this broader context, our three key views for 2022 are as follows: 1. China’s Reversion To Autocracy As President Xi Jinping leads China further down the road of strongman rule and centralization, the country faces a historic confluence of internal and external risks. This was our top view in 2021 and the same dynamic continues in 2022. The difference is that in 2021 the risk was excessive policy tightening whereas this coming year the risk is insufficient policy easing. Chart 15China Eases Fiscal Policy To Secure Recovery In 2022 China Eases Fiscal Policy To Secure Recovery In 2022 China Eases Fiscal Policy To Secure Recovery In 2022 China’s economy is witnessing a secular slowdown, a deterioration in governance, property market turmoil, and a rise in protectionism abroad. The long decline in corporate debt growth points to the structural slowdown. Animal spirits will not improve in 2022 so government spending will be necessary to try to shore up overall growth. The Politburo signaled that it will ease fiscal policy at the Central Economic Work Conference in early December, a vindication of our 2021 view. Neither the combined fiscal-and-credit impulse nor overall activity, indicated by the Li Keqiang Index, have shown the slightest uptick yet (Chart 15). Typically it takes six-to-nine months for policy easing to translate to an improvement in real economic activity. The first half of the year may still bring economic disappointments. But policymakers are adjusting to avoid a crash. Policy will grow increasingly accommodative as necessary in the first half of 2022. The key political constraint is the Communist Party’s all-important political reshuffle, the twentieth national party congress, to be held in fall 2022 (usually October). While Xi may not want the economy to surge in 2022, he cannot afford to let it go bust. The experience of previous party congresses shows that there is often a policy-driven increase in bank loans and fixed investment. Current conditions are so negative as to ensure that the government will provide at least some support, for instance by taking a “moderately proactive approach” to infrastructure investment (Chart 16). Otherwise a collapse of confidence would weaken Xi’s faction and give the opposition faction a chance to shore up its position within the Communist Party. Chart 16China Aims For Stability, Not Rapid Growth, Ahead Of 20th National Party Congress China Aims For Stability, Not Rapid Growth, Ahead Of 20th National Party Congress China Aims For Stability, Not Rapid Growth, Ahead Of 20th National Party Congress Party congresses happen every five years but the ten-year congresses, such as in 2022, are the most important for the country’s overall political leadership. The party congresses in 1992, 2002, and 2012 were instrumental in transferring power from one leader to the next, even though the transfer of power was never formalized. Back in 2017 Xi arranged to stay in power indefinitely but now he needs to clinch the deal, lest any unforeseen threat emerge from at home or abroad. Xi’s success in converting the Communist Party from “consensus rule” to his own “personal rule” will be measurable by his success in stacking the Politburo and Politburo Standing Committee with factional allies. He will also promote his faction across the Central Committee so as to shape the next generations of party leaders and leave his imprint on policy long after his departure. The government will be extremely sensitive to any hint of dissent or resistance and will move aggressively to quash it. Investors should not be surprised to see high-level sackings of public officials or private magnates and a steady stream of scandals and revelations that gain prominence in western media. The environment is also ripe for strange and unexpected incidents that reveal political differences beneath the veneer of unity in China: defections, protests, riots, terrorist acts, or foreign interference. Most incidents will be snuffed out quickly but investors should be wary of “black swans” from China in 2022. Chinese government policies will not be business friendly in 2022 aside from piecemeal fiscal easing. Everything Beijing does will be bent around securing Xi’s supremacy at all levels. Domestic politics will take precedence over economic concerns, especially over the interests of private businesses and foreign investors, as is clear when it comes to managing financial distress in the property sector. Negative regulatory surprises and arbitrary crackdowns on various industrial sectors will continue, though Beijing will do everything in its power to prevent the property bust from triggering contagion across the economic system. This will probably work, though the dam may burst after the party congress. Relations with the US and the West will remain poor, as the democracies cannot afford to endorse what they see as Xi’s power grab, the resurrection of a Maoist cult of personality, and the betrayal of past promises of cooperation and engagement. America’s midterm election politics will not be conducive to any broad thaw in US-China relations. While China will focus on domestic politics, its foreign policy actions will still prove relatively hawkish. Clashes with neighbors may be instigated by China to warn away any interference or by neighbors to try to embarrass Xi Jinping. The South and East China Seas are still ripe for territorial disputes to flare. Border conflicts with India are also possible. Taiwan remains the epicenter of global geopolitical risk. A fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis looms as China increases its military warnings to Taiwan not to attempt anything resembling independence (Chart 17A). China may use saber-rattling, economic sanctions, cyber war, disinformation, and other “gray zone” tactics to undermine the ruling party ahead of Taiwan’s midterm elections in November 2022 and presidential elections in January 2024. A full-scale invasion cannot be ruled out but is unlikely in the short run, as China still has non-military options to try to arrange a change of policy in Taiwan. Chart 17 ​​​​​​ Chart 17BMarket-Based Risk Indicators Say China/Taiwan Risk Has Not Peaked Market-Based Risk Indicators Say China/Taiwan Risk Has Not Peaked Market-Based Risk Indicators Say China/Taiwan Risk Has Not Peaked China has not yet responded to the US’s deployment of a small number of troops in Taiwan or to recent diplomatic overtures or arms sales. It could stage a major show of force against Taiwan to help consolidate power at home. China also has an interest in demonstrating to US allies and partners that their populations and economies will suffer if they side with Washington in any contingency. Given China’s historic confluence of risks, it is too soon for global investors to load up on cheap Chinese equities. Volatility will remain high. Weak animal spirits, limited policy easing, high levels of policy uncertainty, regulatory risk, ongoing trade tensions, and geopolitical risks suggest that investors should remain on the sidelines, and that a large risk premium can persist throughout 2022. Our market-based geopolitical risk indicators for both China and Taiwan are still trending upwards (Chart 17B). Global investors should capitalize on China’s policy easing indirectly by investing in commodities, cyclical equity sectors, and select emerging markets. 2. America’s Policy Insularity Our second view for 2022 centers on the United States, which will focus on domestic politics and will thus react or overreact to the many global challenges it faces. The US faces the first midterm election after the chaotic and contested 2020 presidential election. Political polarization remains at historically high levels, meaning that social unrest could flare up again and major domestic terrorist incidents cannot be ruled out. So far the Biden administration has focused on the domestic scene: mitigating the pandemic and rebooting the economy. Biden’s signature “Build Back Better” bill, $1.75 trillion investment in social programs, has passed the House of Representatives but not the Senate. The spike in inflation has shaken moderate Democratic senators who are now delaying the bill. We expect it to pass, since tax hikes were dropped, but our conviction is low (65% subjective odds), as a single defection would derail the bill. The implication would be inflationary since it would mark a sizable increase in government spending at a time when the output gap is already virtually closed. Spending would likely be much larger than the Congressional Budget Office estimate, shown in Chart 18, because the bill contains various gimmicks and hard-to-implement expiration clauses. Equity markets may not sell if the bill fails, since more fiscal stimulus would put pressure on the Federal Reserve to hike rates faster. Chart 18 Chart 19 Whether the bill passes or fails, Biden’s legislative agenda will be frozen thereafter. He will have to resort to executive powers and foreign policy to lift his approval rating and court the median voter ahead of the midterm elections. Currently Democrats are lined up to lose the House and probably also the Senate, where a single seat would cost them their majority (Chart 19). The Senate is still in play so Biden will be averse to taking big risks. For the same reason, Biden’s foreign policy goal will be to stave off various bubbling crises. Restoring the Iranian nuclear deal was his priority but Russia has now forced its way to the top of the agenda by threatening a partial reinvasion of Ukraine. In this context Biden will not have room for maneuver with China. Congress will be hawkish on China ahead of the midterms, and Xi Jinping will be reviving autocracy, so Biden will not be able to improve relations much. Biden’s domestic policy could fuel inflation, while his domestic-focused foreign policy will embolden strategic rivals, which increases geopolitical risks. 3. Petro-State Leverage A surge in gasoline prices at the pump ahead of the election would be disastrous for a Democratic Party that is already in disarray over inflation (Chart 20). Biden has already demonstrated that he can coordinate an international release of strategic oil reserves this year. Oil and natural gas producers gain leverage when the global economy rebounds, commodity prices rise, and supply/demand balances tighten. The frequency of global conflicts, especially those involving petro-states, tend to rise and fall in line with oil prices (Chart 21). Chart 20Inflation Constrains Biden Ahead Of Midterms Inflation Constrains Biden Ahead Of Midterms Inflation Constrains Biden Ahead Of Midterms Chart 21 Both Russia and Iran are vulnerable to social unrest at home and foreign strategic pressure abroad. Both have long-running conflicts with the US and West that are heating up for fundamental reasons, such as Russia’s fear of western influence in the former Soviet Union and Iran’s nuclear program. Both countries are demanding that the US make strategic concessions to atone for the Trump administration’s aggressive policies: selling lethal weapons to Ukraine and imposing “maximum pressure” sanctions on Iran. Biden is not capable of making credible long-term agreements since he could lose office as soon as 2025 and the next president could reverse whatever he agrees. But he must try to de-escalate these conflicts or else he faces energy shortages or price shocks, which would raise the odds of stagflation ahead of the election. The path of least resistance for Biden is to lift the sanctions on Iran to prevent an escalation of the secret war in the Middle East. If this unilateral concession should convince Iran to pause its nuclear activities before achieving breakout uranium enrichment capability, then Biden would reduce the odds of a military showdown erupting across the region. Opposition Republicans would accuse him of weakness but public opinion polls show that few Americans consider Iran a major threat. The problem is that this logic held throughout 2021 and yet Biden did not ease the sanctions. Given Iran’s nuclear progress and the US’s reliance on sanctions, we see a 40% chance of a military confrontation with Iran over the coming years. With regard to Ukraine, an American failure to give concessions to Russia will probably result in a partial reinvasion of Ukraine (50% subjective odds). This in turn will force the US and EU to impose sanctions on Russia, leading to a squeeze of natural gas prices in Europe and eventually price pressures in global energy markets. If Biden grants Russia’s main demands, he will avoid a larger war or energy shock but will make the US vulnerable to future blackmail. He will also demoralize Taiwan and other US partners who lack mutual defense treaties. But he may gain Russian cooperation on Iran. If Biden gives concessions to both Russia and Iran, his party will face criticism in the midterms but it will be far less vulnerable than if an energy shock occurs. This is the path of least resistance for Biden in 2022. It means that the petro-states may lose their leverage after using it, given that risk premiums would fall on Biden’s concessions. Of course, if energy shocks happen, Europe and China will suffer more than the US, which is relatively energy independent. For this reason Brussels and Beijing will try to keep diplomacy alive as long as possible. Enforcement of US sanctions on Iran may weaken, reducing Iran’s urgency to come into compliance. Germany may prevent a hardline threat of sanctions against Russia, reducing Russia’s fear of consequences. Again, petro-states have the leverage. Therefore investors should guard against geopolitically induced energy price spikes or shocks in 2022. What if other commodity producers, such as Saudi Arabia, crank up production and sink oil prices? This could happen. Yet the Saudis prefer elevated oil prices due to the host of national challenges they face in reforming their economy. If the US eases sanctions on Iran then the Saudis may make this decision. Thus downside energy price shocks are possible too. The takeaway is energy price volatility but for the most part we see the risk as lying to the upside. Investment Takeaways Traditional geopolitical risk, which focuses on war and conflict, is measurable and has slipped since 2015, although it has not broken down from the general uptrend since 2000. We expect the secular trend to be reaffirmed and for geopolitical risk to resume its rise due to the strategic themes and key views outlined above. The correlation of geopolitical risk with financial assets is debatable – namely because some geopolitical risks push up oil and commodity prices at the expense of the dollar, while others cause a safe-haven rally into the dollar (Chart 22).  Global economic policy uncertainty is also measurable. It is in a secular uptrend since the 2008 financial crisis. Here the correlation with the US dollar and relative equity performance is stronger, which makes sense. This trend should also pick up going forward, which is at least not negative for the dollar and relative US equity performance (Chart 23). Chart 22Geopolitical Risk Will Rise, Market Impacts Variable Geopolitical Risk Will Rise, Market Impacts Variable Geopolitical Risk Will Rise, Market Impacts Variable ​​​​​​ Chart 23Economic Policy Uncertainty Will Rise, Not Bad For US Assets Economic Policy Uncertainty Will Rise, Not Bad For US Assets Economic Policy Uncertainty Will Rise, Not Bad For US Assets ​​​​​​ We are neutral on the US dollar versus the euro and recommend holding either versus the Chinese renminbi. We are short the currencies of emerging markets that suffer from great power rivalry, namely the Taiwanese dollar versus the US dollar, the Korean won versus the Japanese yen, the Russian ruble versus the Canadian dollar, and the Czech koruna versus the British pound.     We remain long gold as a hedge against both geopolitical risk and inflation. We recommend staying long global equities. Tactically we prefer large caps and defensives. Within developed markets, we favor the UK and Japan. Japan in particular will benefit from Chinese policy easing yet remains more secure from China-centered geopolitical risks than emerging Asian economies. Within emerging markets, Mexico stands to benefit from US economic strength and divorce from China. We would buy Indian equities on weakness and sell Chinese and Russian equities on strength. We remain long aerospace and defense stocks and cyber-security stocks.   -The GPS Team We Read (And Liked) … Conspiracy U: A Case Study “Crazy, worthless, stupid, made-up tales bring out the demons in susceptible, unthinking people.” Thus the author’s father, a Holocaust survivor translated from Yiddish, on conspiracy theories and the real danger they present in the world. Scott A. Shay, author and chairman of Signature Bank, whose first book was a finalist for the National Jewish Book Award, has written an intriguing new book on the topic and graciously sent it our way.2 Shay is a regular reader of BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy and an astute observer of international affairs. He is also a controversialist who has written essays for several of America’s most prominent newspapers. Shay’s latest, Conspiracy U, is a bracing read that we think investors will benefit from. We say this not because of its topical focus, which is too confined, but because of its broader commentary on history, epistemology, the US higher education system – and the very timely and relevant problem of conspiracy theories, which have become a prevalent concern in twenty-first century politics and society. The author and the particular angle of the book will be controversial to some readers but this very quality makes the book well-suited to the problem of the conspiracy theory, since it is not the controversial nature of conspiracy theories but their non-falsifiability that makes them specious. As the title suggests, the book is a polemical broadside. The polemic arises from Shay’s unique set of moral, intellectual, and sociopolitical commitments. This is true of all political books but this one wears its topicality on its sleeve. The term “conspiracy” in the title refers to antisemitic, anti-Israel, and anti-Zionist conspiracy theories, particularly the denial of the Holocaust, coming from tenured academics on both the right and the left wings of American politics. The “U” in the title refers to universities, namely American universities, with a particular focus on the author’s beloved alma mater, Northwestern University in Chicago, Illinois. Clearly the book is a “case study” – one could even say the prosecution of a direct and extended public criticism of Northwestern University – and the polemical perspective is grounded in Shay’s Jewish identity and personal beliefs. Equally clearly Shay makes a series of verifiable observations and arguments about conspiracy theories as a contemporary phenomenon and their presence, as well as the presence of other weak and lazy modes of thought, in “academia writ large.” This generalization of the problem is where most readers will find the value of the book. The book does not expect one to share Shay’s identity, to be a Zionist or support Zionism, or to agree with Israel’s national policies on any issue, least of all Israeli relations with Arabs and Palestinians. Shay’s approach is rigorous and clinical. He is a genuine intellectual in that he considers the gravest matters of concern from various viewpoints, including viewpoints radically different from his own, and relies on close readings of the evidence. In other words, Shay did not write the book merely to convince people that two tenured professors at Northwestern are promoting conspiracy theories. That kind of aberration is sadly to be expected and at least partially the result of the tenure system, which has advantages as well, not within the scope of the book. Rather Shay wrote it to provide a case study for how it is that conspiracy theories can manage to be adopted by those who do not realize what they are and to proliferate even in areas that should be the least hospitable – namely, public universities, which are supposed to be beacons of knowledge, science, openness, and critical thinking, but also other public institutions, including the fourth estate. Shay is meticulous with his sources and terminology. He draws on existing academic literature to set the parameters of his subject, defining conspiracy theories as “improbable hypotheses [or] intentional lies … about powerful and sinister groups conspiring to harm good people, often via a secret cabal.” The definition excludes “unwarranted criticism” and “unfair/prejudiced perspectives,” which are harmful but unavoidable. Many prejudices and false beliefs are “still falsifiable in the minds of their adherents,” which is not the case with conspiracy theories, although deep prejudices can obviously be helpful in spreading such theories. Conspiracy theories often depend on “a stunning amount of uniformity of belief and coordination of action without contingencies.” They also rely excessively on pathos, or emotion, in making their arguments, as opposed to logos (reason) and ethos (credibility, authority). Unfortunately there is no absolute, infallible distinction between conspiracy theories and other improbable theories – say, yet-to-be-confirmed theories about conspiracies that actually occurred. Conspiracy theories differ from other theories “in their relationship to facts, evidence, and logic,” which may sound obvious but is very much to the point. Again, “the key difference is the evidence and how it is evaluated.” There is no ready way to refute the fabrications, myths, and political propaganda that people believe without taking the time to assess the claims and their foundations. This requires an open mind and a grim determination to get to the bottom of rival claims about events even when they are extremely morally or politically sensitive, as is often the case with wars, political conflicts, atrocities, and genocides: Reliable historians, journalists, lawyers, and citizens must first approach the question of the cause or the identity of perpetrators and victims of an event or process with an open mind, not prejudiced to either party, and then evaluate the evidence. The diagnosis may be easy but the treatment is not – it takes time, study, and debate, and one’s interlocutors must be willing to be convinced. This problem of convincing others is critical because it is the part that is so often left out of modern political discourse. Conspiracy theories are often hateful and militant, so there is a powerful urge to censor or repress them. Openly debating with conspiracy theorists runs the risk of legitimizing or appearing to legitimize their views, providing them with a public forum, which seems to grant ethos or authority to arguments that are otherwise conspicuously lacking in it. In some countries censorship is legal, almost everywhere when violence is incited. The problem is that the act of suppression can feed the same conspiracy theories, so there is a need, in the appropriate context, to engage with and refute lies and specious arguments. Clients frequently email us to ask our view of the rise of conspiracy theories and what they entail for the global policy backdrop. We associate them with the broader breakdown in authority and decline of public trust in institutions. Shay’s book is an intervention into this topic that clients will find informative and thought-provoking, even if they disagree with the author’s staunchly pro-Israel viewpoint. It is precisely Shay’s ability to discuss and debate extremely contentious matters in a lucid and empirical manner – antisemitism, the history of Zionism, Holocaust denialism, Arab-Israeli relations, the Rwandan genocide, QAnon, the George Floyd protests, various other controversies – that enables him to defend a controversial position he holds passionately, while also demonstrating that passion alone can produce the most false and malicious arguments. As is often the case, the best parts of the book are the most personal – when Shay tells about his father’s sufferings during the Holocaust, and journey from the German concentration camps to New York City, and about Shay’s own experiences scraping enough money together to go to college at Northwestern. These sequences explain why the author felt moved to stage a public intervention against fringe ideological currents, which he shows to have gained more prominence in the university system than one might think. The book is timely, as American voters are increasingly concerned about the handling of identity, inter-group relations, history, education, and ideology in the classroom, resulting in what looks likely to become a new and ugly episode of the culture and education wars. Let us hope that Shay’s standards of intellectual freedom and moral decency prevail.   Matt Gertken, PhD Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      The downshift in globalization today is even worse than it appears in Chart 10 because several countries have not yet produced the necessary post-pandemic data, artificially reducing the denominator and making the post-pandemic trade rebound appear more prominent than it is in reality. 2     Scott A. Shay, Conspiracy U: A Case Study (New York: Post Hill Press, 2021), 279 pages. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Appendix: GeoRisk Indicator China China: GeoRisk Indicator China: GeoRisk Indicator Russia Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator United Kingdom UK: GeoRisk Indicator UK: GeoRisk Indicator Germany Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator France France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator Italy Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Canada Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Spain Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan Taiwan Territory: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan Territory: GeoRisk Indicator Korea Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Australia Australia: GeoRisk Indicator Australia: GeoRisk Indicator South Africa South Africa: GeoRisk Indicator South Africa: GeoRisk Indicator Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights China’s slowdown will deepen, and US bond yields will likely rise. This augurs well for the US dollar but will produce a toxic cocktail for EM. The recent weakness in the commodity complex will continue. EM markets are at risk in absolute terms and will continue to underperform their DM counterparts. From a global macro perspective, the US dollar’s appreciation will be a re-balancing act. In a world where China is exporting economic weakness/deflation and the US is experiencing genuine inflation, a strong US dollar is desirable. The latter will redistribute inflation away from the US to the rest of the world and will redirect disinflationary pressures from the rest of the world to the US. Feature Chart 1DXY Breakout, EM FX Breakdown DXY Breakout, EM FX Breakdown DXY Breakout, EM FX Breakdown The US dollar is breaking out and EM currencies are breaking down (Chart 1). This will set in motion a number of responses in global financial markets. These include but are not limited to selloffs in EM equities, domestic bonds and EM credit markets and a setback in the commodity complex. Hence, we reiterate our negative stance on EM stocks and fixed-income markets. We continue to recommend shorting a basket of EM currencies versus the US dollar. Please refer to the end of this report for detailed investment recommendations. Why The Greenback Is Set To Strengthen Since early in the year, our investment strategy has been based on two macro themes: China’s slowdown and rising US inflation. We concluded early on that these dynamics are positive for the US dollar. Both macro themes have played out fairly well, yet until recently the broad trade-weighted US dollar’s advance has been hesitant. Odds are that the rally in the greenback is about to accelerate. Chart 2China's Slowdown = US Dollar Rally China's Slowdown = US Dollar Rally China's Slowdown = US Dollar Rally The fundamental case for the US dollar rally remains as follows: China’s slowdown will weigh more on emerging Asia, Japan, Europe, and/or commodity producing, developing and developed economies than it will on the US. The basis is that US exports to China make up only 0.7% of its GDP. The same ratio is much higher for the rest of the world. Hence, the US economy will outperform many advanced and emerging economies. Chart 2 illustrates that, historically, whenever China has slowed down, the US dollar has rallied. The mainland’s property construction is shrinking, and traditional infrastructure investment is also extremely weak (Chart 3). Beijing is easing its regulatory and macro policies but only by degrees. For now, policy support will be insufficient to reverse the business cycle downturn. In the meantime, the US economy is overheating. Specifically, all core type inflation measures have surged to well above 2% (Chart 4). Critically, nominal wages are rising at the fastest rate seen in the past 35 years (Chart 5). Chart 3China: Infrastructure Investment Is Very Weak China: Infrastructure Investment Is Very Weak China: Infrastructure Investment Is Very Weak Chart 4US Core Inflation Is Broad-Based And High US Core Inflation Is Broad-Based And High US Core Inflation Is Broad-Based And High Given that the employee quit rate is very high, employers will have to grant notable wage increases to both new and current employees. Thus, wage growth will accelerate further. Recent wage gains have not been offset by productivity growth. As a result, unit labor costs are rising (Chart 6). This will push businesses to raise their selling prices. So long as household income and consumption remain robust, businesses will likely succeed in raising their prices. In short, US inflation is acute and genuine, and, hence, it will persist unless the economy slows considerably. Chart 5US Nominal Wage Growth Is At Its Fastest In 35 Years US Nominal Wage Growth Is At Its Fastest In 35 Years US Nominal Wage Growth Is At Its Fastest In 35 Years Chart 6US Unit Labor Costs Are Rising Fast US Unit Labor Costs Are Rising Fast US Unit Labor Costs Are Rising Fast The rise in US inflation will initially be bullish for the US dollar. The reason is that fixed-income markets will move to price in higher Fed funds rates and the Fed will also acknowledge the need to hike rates given that core inflation is well above its target range. At some point in future, however, high inflation will start hurting the US dollar. This will happen when the Fed eschews rate hikes and falls behind the inflation curve. We believe we are still in a window where US bond yields could rise further. Rising US interest rates will support the dollar. Finally, the US economy, but not necessarily its equity and credit markets, is better positioned to handle central bank tightening than are other DM and EM economies. American consumers have substantially deleveraged and there are shortages in US housing and cars. Even as US borrowing costs rise, interest rate sensitive sectors like housing and autos will still do well because of pent-up demand. In particular, the US housing market is sensitive to long-term (30-year) mortgage rates and not the front end of curve. On the contrary, many EM and other DM economies and their housing sectors are sensitive to domestic short-term rates. In percentage terms, the rise in US mortgage rates will likely be smaller than those in DM and EM economies. In short, the US economy will not slow sharply in the response to rates while EM and other DM economies will. This augurs well for the dollar. The key US vulnerability from higher interest rates stems from its equity and credit markets, not the real economy. US equities and credit markets are very richly priced, so the rising cost of capital could trigger a major selloff. In turn, wealth effects and tightening financial conditions will pose a risk to the real economy. However, even in this case, the US dollar will initially appreciate because it always rallies during risk-off phases. The greenback’s depreciation will resume when the Fed turns dovish again. From a big picture macro perspective, the US dollar’s appreciation will be a re-balancing act. In a world where China is exporting economic weakness/deflation and the US is experiencing genuine inflation, a strong US dollar is desirable. The latter will redistribute inflation away from the US to the rest of the world and will redirect disinflationary pressures from the rest of the world to the US. In this period of US dollar strength, EM financial markets will be hurt because foreign investors always flee EM when their currencies depreciate. Bottom Line: China’s slowdown will deepen, and US bond yields will likely rise. This will produce a toxic cocktail for EM. Watch Out Commodity Prices Chart 7Reduced Financing For Property Developers = Less Construction Reduced Financing For Property Developers = Less Construction Reduced Financing For Property Developers = Less Construction The downturns in China’s property construction and traditional infrastructure spending are bad for raw material prices. The following points offer an explanation as to why commodity prices will relapse in spite of the fact that they have thus far resisted China’s slowdown. Although Chinese property sales and starts have been shrinking, floor area completed (construction work) has been very strong. However, the liquidity crunch that many real estate developers are experiencing will lead them to halt or cut back on their construction work (Chart 7, top panel). The latter will weigh on raw material prices (Chart 7, bottom panel). Taiwan’s new export orders PMI for the basic materials sector has dropped below 50, indicating plunging regional demand for raw materials (Chart 8). Ongoing weakness in Chinese demand is the culprit behind this drop. Due to electricity shortages, mainland production of industrial metals has plunged (Chart 9, top panel). Yet, the prices of these metals have recently corrected (Chart 9, bottom panel). Falling prices amid shrinking supply are a sign of major demand relapse. Chart 8Greater China: Orders For Basic Materials Are Already Shrinking Greater China: Orders For Basic Materials Are Already Shrinking Greater China: Orders For Basic Materials Are Already Shrinking Chart 9Base Metal Price Falling Despite Production Shutdowns In China Base Metal Price Falling Despite Production Shutdowns In China Base Metal Price Falling Despite Production Shutdowns In China   The Baltic Dry index – the price of shipping bulk commodities – has rolled over decisively. It has reasonable correlation with industrial metal prices. Oil is much less exposed than base metals to China’s property and infrastructure contraction. In the case of crude, the key risks are the US and China releasing their strategic reserves and the US dollar strength. Bottom Line: The recent weakness in the commodity complex will continue. Other Considerations Chart 10China's Onshore Stock-to_Bond Ratio Is Breaking Down China's Onshore Stock-to_Bond Ratio Is Breaking Down China's Onshore Stock-to_Bond Ratio Is Breaking Down There are a number of other considerations and indicators that lead us to maintain a negative stance on EM financial markets: China’s onshore stock-to-bond ratio has broken below its 200-day moving average (Chart 10). This signifies a deepening growth slump in China. EM equity underperformance has been broad-based. Both the market cap-weighted and equal-weighted EM equity indexes have been underperforming their respective DM indexes. Further, not only have TMT (technology, media and telecom) stocks been underperforming their DM peers, but non-TMT stocks have also lagged their counterparts substantially (Chart 11). Last but not least, EM TMT stocks remain at risk. First, share prices of Chinese internet companies will continue derating due to structurally lower profitability going forward as the government exercises more control over them. We have discussed this in previous reports. In addition, consumer spending online has slowed sharply while smartphone sales are plunging (Chart 12). Chart 11EM Equity Underperformance Is Broad-Based EM Equity Underperformance Is Broad-Based EM Equity Underperformance Is Broad-Based Chart 12China: Online Spending Is Very Weak China: Online Spending Is Very Weak China: Online Spending Is Very Weak Second, DRAM (memory chip) prices are deflating and the value of DRAM sales is shrinking (Chart 13). This is weighing on Korean semiconductor share prices like Samsung and SK Hynix. These stocks have a large market cap in the KOSPI index. Finally, demand for semiconductors produced by Taiwanese companies has been booming but it is presently showing signs of moderation (Chart 14). Chart 13Falling DRAM Prices Are Weighing On Korean Semi Stocks Falling DRAM Prices Are Weighing On Korean Semi Stocks Falling DRAM Prices Are Weighing On Korean Semi Stocks Chart 14Taiwanese Semiconductor Industry: Moderating Orders Taiwanese Semiconductor Industry: Moderating Orders Taiwanese Semiconductor Industry: Moderating Orders Importantly, geopolitical risks around Taiwan in general and TSMC in particularly are enormous. The latter is literally at the center of the US-China confrontation. The timing of a diplomatic or even military crisis is uncertain but our Geopolitical Strategy team expects geopolitical risks over Taiwan to escalate substantially. The recent summit between Presidents Joe Biden and Xi Jinping does not change this assessment.  Investment Recommendations Chart 15EM Credit Markets: Prepare For A Broad Selloff EM Credit Markets: Prepare For A Broad Selloff EM Credit Markets: Prepare For A Broad Selloff Continue underweighting EM equities in a global equity portfolio. Within the EM space, our overweights are Korea, Singapore, China (favoring A shares over investable stocks), Vietnam, Russia, central Europe and Mexico. Concerning EM equity sectors, we reiterate the short EM banks / long DM banks and short EM banks / long EM consumer staples positions. In line with our US dollar breakout thesis, we continue to recommend a short position in a basket of the following EM currencies versus the US dollar: BRL, CLP, COP, PEN, ZAR, TRY, THB, PHP and KRW. EM exchange rate depreciation is bad for EM domestic bonds. Currency weakness could lead central banks in Latin America to hike rates further. In brief, the risk-reward of EM local currency bonds is still unattractive. In this space, we recommend the following positions: bet on yield curve flattening in Mexico and Russia (pay 1-year/receive 10-year swap rates); pay Czech 10-year swap rates; receive Chinese and Malaysian 10-year swap rates. We reiterate our underweight in EM credit (both sovereign and corporate) markets versus US corporate credit, quality adjusted. As EM exchange rates depreciate, EM credit spreads will widen (Chart 15). Chinese high-yield corporate US dollar bonds are not yet a buy because the mainland property market’s travails are far from over, as was discussed in our recent Special Report. For a complete list of our recommendations across all asset classes and country strategy within each asset class, please see below or visit our web site. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights Taiwan remains the epicenter of global geopolitical risk, as highlighted by the past week’s significant increase in saber-rattling around Taiwan and across East Asia and the Pacific. Tensions may subside in the short run, as the US and China resume high-level negotiations. But then again they may not. And they will most likely escalate over the long run. Investors should judge the Taiwan scenario based on China’s capabilities rather than intentions. China’s intentions may never be known but it is increasingly capable of prevailing in a war over Taiwan. Before then, economic sanctions and cyber attacks are highly likely. The US has a history of defending Taiwan from Chinese military threats. Washington is trying to revive its strategic commitment to Asia Pacific. But US attempts to increase deterrence could provoke conflict. The simplest solution to Taiwan tensions is for a change of party in Taiwan. This would require an upset in the 2022 and especially 2024 elections. China may try to arrange that. Otherwise the risk of conflict will increase. A sharp economic slowdown in China is the biggest risk for investors, as it would not only be negative for the global economy but also would threaten domestic political stability, discredit the gradual and non-military approach to incorporating Taiwan, and boost nationalist and jingoistic pressures directed against Taiwan. Feature Chart 1China's Confluence Of Internal And External Risks China's Confluence Of Internal And External Risks China's Confluence Of Internal And External Risks China faces a historic confluence of internal and external political risks. This was our key view for 2021 and it continues to be priced by financial markets (Chart 1). The latest example of these risks is the major bout of saber-rattling over Taiwan. The US sent two aircraft carriers, and the UK one carrier, to the waters southwest of Okinawa for naval drills with Japan, Canada, the Netherlands, and New Zealand. Related drills are occurring across Southeast Asia, including Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia, and others. Meanwhile the Chinese air force let loose its largest yet intrusion into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone (Chart 2). The US assured Japan that it would defend the disputed Senkaku islands, while Japan said that it would seek concrete options – beyond diplomacy – for dealing with Chinese pressure. Chart 2China’s Warning To Taiwan Biden, Xi, And Taiwan Biden, Xi, And Taiwan Chart 3Market Response To Saber-Rattling Over Taiwan Strait Market Response To Saber-Rattling Over Taiwan Strait Market Response To Saber-Rattling Over Taiwan Strait Yet, at the same time, a diplomatic opening emerged between the US and China. A virtual summit is expected to be scheduled between Presidents Joe Biden and Xi Jinping. The Biden administration unveiled its review of US trade policy toward China, with mixed results (i.e. imply a defensive rather than offensive trade policy). China offered to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal (the CPTPP). All sides exchanged prisoners, with Huawei’s Meng Wanzhou back in China. In the short run global investors will cheer attempts by the US and China to stabilize relations. But over the long run tensions over Taiwan suggest the underlying US-China strategic confrontation will persist. We do not doubt that global risk appetite will improve marginally on the news, including toward Chinese and Taiwanese assets (Chart 3). But investors should not mistake summitry for diplomacy, or diplomacy for concrete and material strategic de-escalation. The geopolitical outlook is gloomy for China and Taiwan. Grand Strategies Collide US grand strategy forbids countries from creating regional empires lest they challenge the US for global empire. China has the long-term potential to dominate the eastern hemisphere. The US now quite explicitly seeks to counter China’s growing economic, technological, military, and political influence. China’s grand strategy forbids countries from interfering in its domestic affairs and undermining its economic and political stability. This could include eroding its territorial integrity, jeopardizing its supply security, or denying its maritime access. The US still has considerable capabilities on this front, particularly due to its control of the oceans and special relationship with Taiwan, the democratic island that China claims as a province but that the US supplies with arms. Historically, the Kingdom of Tungning (1661-83) exemplifies that a rival political and naval power rooted in Taiwan can jeopardize the security of southern China and hence all of China (Map 1). Taiwan’s predicament is geopolitically unsustainable and the difference between the past 72 years and today is that Beijing increasingly has the military means of doing something about it. Map 1Why Taiwan’s Status Quo Is Geopolitically Unsustainable Biden, Xi, And Taiwan Biden, Xi, And Taiwan China seeks to establish maritime access, expand its navy, and improve supply security. This process points toward turf battles with the US and its allies and could easily lead to conflict over Taiwan, the East and South China Seas, and other strategic approaches to China. It could also lead to conflict over technological access. The latter is an economic and supply vulnerability that relates directly to Taiwan, which produces the world’s most advanced computer chips. The Chinese strategy since the Great Recession, under two presidents of two different factions, has been to take a more assertive stance on domestic and foreign policy, economic policy, territorial disputes, and supply security. This hawkish turn occurred in response to falling potential GDP growth, which ultimately threatens social stability and the survival of the political regime. Hong Kong was long the symbol that the western liberal democracies could coexist with the Chinese Communist Party. China’s reduction of Hong Kong’s political autonomy over the past decade violated this understanding. Taiwan is now increasingly concerned about its autonomy while the West is looking to deter China from attacking Taiwan. China is willing to wage war if the West attempts to make Taiwan’s autonomous status permanent through increased military support. The US strategy since the Great Recession, under three presidents of two different parties, has been to raise the costs on China for its increasingly assertive policies, particularly in acquiring technology and using economic and military coercion against neighbors. The US is increasing its use of sanctions, secondary sanctions, tariffs, export controls, cyber warfare, and regional strategic deterrence. Hence the policy consensus in both the US and China is more confrontational than cooperative. The Biden administration is largely maintaining President Trump’s punitive measures toward China while trying to build an international coalition to constrain China more effectively. Meanwhile the Xi administration is refusing to hand over power to a successor in 2022, so there will not be a change in Chinese strategy. The US is politically divided, a major factor in Beijing’s favor. China is politically unified, particularly on the question of Taiwan. But one area of national consensus in the US is the need to become “tougher” with respect to China. President Trump’s policies and the COVID-19 pandemic reinforced this consensus. The number of Americans who would support sending US troops to Taiwan if China invaded has risen from 19% in 1982 to 52% today – meaning that the country is divided but fear of China is driving a shift in opinion.1 Chart 4Taiwan Strait Risk Shoots Up To 1950s Levels And Beyond Biden, Xi, And Taiwan Biden, Xi, And Taiwan The China Cross-Strait Academy, a new think tank with pro-mainland sympathies, has produced a Cross Strait Relations Risk Index that goes back to 1950 and utilizes 59 factors ranging from politics and diplomacy to military and economics. It suggests that tensions have reached historically high levels, comparable to the 1950s, when the first and second Taiwan Strait crises occurred (Chart 4). Beware Chinese Economic Crisis – Or Concerted US Action Tensions across the Taiwan Strait began to rise in 2012 when the Communist Party adopted a more hawkish national policy in response to potential threats to its long-term rule arising from the Great Recession. The 2014 “Sunflower Protests” in Taiwan and “Umbrella Protests” in Hong Kong symbolized the rise in tension as Beijing sought to centralize control across Greater China. Support for the political status quo in Taiwan peaked around this time, although most Taiwanese still prefer the status quo to any final decision on the island’s status, which could trigger conflict (Chart 5). China’s militarization of rocks and reefs in the South China Sea throughout the 2010s gave it greater control over the strategic approaches to Taiwan. Since 2016, we have argued that geopolitical risk in the Taiwan Strait would rise on a structural, long-term basis for the following reasons: (1) China’s economic downshift triggered power consolidation and outward nationalism (2) Taiwanese opinion was shifting away from integration with the mainland (3) the US was attempting a strategic shift of focus back to Asia and countering China. Underlying this assessment was the long-running trend of rising support for independence and falling support for unification with China (Chart 6). Chart 5Taiwanese Favor Status Quo Indefinitely Biden, Xi, And Taiwan Biden, Xi, And Taiwan Chart 6Very Few Taiwanese Favor Reunification, Now Or Later Biden, Xi, And Taiwan Biden, Xi, And Taiwan China’s crackdown on Hong Kong from 2016-19 escalated matters further as it removed the “one country, two systems” model for Taiwan (Chart 7). China continues to insist on this solution. In 2013 and again in 2019, Xi Jinping declared that the Taiwan problem cannot be passed down from one generation to another, implying that he intended to resolve the matter during his tenure, which is expected to extend through 2035. Whether Xi has formally altered China’s cross-strait policy is debatable.2 But his use of military intimidation is not. The US policy of “strategic ambiguity” is debatable but the historical record is clear. In the three major crises in the Taiwan Strait (1954-55, 1958, and 1995-96), the US has sent naval forces to the area and clearly signaled that it would defend Taiwan against aggression.3 However, in diplomatic matters, the US has constantly downgraded Taiwan: for instance, transferring its United Nations seat to China in 1971, revoking its mutual defense treaty in 1980, and prioritizing economic cooperation with China in recent decades. The implication is that the US will not stand in the way of unification unless Beijing attempts to achieve it through force of arms. China’s conclusion from US behavior must be that it can definitely overtake Taiwan by means of economic attraction and diplomacy over time. For example, Beijing’s assertion of direct control over Hong Kong took 20 years and ultimately occurred without any resistance from the West. By contrast, a full-scale attack poses major logistical and military risks and potentially devastating costs if the US upholds its historic norm of defending Taiwan. China’s economy and political system could ultimately be destabilized, despite any initial nationalistic euphoria. Taiwan’s wealth (and semiconductor fabs) would be piles of ash. Of course, Taiwan is different from Hong Kong. The Taiwanese people can believe realistically that they have an alternative to direct rule from Beijing. If mainland China’s economic trajectory falters then the option of absorbing Taiwan gradually will fall away. Today about 30%-40% of Taiwanese people believe cross-strait economic exchange should deepen (Chart 8). Only one period of Taiwanese policy since 1949, the eight years under President Ma Ying-jeou (2008-16), focused exclusively on cross-strait economic integration and deemphasized the tendency toward greater autonomy. If China’s economic prospects dim, then Beijing will become more inclined toward the military option, both to distract from domestic instability and to prevent Taiwan from entertaining independence. Chart 7Taiwanese Oppose "One Country, Two Systems" Biden, Xi, And Taiwan Biden, Xi, And Taiwan Chart 8Taiwanese Not Enthusiastic About Cross-Strait Economic Integration Biden, Xi, And Taiwan Biden, Xi, And Taiwan Chart 9Taiwanese Identify Exclusively As Taiwanese, Not Chinese Biden, Xi, And Taiwan Biden, Xi, And Taiwan Most likely China already has the capability to fight and win a war within the “first island chain,” including over Taiwan, especially if US intervention is hesitant or limited. But any doubts will likely be dispelled in the coming years. As long as China’s military advantage continues to grow, Beijing will increasingly view Taiwan as an object that it can take at will, regardless of whether economic gradualism would eventually work. The Taiwanese increasingly view themselves as distinctly Taiwanese – not Chinese or a mix of Taiwanese and Chinese (Chart 9). The implication is that it may be too late for China to win over hearts and minds. However, Beijing will presumably want to see whether Taiwan’s pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) can be dislodged from power in the 2024 elections before making a drastic leap to war. Taiwan, like the US and other democracies, is internally divided. President Tsai Ing-wen’s narrative of Taiwan’s democratic triumph over authoritarianism is not only applied to the mainland but also directed against Taiwan’s own Kuomintang (KMT).4 The country is unified on its right to expand economic and diplomatic cooperation with the West but it is starkly divided on whether the US should formally ally with Taiwan, sell it arms, and defend it from invasion (Chart 10A). Kuomintang supporters say they are not willing to fight and die for Taiwan in the face of any invasion (Chart 10B). American policymakers complain that Taiwan’s military structure and policies – long managed by the KMT – are not seriously aimed at preparing for asymmetric warfare against Chinese invasion. Chart 10ATaiwan Divided On Whether US Should Increase Military And Strategic Support Biden, Xi, And Taiwan Biden, Xi, And Taiwan Chart 10BTaiwan Divided On War Sacrifice Biden, Xi, And Taiwan Biden, Xi, And Taiwan The international sphere also matters for Beijing’s calculus. If the US remains divided and distracted – and allies curry favor with China – then China will presumably continue the gradualist approach. But if the US unifies at home and forges closer ties with allies, aiming to curb China’s economy and defend Taiwan’s democracy, then China may be motivated to take military action sooner. If the US and allies want to deter an attack on Taiwan, they need to signal that war will exact profound costs on China, such as crippling economic sanctions, a full economic blockade, or allied military intervention. But the West’s attempts to increase deterrence could spur China to take action before the West is fully prepared. Unlike the US in the Cuban Missile Crisis, China cannot accept a defeat in any showdown over arms sales to Taiwan. Its own political legitimacy is tied up with Taiwan, contrary to that of the US with Cuba. Given the lack of American willingness to fight a nuclear war over a non-treaty ally, the probability of China launching air strikes would be much higher (Diagram 1). Diagram 1Game Theory Of A Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis Biden, Xi, And Taiwan Biden, Xi, And Taiwan The US is not trying to give Taiwan nuclear arms, or other game-changing offensive systems, although the US has sent marines and special operations forces to help train Taiwanese troops. It is up to Beijing when to make an ultimatum regarding US military support.5 Ultimately the US still controls the seas and China depends on the Persian Gulf for nearly half of its oil imports. This is a good reason for China not to invade Taiwan. But if the US imposes an oil blockade, then the US and China will go to war – this is how the US and Japan came to blows in World War II. The danger is that China assesses that the US will not go that far. Will Biden-Xi Summit Reduce Tensions? Not Over The Long Run True, strategic tensions could be calmed in the short run. The US is restarting talks with China and setting up a bilateral summit between Presidents Biden and Xi. The two sides have exchanged prisoners (e.g. Meng Wanzhou), held climate talks, and Beijing has offered to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The US Trade Representative is suggesting it could ease some of President Trump’s tariffs under pressure from corporate lobbyists. The Biden administration is also likely to seek Beijing’s cooperation in other areas, such as North Korea and Iran. Biden has an urgent problem with Iran and may need China’s help constraining Iran’s nuclear program. However, none of the current initiatives change the underlying clash of grand strategies outlined above. A fundamental US-China reengagement is not in the cards. China is adopting nationalism and mercantilism to deal with its slowing potential growth, while China-bashing is one of the few areas of US national consensus. Specifically: Democracy over autocracy: The Biden administration cannot afford to be seen as smoothing the way for Xi Jinping to restore autocracy in the twentieth National Party Congress 12 months from now. China doubles down on manufacturing: China is not making liberal reforms to its economy to lower trade tensions but rather doubling down on state-led manufacturing and technological acquisition, according to the US Trade Representative.6 The US trade deficit is surging due to US fiscal stimulus. Biden will maintain or even expand high-tech export controls. Climate cooperation is limited: The US public does not agree that it should exchange its homegrown fossil fuels for Beijing’s renewable energy equipment, and the US and EU are flirting with “carbon adjustment fees,” which would be tariffs on carbon-intensive goods imports from places like China. Meanwhile China just told its state-owned enterprises to do everything in their power to secure coal for electricity and ordered banks to lend more to coal companies. North Korea is already a nuclear-armed state, which China condoned, despite multiple rounds of negotiations with the West. No agreement on Iran: If China helps force Iran to accept restrictions on its nuclear program, then that could mark a substantial improvement. But China has made long term commitments to Iran recently and probably will not backtrack on them unless the US makes major concessions that would undermine its attempts to counter China. The Taiwan conundrum undermines trust. If China can be brought to help the US with historic deals on North Korea or Iran, it will expect the US to stand back from Taiwan. The US may not see it that way. A failure to do so will appear a betrayal of trust. Consider China’s bid to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership. China’s state-driven economic model is fundamentally at odds with the TPP. It only takes one member to veto China’s membership, and Australia and Japan would defer to the US on this issue. The US is only likely to rejoin the TPP, which requires Republican support in Congress, on the basis that it is a vehicle for countering China. Even if the TPP members could be convinced to accept China, they would also want to accept Taiwan, which Beijing would refuse. Ultimately if China’s membership is vetoed, then it will conclude that the West is not serious about economic integration. China will be excluded and will be more inclined to pursue its own solutions to problems. China possesses or is close to possessing the capability of taking Taiwan by force today. We cannot rule it out. Taiwanese Defense Minister Chiu Kuo-cheng just claimed it could be attempted as early as 2025. Other estimates point to important Chinese calendar dates as deadlines for Taiwan’s absorption: 2027 (centenary of the People’s Liberation Army), 2035 (Xi Jinping’s long-term policy program), and 2049 (centenary of the People’s Republic of China). The truth is that any attack on Taiwan would not be based on symbolic anniversaries but on maximizing the element of surprise, China’s military capabilities, and foreign lack of readiness and coordination. Given that China’s capabilities are in place, or nearly in place, and nobody can predict such things precisely, investors should be prepared for conflict at any time. Investment Takeaways Chart 11Taiwanese Dollar Strengthened Since Trump Taiwanese Dollar Strengthened Since Trump Taiwanese Dollar Strengthened Since Trump The Taiwanese dollar has rallied since the escalation of US-China strategic tensions in 2016. The real effective exchange rate is now in line with its historic average after a long period of weakness (Chart 11). The trade war and COVID-19 have reinforced Taiwan’s advantage as a chokepoint for semiconductors and tech exports. If we thought there was no real risk of a war, we would not stand in the way of this rally. But based on geopolitical assessment above, the rally could be cut short at any time. Taiwanese equities have also rallied sharply for the same reasons – earnings have exploded throughout the pandemic and semiconductor shortage (Chart 12). Equities are not overly expensive on a cyclically adjusted price-to-earnings basis. But they are meeting resistance at a level that is slightly above fair value. Again, the macro and market fundamentals are positive but geopolitics is deeply negative. We remain underweight Taiwan. China’s willingness to try to stabilize relations with the US is an important positive sign that global investors will cheer in the short run. However, with the US economy fired up, and China’s export machine firing on all cylinders, Chinese authorities apparently believe they can maintain relatively tight monetary, fiscal, and regulatory policy, according to our Emerging Markets Strategy and China Investment Strategy. This will lead to negative outcomes in China’s economy and financial markets. The domestic economy is weak and animal spirits in the private sector are depressed. Retail sales, for example, have dropped far beneath their long-term trend (Chart 13). Chart 12Taiwanese Stocks Not Exactly Cheap Taiwanese Stocks Not Exactly Cheap Taiwanese Stocks Not Exactly Cheap Chart 13China: Consumer Sentiment Weak China: Consumer Sentiment Weak China: Consumer Sentiment Weak The regulatory crackdown on the property sector could trigger an economic and financial crisis (Chart 14). Chinese onshore equity markets were ultimately not able to sustain the collapse in sentiment this year that hit offshore equities even harder. China’s technology sector will continue to struggle under the burden of hawkish regulation, while Chinese stocks ex-tech have long underperformed the broad market (Chart 15). Chart 14China's Huge Property Sector Looking Wobbly China's Huge Property Sector Looking Wobbly China's Huge Property Sector Looking Wobbly Chart 15Beware Financial Turmoil In Mainland China Beware Financial Turmoil In Mainland China Beware Financial Turmoil In Mainland China We maintain the view that Chinese authorities will ease policy when necessary to try to prevent deleveraging in the property sector from triggering a crisis ahead of the twentieth national party congress. A look at past five-year political rotations suggests that bank loans will be flat-to-up over the coming 12 months and that fixed asset investment will tick up (Chart 16). But as long as policymakers are reluctant, risks lie to the downside for Chinese assets and related plays. Chart 16National Party Congress 2022 Requires Overall Stability National Party Congress 2022 Requires Overall Stability National Party Congress 2022 Requires Overall Stability Chart 17GeoRisk Indicators Flash Warnings GeoRisk Indicators Flash Warnings GeoRisk Indicators Flash Warnings China’s shift from “consensus rule” to “personal rule,” i.e. reversion to strongman rule or autocracy, permanently increases the risk of policy mistakes. This could apply to fiscal and regulatory policy as much as to cross-strait policy or foreign policy. It is appropriate that our geopolitical risk indicators for China and Taiwan are rising, signaling that equities are not yet out of the woods (Chart 17). Over the long run China is capable of staging a surprise attack and defeating Taiwan. We have argued that the odds are small this year but that some crisis is imminent – and that the risk of war will rise in the coming years. This is especially true if China cannot engineer a recession to get the Kuomintang back into power in 2024. However, from a fundamentally geopolitical point of view, any attack is bound to be a surprise and hence investors should be prepared. The three main conditions for a conflict over Taiwan are: (1) Chinese domestic instability (2) an American transfer of game-changing offensive weapon systems to Taiwan (3) a formal Taiwanese movement toward independence. The likeliest of these, by far, is Chinese instability.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 See Dina Smeltz and Craig Kafura, "For First Time, Half Of Americans Favor Defending Taiwan If China Invades," Chicago Council on Global Affairs, August 26, 2021, thechicagocouncil.org. 2 See Lu Hui, "Xi says ‘China must be, will be reunified’ as key anniversary marked," Xinhua, January 2, 2019, Xinhuanet.com. For a less alarmist reading of Xi’s recent speeches, see David Sacks, "What Xi Jinping’s Major Speech Means For Taiwan," Council on Foreign Relations, July 6, 2021, cfr.org. 3 See Ian Easton, "Will America Defend Taiwan? Here’s What History Says," Strategika, Hoover Institution, June 30, 2021, hoover.org. 4 See Tsai Ing-wen, "Taiwan and the Fight for Democracy," Foreign Affairs, November/December 2021, foreignaffairs.com. 5 See Gordon Lubold, "U.S. Troops Have Been Deployed In Taiwan For At Least A Year," Wall Street Journal, October 7, 2021, wsj.com. 6 Office of the US Trade Representative, "Fact Sheet: The Biden-Harris Administration’s New Approach To The U.S.-China Trade Relationship," October 4, 2021, ustr.gov.

Highlights The US government issued its first-ever water-shortage declaration for the Colorado River basin in August, due to historically low water levels at the major reservoirs fed by the river (Chart of the Week). The drought producing the water shortage was connected to climate change by US officials.1 Globally, climate-change remediation efforts – e.g., carbon taxes – likely will create exogenous shocks similar to the oil-price shock of the 1970s. Remedial efforts will compete with redressing chronic underfunding of infrastructure. The US water supply infrastructure, for example, faces an investment shortfall of ~ $3.3 trillion over the next 20 years to replace aging plants and equipment, based on an analysis by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).  This will translate to a $6,000 per-capita cost by 2039 if the current funding gap persists. Fluctuating weather and the increasing prevalence of droughts and floods will increase volatility in markets such as agriculture which rely on stable climate and precipitation patterns.We are getting long the FIW ETF at tonight's close. The ETF tracks the performance of equities in the ISE Clean Edge Water Index, which covers firms providing potable water and wastewater treatment technologies and services. This is a strategic recommendation. Feature A decades-long drought in the US Southwest linked by US officials to climate change will result in further water rationing in the region. The drought has reduced total Colorado River system water-storage levels to 40% of capacity – vs. 49% at the same time last year. It has drawn attention to the impact of climate change on daily life, and the acute need for remediation efforts. The US Southwest is a desert. Droughts and low water availability are facts of life in the region. The current drought began in 2012, and is forcing federal, state, and local governments to take unprecedented conservation measures. The first-ever water-shortage declaration by the US Bureau of Reclamation sets in motion remedial measures that will reduce water availability in the Lower Colorado basin starting in October (Map 1). Chart 1Drought Hits Colorado River Especially Hard Drought Hits Colorado River Especially Hard Drought Hits Colorado River Especially Hard Map 1Colorado River Basin Investing In Water Supply Investing In Water Supply The two largest reservoirs in the US – Lake Powell and Lake Meade, part of the massive engineering projects along the Colorado – began in the 1930s and now supply water to 40mm people in the US Southwest. Half of those people get their water from Lake Powell. Emergency rationing began in August, primarily affecting Arizona, but will be extended to the region later in the year. Lake Powell is used to hold run-off from the upper basin of the Colorado River from Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. Water from Powell is sent south to supply the lower-basin states of California, Arizona, and Nevada. Reduced snowpack due to weather shifts caused by climate change has reduced water levels in Powell, while falling soil-moisture levels and higher evaporation rates, contribute to the acceleration of droughts and their persistence down-river. Chart 2Southwests Exceptionally Hard Drought Southwests Exceptionally Hard Drought Southwests Exceptionally Hard Drought Steadily increasing demand for water from agriculture, energy production and human activity brought on by population growth and holiday-makers have made the current drought exceptional (Chart 2). Most of the Southwest has been "abnormally dry or even drier" during 2002-05 and from 2012-20, according to the US EPA. According to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, most of the US Southwest was also warmer than the 1981 – 2010 average temperature during July (Map 2). The Colorado River Compact of 1922 governing the water-sharing rights of the river expires in 2026. Negotiations on the new treaties already have begun, as the seven states in the Colorado basin sort out their rights alongside huge agricultural  interest, native American tribes, Mexico, and fast-growing urban centers like Las Vegas. Map 2Most Of The US Southwest Is Warmer Than Average Investing In Water Supply Investing In Water Supply Global Water Emergency States around the globe are dealing with water crises as a result of climate change. "From Yemen to India, and parts of Central America to the African Sahel, about a quarter of the world's people face extreme water shortages that are fueling conflict, social unrest and migration," according to the World Economic Forum. Droughts, and more generally, changing weather patterns will make agricultural markets more volatile. Food production shortages due to unpredictable weather are compounding lingering pandemic related supply chain disruptions, leading to higher food prices (Chart 3). This could also fuel social unrest and political uncertainty. Floods in China’s Henan province - a key agriculture and pork region - inundated farms. Drought and extreme heat in North America are destroying crops in parts of Canada and the US. While flooding in July damaged Europe’s crops, the continent’s main medium-term risk, will be water scarcity.2  Droughts and extreme weather in Brazil have deep implications for agricultural markets, given the variety and quantity of products it exports. Water scarcity and an unusual succession of polar air masses caused coffee prices to rise earlier this year (Chart 4). The country is suffering from what national government agencies consider the worst drought in nearly a century. According to data from the NASA Earth Observatory, many of the agricultural states in Brazil saw more water evaporate from the ground and plants’ leaves than during normal conditions (Map 3). Chart 3The Pandemic and Changing Weather Patterns Will Keep Food Prices High The Pandemic and Changing Weather Patterns Will Keep Food Prices High The Pandemic and Changing Weather Patterns Will Keep Food Prices High Chart 4Unpredictable Weather Will Increase Volatility In Markets For Agricultural Commodities Unpredictable Weather Will Increase Volatility In Markets For Agricultural Commodities Unpredictable Weather Will Increase Volatility In Markets For Agricultural Commodities Map 3Brazil Is Suffering From Its Worst Drought In Nearly A Century Investing In Water Supply Investing In Water Supply Agriculture itself could be part of a longer-term and irreversible problem – i.e. desertification. Irrigation required for modern day farming drains aquifers and leads to soil erosion. According to the EU, nearly a quarter of Spain’s aquifers are exploited, with agricultural states, such as Andalusia consuming 80% of the state’s total water. Irrigation intensive farming, the possibility of higher global temperatures and the increased prevalence of droughts and forest fires are conducive to soil infertility and subsequent desertification. This is a global phenomenon, with the crisis graver still in north Africa, Mozambique and Palestinian regions. Changing weather patterns could also impact the production of non-agricultural goods and services. One such instance is semiconductors, which are used in machines and devices spanning cars to mobile phones. Taiwan, home to the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company – the world’s largest contract chipmaker - suffered from a severe drought earlier this year (Chart 5). While the drought did not seriously disrupt chipmaking, in an already tight market, the event did bring the issue of the impact of water shortages on semiconductor manufacturing to the fore. According to Sustainalytics, a typical chipmaking plant uses 2 to 4 million gallons of water per day to clean semiconductors. While wet weather has returned to Taiwan, relying on rainfall and typhoons to satisfy the chipmaking sector’s water needs going forward could lead to volatility in these markets. Chart 5Taiwan Faced Its Worst Drought In History Earlier This Year Investing In Water Supply Investing In Water Supply Climate Change As A Macro Factor The scale of remediating existing environmental damage to the planet and the cost of investing in the technology required to sustain development and growth will be daunting. Unfortunately, there is not a great deal of research looking into how much of a cost households, firms and governments will incur on these fronts. Estimates of the actual price of CO2 – the policy variable most governments and policymakers focus on – range from as little as $1.30/ton to as much as $13/ton, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics.3 PIIE's Jean Pisani-Ferry estimates the true cost is around $10/ton presently, after accounting for a lack of full reporting on costs and subsidies that reduce carbon costs. The cost of carbon likely will have to increase by an order of magnitude – to $130/ton or more over the next decade – to incentivize the necessary investment in technology required to deal with climate change and to sufficiently induce, via prices, behavioral adaptations by consumers at all levels. The PIIE notes, "… the accelerated pace of climate change and the magnitude of the effort involved in decarbonizing the economy, while at the same time investing in adaptation, the transition to net zero is likely to involve, over a 30-year period, major shifts in growth patterns." These are early days for assessing the costs and global macro effects of decarbonization. However, PIIE notes, these costs can be expected to "include a significant negative supply shock, an investment surge sizable enough to affect the global equilibrium interest rate, large adverse consumer welfare effects, distributional shifts, and substantial pressure on public finances." Much of the investment required to address climate change will be concentrated on commodity markets. Underlying structural issues, such as lack of investment in expanding supplies of metals and hydrocarbons required during the transition to net-zero CO2 emissions, will impart an upward bias to base metals, oil and natural gas prices over the next decade. We remain bullish industrial commodities broadly, as a result. Investment Implications Massive investment in infrastructure will be needed to address emerging water crises around the world. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) projects an investment shortfall of ~ $3.3 trillion over the next 20 years to replace aging water infrastructure in the US alone. This will translate to a $6,000 per-capita cost by 2039 if the current funding gap persists.4 At tonight's close we will be getting long the FIW ETF, which is focused on US-based firms providing potable water and wastewater treatment services. This ETF provides direct investment exposure to water remediation efforts and needed infrastructure modernization in the US. We also remain long commodity index exposure – the S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF – as a way to retain exposure to the higher commodity-price volatility that climate change will create in grain and food markets. This volatility will keep the balance of price risks to the upside.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish Hurricane Ida shut in ~ 96% of total US Gulf of Mexico (GoM) oil production. Colonial Pipeline, a major refined product artery for the US South and East coast closed a few of its lines due to the hurricane but has restarted operations since then. Since the share of US crude oil from this region has fallen, WTI and RBOB gasoline prices have only marginally increased, despite virtually zero crude oil production from the GoM (Chart 6). Prices are, however, likely to remain volatile, as energy producers in the region check for damage to infrastructure. Power outages and a pause in refining activity in the region will also feed price volatility over the coming weeks. Despite raising the 2022 demand forecast and pressure from the US, OPEC 2.0 stuck to its 400k b/d per month production hike in its meeting on Wednesday.     Base Metals: Bullish A bill to increase the amount of royalties payable by copper miners in Chile was passed in the senate mining committee on Tuesday. As per the bill, taxes will be commensurate with the value of the red metal. If the bill is passed in its current format, it will disincentivize further private mining investments in the nation, warned Diego Hernandez, President of the National Society of Mining (SONAMI). Amid a prolonged drought in Chile during July, the government has outlined a plan for miners to cut water consumption from natural sources by 2050. Increased union bargaining power - due to higher copper prices -, a bill that will increase mining royalties, and environmental regulation, are putting pressure on miners in the world’s largest copper producing nation.   Precious Metals: Bullish Jay Powell’s dovish remarks at the Jackson Hole Symposium were bullish for gold prices. The chairman of the US Central Bank stated the possibility of tapering asset purchases before the end of 2021 but did not provide a timeline. Powell reiterated the absence of a mechanical relationship between tapering and an interest rate hike. Raising interest rates is contingent on factors, such as the prevalence of COVID, inflation and employment levels in the US. The fact that the US economy is not close to reaching the maximum employment level, according to Powell, could keep interest rates lower for longer, supporting gold prices (Chart 7). Ags/Softs: Neutral The USDA crop Progress Report for the week ending August 29th reported 60% of the corn crop was good to excellent quality, marginally down by 2% vs comparable dates in 2020. Soybean crop quality on the other hand was down 11% from a year ago and was recorded at  56%. Chart 6 Investing In Water Supply Investing In Water Supply Chart 7 Weaker Real Rates Bullish For Gold Weaker Real Rates Bullish For Gold     Footnotes 1     Please see Reclamation announces 2022 operating conditions for Lake Powell and Lake Mead; Historic Drought Impacting Entire Colorado River Basin. Released by the US Bureau of Reclamation on August 16, 2021. 2     Please refer to Water stress is the main medium-term climate risk for Europe’s biggest economies, S&P Global, published on August 13, 2021. 3    Please see 21-20 Climate Policy is Macroeconomic Policy, and the Implications Will Be Significant by Jean Pisani-Ferry, which was published in August 2021.  4    Please see The Economic Benefits of Investing in Water Infrastructure, published by the ASCE and The Value of Water Campaign on August 26, 2020.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades