Terrorism

Executive Summary Failure Of Iran Deal Tightens Oil Supply Failure Of Iran Deal Tights Oil Supply Failure Of Iran Deal Tights Oil Supply The US and Iran suspended their attempt to negotiate a nuclear deal on March 11. Countries often get cold feet before major agreements but there are good reasons to believe this suspension will be permanent. A confirmed failure to restore the US-Iran strategic détente will lead to Middle Eastern instability. Iran will be on a trajectory to achieve nuclear weapons in a few years while Israel and the US will have to underscore their red lines against weaponization. The Strait of Hormuz will come under threat again. The immediate impact on oil prices should be positive: sanctions will continue to hinder Iran’s exports, while Iranian conflict with its neighbors will sharply increase the odds of oil disruptions caused by militant actions. Not to mention the Russia-induced energy supply shock. However, a decisive move by the Gulf Arab states to boost crude production would counteract the effect of Iranian sanctions and drive oil down. The Gulf Arabs will be more inclined to coordinate with the Biden administration as long as the Iran deal is ruled out. Thus oil volatility is the main implication beyond any short term oil spike.     Trade Recommendation Inception Date Return Long Gold (Strategic) 2019-12-06 36.8% Bottom Line: Go long US equities relative to global; long US and Canadian stocks versus Saudi and UAE stocks. Stay long XOP ETF, S&P GSCI index, and COMT ETF for exposure to oil prices and backwardation in oil forward curves. Feature The current Iran talks would have restored Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA), which created a strategic détente between the US and Iran. Iran froze its nuclear program while the US lifted sanctions. President Barack Obama negotiated the deal in 2015, without congressional approval, while President Donald Trump nullified it in 2018, arguing that it did not restrict Iran’s ballistic missile development or support for regional militant groups. Chart 1Bull Market In Iran Tensions Will Be Super-Charged Bull Market In Iran Tensions Will Be Super-Charged Bull Market In Iran Tensions Will Be Super-Charged Since then there has been a bull market in Iran tensions (Chart 1), a secret war in which sporadic militant attacks, assassinations, and acts of sabotage occurred but neither side pursued open confrontation. These attacks can be significant, as with the Iran-backed attack on the Abqaiq refinery in Saudi Arabia, which took 6mm b/d of oil-processing capacity offline briefly in September 2019. The implication of this trend is energy supply disruption. Now the trend will be super-charged in the context of a global energy shortage. If no US-Iran détente is achieved, the Middle East will be set on a new trajectory of conflict, or at least a nuclear arms race and aggressive containment strategy. Since Trump turned away from the US-Iran détente and reimposed sanctions on Iran we have given a 40% chance of large-scale military conflict, according to our June 2019 decision tree (Diagram 1). The basis for such a conflict is Iran’s likelihood of obtaining nuclear arms and the need of Israel, its Arab neighbors, and the US to prevent that from happening. Diagram 1US-Iran Conflict: Critical Juncture In Our Decision Tree US-Iran Talks Break Down US-Iran Talks Break Down Between now and then, tit-for-tat military exchanges will increase, posing risks to oil supply in the short and medium run. Without a major diplomatic breakthrough that halts Iran’s nuclear weaponization, a bombing campaign against Iran will be the likeliest long-term consequence, due to the fateful logic of Israel’s strategic predicament (Diagram 2). Diagram 2Over Medium Term, Unilateral Israeli Military Action Is Possible US-Iran Talks Break Down US-Iran Talks Break Down Why Rejoining The US-Iran Deal Was Unlikely Under the Biden administration’s new plan, Iran would have frozen its nuclear program once again while Biden would have relaxed US “maximum pressure” sanctions on Iran, opening the way for foreign investment and the development of Iran’s energy sector and economy. The basis for a deal was the belief among some US policymakers that engagement with Iran would open up its economy, reducing regional war risks (especially in Iraq), expanding global energy supply, and fomenting pro-democratic sentiment in Iran. Also the Washington military-industrial complex wanted to reduce the US’s commitment to the Middle East and arrange a grand strategic “pivot to Asia” so as to counter the rise of China. Up till August 2021, we viewed a deal as likely, but that view changed when Iran’s hawkish or hardline faction came back into the presidency. Biden had a very small window of opportunity to negotiate with outgoing Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who negotiated the original 2015 deal and whose administration fell apart after President Trump withdrew from the deal. When the hawkish Iranian faction took back power, this opportunity slipped. Iran’s hawks were vindicated for having opposed détente with the US in the first place. Since then we have argued that strategic tensions would escalate, for the following reasons: The Iranians could not trust the Americans, since they knew that any new deal could be torn up as early as January 20, 2025 if the Republican Party took back the White House. Indeed, former Vice President Mike Pence recently confirmed this view explicitly. The Iranians were not compelled to agree to the deal because high oil prices ensured that they could export oil regardless of US sanctions (Chart 2). The US no longer has the diplomatic credibility to galvanize a coalition that includes the Russians and Chinese to isolate Iran, like it did back in 2014-15. Chart 2Iranians Not Compelled To A Deal, Can Circumvent Sanctions Iranians Not Compelled To A Deal, Can Circumvent Sanctions Iranians Not Compelled To A Deal, Can Circumvent Sanctions As for Iran’s weak economy spurring social unrest and forcing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to agree to a deal, the US has had maximum pressure sanctions in place since 2019 and it has not produced that effect. Yes, Iran is ripe for social unrest, but the regime is consolidating power under the hardliners rather than taking any risky course of opening up and reform that could foment pro-democratic and pro-western demands for change. With oil revenues flowing in, the regime will be more capable of suppressing domestic opposition. The Americans could not trust the Iranians because they knew that they would ultimately pursue nuclear weapons regardless of any short-term revival of the 2015 deal. The Iranians have a stark choice between North Korea, which achieved nuclear weaponization and now has a powerful guarantee of future regime survival, and countries like Ukraine and Libya, which gave up nuclear weapons or programs only to be invaded by foreign armies. Moreover the Iranian nuclear deal lacked popular support, even among Obama Democrats back in 2015, not to mention today in the wake of the deal’s cancellation. The deal’s provisions would have begun expiring in 2025 under any conditions. The Israelis and Gulf Arabs opposed the deal. The Russians also switched to opposing the deal and made new demands at the last minute as a result of the US sanctions imposed on Russia in the wake of its invasion of Ukraine. The Russians do not have an interest in Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon and they supported the 2015 deal and the 2021-22 renegotiation while demanding their pound of flesh in the form of Ukraine. But they also know that Israel and the US will use military force to prevent Iran from getting the bomb, so they are not compelled to join any agreement. Crippling US sanctions over Ukraine likely caused them to interfere with the deal. Our pessimistic view is now confirmed, with the suspension of talks. True, informal talks will continue, diplomacy could somehow revive, and it is still possible for a deal to come together. But given our fundamental points above, we would give any durable diplomatic solution a low probability, say 5%. That means that the US and Iran will not engage, which means Iran will re-activate its regional militant proxies and begin pursuing nuclear weaponization. Iran has a powerful incentive to increase regime security before the dangerous leadership succession that looms over the nearly 83 year-old Khamenei and the threatening possibility of a Republican’s reelection in 2024. At present, it is unknown which side of the Iran nuclear deal talks suspended them. While the Iranians were not compelled by an international coalition to join the deal as they were in 2015, we cannot ignore the possibility the suspension in talks arises from a deal being reached between the US and core OPEC 2.0 producers (Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Kuwait). Very simply, such a deal would entail that the Arab states increase output, to ease the global shortage, in return for the US walking away from the flawed Iran deal and pledging to work with Israel and the Gulf Arabs to contain Iran. Israel and the Gulf Arabs are increasingly aligned in their goal of countering Iran under the Abraham Accords, negotiated in 2020 by the Trump administration. If the US and Gulf states agreed, then the Gulf states are likely to increase production to ease the global shortage and prolong the business cycle, meaning that oil prices could fall rather than rise as their next move. Either way they will remain volatile as a result of global developments. What Next? Escalation In The Middle East The Iranians have made substantial nuclear progress since 2018, despite Israeli attempts at sabotaging critical facilities. Today Iran stands on the brink of achieving “breakout” levels of highly enriched uranium – levels at which it is possible to construct a nuclear device (Table 1). Table 1Iran Will Reach ‘Breakout’ Nuclear Capability US-Iran Talks Break Down US-Iran Talks Break Down The suspension of talks means the Iranians will soon reach breakout capacity, which will splash across global headlines. This news will rattle global financial markets as it will point to a nuclear arms race in the most volatile of regions. There is a gap of one-to-two years between breakout uranium enrichment and deliverable nuclear weapon, according to most experts.1 However, it is much easier to monitor nuclear programs than missile programs, which means western intelligence will lose visibility when it comes to knowing precisely when Iran will obtain a functional nuclear warhead that it can mount on a ballistic missile. The Iranians are skillful at ballistic missiles. The clock will start ticking once nuclear breakout is achieved and the Israelis and Americans will be forced to respond by underscoring their red line against weaponization. Starting right away, Israel and the US will need to demonstrate publicly that they have a “military option” to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear weaponization. They will refrain from immediate military action but will seek to re-establish a credible threat through shows of force. They will also redouble their efforts to use special operations and cyber attacks to set back the Iranian programs. The Iranians will seek to deter them from attacking and will want to highlight the negative consequences. The US-Iran talks were not only about the nuclear program but also about a broader strategic détente. The Iranians will no longer rein in their regional militant proxies, whether the militias in Iraq or the Houthis in Yemen or Hezbollah in Lebanon. In effect we are now looking at a major escalation of militant attacks in the Middle East at a time when oil is already soaring. In many cases the express intent of the Iran-backed groups will be to threaten oil supply to demonstrate the leverage that they have to intimidate the US and its allies and discourage them from applying too much pressure too quickly. Bottom Line: On top of the current oil shock, we are about to have a higher risk premium injected into oil from Middle Eastern proxy conflict involving Iran. If OPEC does not act quickly to boost production then financial markets face additional commodity price pressures, on top of the existing Russia-induced supply shock. Commodity And Energy Implications Our Commodity & Energy Strategist, Bob Ryan, outlines the following implications for the oil market: In BCA Research's oil supply-demand balances, while we recognized the Geopolitical Strategy view that the US-Iran deal would not materialize, nevertheless we assumed that Iran would return up to 1.3mm b/d of production by 2H22, which would have been available for export markets. This would have given a significant boost to oil supply as the market continues to tighten. Chart 3Failure Of Iran Deal Tights Oil Supply Failure Of Iran Deal Tights Oil Supply Failure Of Iran Deal Tights Oil Supply The failure of these barrels to return to the market will result in an oil-price increase of about $15/bbl in 2023, based on our modeling (Chart 3). We can expect backwardations to increase in Brent and WTI, as demand for precautionary inventories increases. The modelled prices include the oil risk premium of ~USD 9/bbl in H2 2022 and USD 5/bbl in 2023. Relative to 2021, we expect core- OPEC - KSA, UAE and Kuwait – and total US crude supply to increase by 1.7 mmb/d and 0.65 mmb/d respectively in 2022. Compared to 2022, core-OPEC supply will level off in 2023, and will increase by 0.6 mmb/d for total US. If the US has a deal with core OPEC, then, based on the reference production levels agreed by OPEC 2.0 in July 2021, core OPEC’s production capacity could cover a large bit of the volumes markets are short (Table 2). This is due to lower monthly additions of output that was supposed to be returned to markets – now above 1mm b/d – and the lost Iranian output (Table 2). Table 2OPEC 2.0 Reference Production Levels US-Iran Talks Break Down US-Iran Talks Break Down Per the OPEC 2.0 reference production schedule released following the July 2021 meeting in Vienna, Saudi Arabia’s output is free to go to 11.5mm b/d by May, the UAE's to 3.5mm b/d, and Kuwait's to just under 3mm b/d. Iraq also could raise output, but its output is variable and it will lie at the center of the new escalation in military tensions, so we do not count it as core OPEC 2.0 production. Assuming these numbers are consistent with actual capacity for core OPEC 2.0, that means Saudi Arabia could lift production by ~ 1.1mm b/d, UAE by ~ 0.5m b/d, and Kuwait by close to 0.3mm b/d. That’s almost 2mm b/d. These reference-production levels might be on the high side of what core OPEC 2.0 is able or willing to do. But they would be close to covering most of the deficit resulting from less-than-anticipated return of 400k b/d from OPEC 2.0 producers beginning last August ( ~ 1.2mm b/d). Most of Iran’s lost output also would be covered. More than likely, these barrels will find their way to market "under the radar" (i.e., smuggled out of Iran) over the next year or so. This was one reason our geopolitical strategists did not view Iran as sufficiently pressured to sign a deal. US shale-oil output will be increasing above the 0.9 mm b/d that we forecast last month for 2022, and the 0.5mm b/d we expect next year, given the sharp price rally prompted by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy service will be updating our estimate next week when we publish new supply-demand balances and price forecasts. Releases from the Strategic Petroleum Reserves of the US and OECD are available to tide the market over for brief periods due to Middle East shocks or sanctions on Russian oil. Releases from the Strategic Petroleum Reserves of the US and OECD are available to tide the market over for brief periods due to Middle East shocks or sanctions on Russian oil. Over time, a significant share of these displaced Russian barrels will find their way to China, and the volumes being displaced will be re-routed to other Asian and western buyers. Investment Takeaways One of our key geopolitical views for 2022 is that oil producers have enormous strategic leverage, specifically Russia and Iran. The Ukraine war and now the suspension of US-Iran détente bears out this view. It is highly destabilizing for global politics and economy. One of our five black swans for 2022 is that Israel could attack Iran – this is a black swan because it is highly unlikely on such a short time frame. However, if the US-Iran deal cannot be salvaged, then the clock is ticking to a time when Israel and/or the US will have to decide whether to prevent Iran from going nuclear or instead choose containment strategy as with North Korea. Yet the Iran dilemma is less stable than the Korean dilemma because the Israelis are committed to preventing weaponization. The Israelis will not act unilaterally until the last possible moment, when all other options to prevent weaponization are exhausted, as the operation would be extremely difficult and they need American military assistance. If diplomacy fails on Iran, the two options for the future are a major war or a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. The latter would involve an aggressive containment strategy. The global economy faces a major new risk to energy supply as a result of this material increase in Middle East tensions. A stagflationary outcome is much more likely. Europe’s energy security will be far more vulnerable now as it tries to diversify away from Russia but faces a more volatile Middle East (Chart 4). Undoubtedly Russia and Iran recognize their tremendous leverage. China, India, and other resource imports face a larger energy shock if the Gulf Arabs do not boost production promptly. They certainly face greater volatility. China’s policy support for the economy will remain lackluster in an environment in which inflation continues to threaten economic stability. China’s internal stability was already at risk and now it will have to scramble to secure energy supplies amid a global price shock and looming Middle Eastern instability. China has no choice but to accept Russia’s decision to cut ties with the West and lash itself to China as a strategic ally for the foreseeable future (Chart 5). Chart 4The EU’s Two-Pronged Energy Insecurity US-Iran Talks Break Down US-Iran Talks Break Down ​​​​​ Chart 5China's Energy Insecurity China's Energy Insecurity China's Energy Insecurity ​​​​​ Chart 6AGo Long US And Canada / Short Saudi And UAE Go Long US And Canada / Short Saudi And UAE Go Long US And Canada / Short Saudi And UAE ​​​​​ Chart 6BGo Long US And Canada / Short Saudi And UAE Go Long US And Canada / Short Saudi And UAE Go Long US And Canada / Short Saudi And UAE ​​​​​ Geopolitical Strategy recommends investors go long US equities relative to global equities on a strategic basis. We also recommend long US / short UAE equities and long Canadian / short Saudi equities (Charts 6A and 6B). Chart 7Worst Case Oil Risk In Historical Context US-Iran Talks Break Down US-Iran Talks Break Down Unlike Ukraine, the onset of a new Middle East crisis may not come with “shock and awe.” Weeks or months may pass before Iran reaches nuclear breakout. But make no mistake, if diplomacy fails, Iran will ignite a nuclear race and activate its militant proxies, while its enemies will increase sabotage, rattle sabers, and review military options. The Iranians will not be afraid to threaten the Strait of Hormuz, their other nuclear option (Chart 7). A total blockage of Hormuz is not by any means imminent. But war becomes more likely if Iran achieves nuclear breakout and diplomacy continues to fail.   Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      See Ariel Eli Levite, “Can a Credible Nuclear Breakout Time With Iran Be Restored?” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, June 24, 2021, carnegieendowment.org. See also Simon Henderson, “Iranian Nuclear Breakout: What It Is and How to Calculate It,” Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Policy Watch 3457, March 24, 2021, washingtoninstitute.org.   Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix

Highlights Our top five “black swan” risks for 2022: Social unrest in China; Russian invasion of all of Ukraine; unilateral Israeli strikes on Iran; a cyber attack that goes kinetic; and a failure of OPEC 2.0. Too early to buy the dip on Russian assets: President Biden says Putin will probably “move in” and re-invade Ukraine, Russian embassy staff have been evacuating Ukraine, the US and UK have been providing more arms to Ukraine, and the US is warning of a semiconductor embargo against Russia. Talks resume in Geneva on Friday. Tactically investors should take some risk off the table, especially if linked to Russia and Europe.  Stay short the Russian ruble and EM Europe; stay short the Chinese renminbi and Taiwanese dollar; stay long cyber security stocks; and be prepared for oil volatility. Convert tactical long equity trades to relative trades: long large caps versus small caps, long defensives versus cyclicals, and long Japanese industrials versus German industrials. Feature Chart 1Recession Probability And Yield Curve Recession Probability And Yield Curve Recession Probability And Yield Curve The 2/10-year yield curve is flattening and now stands at 79 bps, while the implied probability of a recession over the next 12 months troughed at 5.9% in April 2021, and as of December 2021 stood at 7.7% (Chart 1). Apparently stagflation and recession are too high of a probability to constitute a “black swan” risk for this year. Black swans are not only high impact but also low probability. In this year’s annual “Five Black Swan” report, the last of our 2022 outlook series, we concentrate on impactful but unlikely events. These black swans emerge directly from the existing themes and trends in our research – they are not plucked at random. The key regions are highlighted in Map 1. Chart Black Swan #1: Major Social Unrest Erupts In China China’s financial problems are front and center risks for investors this year. They qualify as a “Gray Rhino” rather than “Black Swan” risk.1 It is entirely probable that China’s financial and property sector distress will negatively impact Chinese and global financial markets in 2022. What investors are not expecting is an eruption of social unrest in China that fouls up the twentieth national party congress this fall and calls into question the Communist Party’s official narrative that it is handling the pandemic and the underlying economic transition smoothly. Social unrest is a major risk around the world in the face of the new bout of inflation. Most of the democracies have already changed governments since the pandemic began, recapitalizing their political systems, but major emerging markets – Russia, India, Turkey, Brazil – have not done so. They have seen steep losses of popular support for both political leaders and ruling parties. There is little opinion polling from China and people who are surveyed cannot speak openly. It is possible that the government’s support has risen given its minimization of deaths from the pandemic. But it is also possible that it has not. Beijing’s policies over the past few years have had a negative impact on the country’s business elite and foreign relations. There are disgruntled factions within China, though the current administration has a tight grip over the main organs of power. Since President Xi is trying to clinch his personal rule this fall, sending China down a path of autocracy that proved disastrous under Chairman Mao Zedong, it is possible he will face surprise resistance. China’s economic growth is decelerating, clocking in at a 4.0% quarter-on-quarter growth rate at the end of last year. While authorities are easing policy to secure the recovery, there is a danger of insufficient support. Private sentiment will remain gloomy, as reflected by weak money velocity and a low propensity to spend among both businesses and households (Chart 2). The government will continue to be repressive in the lead up to the political reshuffle. At least for the first half of the year the economy will remain troubled. Structurally China is ripe for social unrest. It suffers from high income inequality and low social mobility, comparable to the US and Brazil, which are both struggling with political upheaval (Chart 3). Chart 2China's Private Sector Still Depressed China's Private Sector Still Depressed China's Private Sector Still Depressed ​​​​​ Chart 3 ​​​​​​ In addition China is keeping a stranglehold over Covid-19. This “Zero Covid” policy minimizes deaths but suppresses economic activity. Strict policy has also left the population with a very low level of natural immunity and the new Omicron variant is even more contagious than other variants. Hence the regime is highly likely to double down to prevent an explosive outbreak. The service side of the economy will continue to suffer if strict lockdowns are maintained, exacerbating household and business financial difficulties (Chart 4). Yet in other countries around the world, government decisions to return to lockdowns have sparked unrest. Chart 4Zero Covid Policy: Not Sustainable Beyond 2022 Zero Covid Policy: Not Sustainable Beyond 2022 Zero Covid Policy: Not Sustainable Beyond 2022 China’s “Misery Index” (unemployment plus inflation) is rising sharply. While misery is ostensibly lower than that of other emerging markets, China’s unemployment data is widely known to be unreliable. If we take a worst-case scenario, looking at youth unemployment and fuel prices, misery is a lot higher (Chart 5). The youth, who are having the hardest time finding jobs, are also the most likely to protest if conditions become intolerable (Chart 6). Of course, if social unrest is limited to students, it will lack support among the wider populace. But it is inflation, not youth activism, that is the reason for China’s authorities to be concerned, as inflation is a generalized problem that affects workers as well as students. Chart 5China's Misery Index Is Higher Than It Looks China's Misery Index Is Higher Than It Looks China's Misery Index Is Higher Than It Looks ​​​​​ Chart 6China's Troubled Youth China's Troubled Youth China's Troubled Youth Why would protesters stick their necks out knowing that the Communist Party will react ferociously to any sign of instability during President Xi Jinping’s political reshuffle? True, mainland Chinese do not have the propensity to political activism that flared up in protests in Hong Kong in recent years. Also the police state will move rapidly to repress any unrest. Yet the entire focus of Xi Jinping’s administration, since 2012, has been the restoration of political legitimacy and prevention of popular discontent. Xi has cracked down on corruption, pollution, housing prices, education prices, and has announced his “Common Prosperity” agenda to placate the low and middle classes.2 The regime has also cracked down on the media, social media, civil society, and ideological dissent to prevent political opposition from taking root. If the government were not concerned about social instability, it would not have been adopting these policies. Disease, often accompanied by famines or riots, has played a role in the downfall of six out of ten dynasties, so Beijing will not be taking risks for granted (Table 1). Table 1Disease And Downfall Of Chinese Dynasties Five Black Swans For 2022 Five Black Swans For 2022 Social instability would have a major impact as it would affect China’s stability and global investor sentiment toward China. Western democracies would penalize China for violations of human rights, leaving China even more isolated. Bottom Line: Investors should stay short the renminbi and neutral Chinese equities. Foreign investors should steer clear of Chinese bonds in the event of US sanctions. After the party congress this fall there will be an opportunity to reassess whether Xi Jinping will “let a hundred flowers bloom,” thus improving the internal and external political and investment environment, but this is not at all clear today. Black Swan #2: Russia Invades All (Not Just Part) Of Ukraine US-Russia relations are on the verge of total collapse and Russian equities have sold off, in line with our bearish recommendations in reports over the past two years. Russia’s threat of re-invading Ukraine is credible. Western nations are still wishy-washy about the counter-threat of economic sanctions, judging by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s latest comments, and none are claiming they will go to war to defend Ukraine.3 Russia is looking to remove the threat of Ukraine integrating militarily and economically with the West. The US and UK are providing Ukraine with defense weaponry even as Russia specifically demands that they cease to do so. President Putin may choose short-term economic pain for long-term security gain. The consensus view is that if Russia does invade, it will undertake a limited invasion. But what if Russia invades all of Ukraine? To be clear, a full invasion is unlikely because it would be far more difficult and costly for Russia. It would go against Putin’s strategy of calculated risk and limited conflict. Table 2 compares Russia and Ukraine in size and strength, alongside a comparison of the US and Iraq in 2002. This is not a bad comparison given that Ukraine’s and Iraq’s land area and active military personnel are comparable. Table 2Russia-Ukraine Balance Of Power 2022 Compared To US-Iraq 2002 Five Black Swans For 2022 Five Black Swans For 2022 Russia would be biting off a much bigger challenge than the US did. Ukraine’s prime age population is 2.5 times larger than Iraq’s in 2002, and its military expenditure is three times bigger. The US GDP and military spending were 150 and 250 times bigger than Iraq’s, while Russia’s GDP and military spending are about ten times bigger than Ukraine’s today. Iraq was not vital to American national security, whereas Ukraine is vital to Russia; Russia has more at stake and is willing to take greater risks. But Ukraine is in better shape to resist Russian occupation than Iraq was to resist American. The point is that the US invasion went smoothly at first, then got bogged down in insurgency, and ultimately backfired both in political and geopolitical terms. Russia would be undertaking a massive expense of blood and treasure that seems out of proportion with its goal, which is to neutralize Ukraine’s potential to become a western defense ally and host of “military infrastructure.” However, there are drawbacks to partial invasion. The remainder of the Ukrainian state would be unified and mobilized, capable of integrating with the western world, and willing to support a permanent insurgency against Russian troops in eastern Ukraine. Russia has forces in Belarus, Crimea, and the Black Sea, as well as on Ukraine’s eastern border, giving rise to fears that Russia could attempt a three-pronged invasion of the whole country. In short, it is conceivable that Russian leaders could make the Soviet mistake of overreaching in the military aims, or that a war in eastern Ukraine could inadvertently expand into the west. If Russia tries to conquer all of Ukraine, the global impact will be massive. A war of this size on the European continent for the first time since World War II would shake governments and populations to their bones. The borders with Poland, Romania, the Baltic states, Slovakia, Hungary, Finland and the Black Sea area would become militarized (Map 2). Chart NATO actions to secure its members and fortify their borders would exacerbate tensions with Russia and fan fears of a wider war. Trade flows would become subject to commerce destruction, affecting even neutral nations, including in the Black Sea. Energy supplies would tighten further, sending Russia and probably Europe into recession. The disruption to business and travel across eastern Europe would be deep and lasting, not only due to sanctions but also due to a deep risk-aversion that would affect foreign investors in the former Soviet Union and former Warsaw Pact. Germany would be forced to quit sitting on the fence, as it would be pressured by the US and the rest of Europe to stand shoulder to shoulder in the face of such aggression. Finland and Sweden would be much more likely to join NATO, exacerbating Russia’s security fears. Russia would suffer a drastic loss of trade, resulting in recession, and its currency collapse would feed inflation (Chart 7). Chart 7Inflation Poses Long-Term Threat To Putin Regime Inflation Poses Long-Term Threat To Putin Regime Inflation Poses Long-Term Threat To Putin Regime Ultimately the consequences would be negative for the Putin regime and Russia as a result of recession and international isolation. But in the short run the Russian people would rally around the flag and support a war designed to prevent NATO from stationing missiles on their doorstep. And their isolation would not be total, as they would strengthen ties with China and conduct trade via proxy states in the former Soviet Union. Bottom Line: A full-scale invasion of all of Ukraine is highly unlikely because it would be so costly for Russia in military, economic, and political terms. But the probability is not zero, especially because a partial re-invasion could lead to a larger war. While global investors would react in a moderate risk-off matter to a limited war in eastern Ukraine, a full-scale war would trigger a massive global flight to safety as it would call into question the entire post-WWII peace regime in Europe. Black Swan #3: Israel Attacks Iran The “bull market in Iran tensions” continues as there is not yet a replacement for the 2015 nuclear deal that the US abrogated. Our 2022 forecast that the UAE would get caught in the crossfire was confirmed on January 17 when Iran-backed Houthi rebels expanded their range of operations and struck Abu Dhabi (Map 3). The secret war is escalating and US-led diplomacy is faltering. Chart Iran is not going to give up its nuclear program. North Korea achieved nuclear arms and greater military security and is now developing first and second strike capabilities. Meanwhile Ukraine, which faces another Russian invasion, exemplifies what happens to regimes that give up nuclear arms (as do Libya and Iraq). Iran appears to be choosing the North Korean route. While we cannot rule out a minor agreement between President Biden and Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, we can rule out a substantial deal that halts Iran’s nuclear and missile progress. Here’s why: Any day now Iran could reach nuclear “breakout capacity,” with enough highly enriched uranium to construct a nuclear device (Table 3).4 Table 3Iran’s Violations Of 2015 Nuclear Deal Since US Exit Five Black Swans For 2022 Five Black Swans For 2022 Within Iran’s government, the foreign policy doves have been humiliated and kicked out of office while the hawks are fully in control. No meaningful agreement can be reached before 2024 because of the risk that the US will change ruling parties again and renege on any promises. Iran is highly incentivized to make rapid progress on its nuclear program now. The US will not be able to lead the P5+1 coalition to force Iran to halt its program because of its ongoing struggles with Russia and China. China is striking long-term cooperation deals with Iran. Israel has a well-established record of taking unilateral action, specifically against regional nuclear programs, known as the “Begin Doctrine.”5 Israel’s threats are credible on this front, although Iran is a much greater operational challenge than Iraq or Syria. Iran’s timeline from nuclear breakout to deliverable nuclear weapon is 12-24 months.6 Iran’s missile program is advanced. Missile programs cannot be monitored as easily as nuclear activity, so foreign powers base the threshold on nuclear capability rather than missile capability. Iran had a strong incentive to move slowly on its nuclear and missile programs in earlier years, to prevent US and Israeli military interference. But as it approaches breakout capacity it has an incentive to accelerate its tempo to a mad dash to achieve nuclear weaponization before the US or Israel can stop it. Now that time may have come. The Biden administration is afraid of higher oil prices and Israeli domestic politics are more divided and risk-averse than before. And yet Iran’s window might close in 2025, as the US could turn aggressive again depending on the outcome of the 2024 election. Hence Iran has an incentive to make its dash now. The US and Israel will restate their red lines against Iranian nuclear weaponization and brandish their military options this year. But the Biden administration will be risk-averse since it does not want to instigate an oil shock in an election year. Israel is more likely than the US to react quickly and forcefully since it is in greatest danger if Iran surprises the world with rapid weaponization. Here are the known constraints on unilateral Israeli military action: Limited Israeli military capability: Israel would have to commit a large number of aircraft, leaving its home front exposed, and even with US “bunker buster” bombs it may not penetrate the underground Fordow nuclear facility.7 Limited Israeli domestic support: The Israeli public is divided on whether to attack Iran. The post-Netanyahu government recently came around to endorsing the US’s attempt to renegotiate the nuclear deal. Limited US support: Washington opposes Israeli unilateralism that could entangle the US into a war. Israel cannot afford to alienate the US, which is its primary security guarantor. Iranian instability: The Iranian regime is under economic distress due to “maximum pressure” sanctions. It is vulnerable to social unrest, not least because of its large youth population. These constraints have been vitiated in various ways, which is why we raise this Israeli unilateralism as a black swan risk: Where there’s a will, there’s a way: If Israel believes its existence will be threatened, it will be willing to take much greater operational risks. It has already shown some ability to set back Iran's centrifuge program beyond the expected.8 Israeli opinion will harden if Iran breaks out: If Iran reaches nuclear breakout or tests a nuclear device, Israeli opinion will harden in favor of military strikes. Prime Minister Naftali Bennett has an incentive to take hawkish actions before he hands the reins of government over to a partner in his ruling coalition as part of a power-sharing agreement. The ruling coalition is so weak that a collapse cannot be ruled out. US opposition could weaken: Biden will have to explore military options if talks fail and Iran reaches nuclear breakout capacity. Once the midterms are over, Israel may have even more freedom to act, while a gridlocked Biden may be looking to shift his focus to foreign policy. Iranian stability: Iran’s social instability has not resulted in massive unrest or regime fracture despite years of western sanctions and a global recession/pandemic. Yet now energy prices are rising and Iran has less reason to believe sanction regimes will be watertight. From Israeli’s point of view, even regime change in Iran would not remove the nuclear threat once nuclear weapons are obtained. Finally, while Israel cannot guarantee that military strikes would successfully cripple Iran’s nuclear program and prevent weaponization, Israel cannot afford not to try. It would be a worse outcome to stand idly by while Iran gets a nuclear weapon than to attack and fail to set that program back. Hence the likeliest outcome over the long run is that Iran pursues a nuclear weapon and Israel attacks to try to stop it, even if that attack is likely to fail (Diagram 1). Diagram 1Game Theory: Will Israel Attack Iran? Five Black Swans For 2022 Five Black Swans For 2022 Bottom Line: A unilateral Israeli strike is unlikely but would have a massive impact, as 21% of global oil and 26% of natural gas flows through the Strait of Hormuz, and conflict could disrupt regional energy production and/or block passage through the strait itself. Black Swan #4: Cyber Attacks Spill Into Real World Investors are very aware of cyber security risks – it holds a respectable though not commanding position in the ranks of likely crisis events (Table 4). Our concern is that a cyber attack could spill over into the real world, impairing critical infrastructure, supply chains, and/or prompting military retaliation. Table 4Cyber Events Underrated In Consensus View Of Global Risks Five Black Swans For 2022 Five Black Swans For 2022 Russian attacks on US critical infrastructure by means of ransomware gangs disrupted a US fuel pipeline, meat-packing plant, and other critical infrastructure in 2021. Since then the two countries have engaged in negotiations over cyber security. The Russian Federal Security Bureau has cracked down on one of the most prominent gangs, REvil, in a sign that the US and Russia are still negotiating despite the showdown over Ukraine.9 Yet a re-invasion of Ukraine would shatter any hope of cooperation in the cyber realm or elsewhere. Russia is already using cyberattacks against Ukraine and these activities could expand to Ukraine’s partners if the military conflict expands. Should the US and EU impose sweeping sanctions that damage Russia’s economy, Russia could retaliate, not only by tightening energy supply but also by cyber attacks. Any NATO partners or allies would be vulnerable, though some states will be more reactive than others. Interference in the French election, for example, would be incendiary. The key question is: if Russia strikes NATO states with damaging cyber attacks, at what point would it trigger Article V, the mutual defense clause? There are no established codes of conduct or red lines in cyber space, so the world will have to learn each nation’s limits via confrontation and retaliation. Similar cyber risks could emerge from other conflicts. China is probably not ready to invade Taiwan but it has an interest in imposing economic costs on the island ahead of this fall’s midterm elections. Taiwan’s critical role in the semiconductor supply chain means that disruptions to production would have a global impact. Israel and the US have already used cyber capabilities to attack Iran and set back its nuclear program. These capabilities will be necessary as Iran approaches breakout capacity. Yet Iran could retaliate in a way that disrupts oil supplies. North Korea began a new cycle of provocations last September, accelerated missile tests over the past four months, and is dissatisfied with the unfinished diplomatic business of the Trump administration. In the wake of the last global crisis, 2010, it staged multiple military attacks against South Korea. South Korea may be vulnerable due to its presidential elections in May. The semiconductor or electronics supply chain could be interrupted here as well as in Taiwan. Bottom Line: There is no code of conduct in cyber space. As geopolitical tensions rise, and nations test the limits of their cyber capabilities, there is potential for critical infrastructure to be impaired. This could exacerbate supply chain kinks or provoke kinetic responses from victim nations. Black Swan #5: OPEC 2.0 Falls Apart The basis of the OPEC 2.0 cartel is Russian cooperation with Saudi Arabia to control oil supply and manage the forward price curve. Backwardation, when short-term prices are higher than long-term, is ideal for these countries since they fear that long-term prices will fall. In a world where Moscow and Riyadh both face competition from US shale producers as well as the green energy revolution, cooperation makes sense. Yet the two sides do not trust each other. Cooperation broke down both in 2014 and 2020, sending oil prices plunging. Falling global demand ignited a scramble for market share. Interestingly, Russian military invasions have signaled peak oil price in 1979, 2008, and 2014. Russia, like other petro-states, has greater room for maneuver when oil revenues are pouring in. But high prices also incentivize production, disincentivize cartel discipline, and trigger reductions in global demand (Chart 8). Chart 8Russian Invasions And Oil Price Crashes Russian Invasions And Oil Price Crashes Russian Invasions And Oil Price Crashes Broadly speaking, Saudi oil production rose modestly during times of Russian military adventures, while overall OPEC production was flat or down, and Russian/Soviet production went up (Chart 9). Chart 9Saudi And OPEC Oil Production During Russian Military Adventures Saudi And OPEC Oil Production During Russian Military Adventures Saudi And OPEC Oil Production During Russian Military Adventures Since 2020, we have held that OPEC 2.0 would continue operating but that the biggest risk would come in the form of a renewed US-Iran nuclear deal that freed up Iranian oil exports. In 2014, the Saudis increased production in the face of the US shale threat as well as the Iranian threat. This scenario is still possible in 2022 but it has become a low-probability outcome. Even aside from the Iran dynamic, there is some probability that Russo-Saudi cooperation breaks down as global growth decelerates and new oil supply comes online. Bottom Line: The world’s inflation expectations are elevated and closely linked to oil prices. Yet oil prices hinge on an uneasy political agreement between Russia and Saudi Arabia that has fallen apart twice before. If Russia invades Ukraine, or if US withdraws sanctions on Iran, for example, then Saudi Arabia could make a bid to expand its market share and trigger price declines in the process. Two Bonus Black Swans: Turkey And Venezuela Turkey lashes out: Our Turkish Political Capital Index shows deterioration for President Recep Erdogan’s political capital across a range of variables (Table 5). With geopolitical pressures increasing, and domestic politics heating up ahead of the 2023 elections, Erdogan’s behavior will become even more erratic. His foreign policy could become aggressive, keeping the lira under pressure and/or weighing on European assets. Table 5Turkey: Erdogan’s Political Capital Wearing Thin Five Black Swans For 2022 Five Black Swans For 2022 Venezuela’s Maduro falls from power: Venezuelan regime changes often follow from military coups. These coups do not only happen when oil prices collapse – sometimes the army officers wait to be sure prices have recovered. Coup-throwers want strong oil revenues to support their new rule. An unexpected change of regimes would affect the oil market due to this country’s giant reserves. Bottom Line: Turkey’s political instability could result in foreign aggression, while Venezuela’s regime could collapse despite the oil price recovery. Investment Takeaways We are booking profits on our tactical long trades on large caps and defensive sectors. We will convert these to relative trades: long large caps over small caps, and long defensives over cyclicals. We also recommend converting our tactical long Japan trade into long Japanese industrials / short German industrials equities. If US-Russia diplomacy averts a war we will reconsider.     Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      “Gray Rhino” is a term coined by author Michele Wucker to describe large and probable risks that people neglect or avoid. For more, see thegrayrhino.com. 2     Xi Jinping recently characterized the “common prosperity” agenda as follows: “China has made it clear that we strive for more visible and substantive progress in the well-rounded development of individuals and the common prosperity of the entire population. We are working hard on all fronts to deliver this goal. The common prosperity we desire is not egalitarianism. To use an analogy, we will first make the pie bigger, and then divide it properly through reasonable institutional arrangements. As a rising tide lifts all boats, everyone will get a fair share from development, and development gains will benefit all our people in a more substantial and equitable way.” See World Economic Forum, “President Xi Jinping’s message to The Davos Agenda in full,” January 17, 2022, weforum.org. 3     Chancellor Scholz, when asked whether Germany would avoid using the Nord Stream II pipeline if Russia re-invaded Ukraine, said, "it is clear that there will be a high cost and that all this will have to be discussed if there is a military intervention against Ukraine.” He was speaking with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg. See Hans Von Der Burchard, “Scholz: Germany will discuss Nord Stream 2 penalties if Russia attacks Ukraine,” Politico, January 18, 2022, politico.eu. 4     For the Begin Doctrine, see Meir Y. Soloveichik, “The Miracle of Osirak,” Commentary, April 2021, commentary.org. 5     The estimate of 12-24 months to mount a nuclear warhead on a missile has been cited by various credible sources, including David Albright and Sarah Burkhard, “Highlights of Iran’s Perilous Pursuit of Nuclear Weapons,” Institute for Science and International Security, August 24, 2021, isis-online.org, and Eric Brewer and Nicholas L. Miller, “A Redline for Iran?” Foreign Affairs, December 23, 2021, foreignaffairs.com. 6     See Edieal J. Pinker, Joseph Szmerekovsky, and Vera Tilson, “Technical Note – Managing a Secret Project,” Operations Research, February 5, 2013, pubsonline.informs.org, as well as “What Can Game Theory Tell Us About Iran’s Nuclear Intentions?” Yale Insights, March 17, 2015, insights.som.yale.edu.  7     See Josef Joffe, “Increasingly Isolated, Israel Must Rely On Nuclear Deterrence,” Strategika 35 (September 2016), Hoover Institution, hoover.org. 8     The sabotage of the Iran Centrifuge Assembly Center at the Natanz nuclear facility in July 2020 “set back Iran’s centrifuge program significantly and continues to do so,” according to David Albright, Sarah Burkhard, and John Hannah, “Iran’s Natanz Tunnel Complex: Deeper, Larger Than Expected,” Institute for Science and International Security, January 13, 2022, isis-online.org. For a recent positive case regarding Israel’s capabilities, see Mitchell Bard, “Military Options Against Iran,” Jewish Virtual Library, American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, January 2022, jewishvirtuallibrary.org.  9     For the FSB and REvil, see Chris Galford, “Russian FSB arrests members of REvil ransomware gang following attacks on U.S. infrastructure,” Homeland Preparedness News, January 18, 2022, homelandprepnews.com. For the Colonial Pipeline and JBS attacks, and other ransomware attacks, see Jonathan W. Welburn and Quentin E. Hodgson, “How the United States Can Deter Ransomware Attacks,” RAND Blog, August 9, 2021, rand.org. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)

Highlights Short-term inflation risk will escalate further if politics causes new supply disruptions. Long-term inflation risk is significant as well. There is a distinct risk of a geopolitical crisis in the Middle East that would push up energy prices: the US’s unfinished business with Iran. The primary disinflationary risk is China’s property sector distress. However, Beijing will strive to maintain stability prior to the twentieth national party congress in fall 2022. South Asian geopolitical risks are rising. The Indo-Pakistani ceasefire is likely to break down, while Afghani terrorism will rebound. Book gains on our emerging market currency short targeting “strongman” regimes. Feature Chart 1 Investors are underrating the risk of a global oil shock. This was our geopolitical takeaway from the BCA Conference this year. Investors are focused on the risk of inflation and stagflation, always with reference to the 1970s. The sharp increase in energy prices due to the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973 and the Iranian Revolution of 1979 are universally cited as aggravating factors of stagflation at that time. But these events are also given as critical differences between the situation in the 1970s and today. Unfortunately, there could be similarities. From a strictly geopolitical perspective, the risk of a conflict in the Middle East is significant both in the near term and over the coming year or so. The risk stems from the US’s unfinished business with Iran. More broadly, any supply disruption would have an outsized impact as global energy inventories decline. OPEC’s spare capacity at present can cover a 5 million barrel shock (Chart 1). In this week’s report we also provide tactical updates on China, Russia, and India. Geopolitics And The 1970s Inflation Chart 2Wage-Price Spiral, Stagflation In 1970s Wage-Price Spiral, Stagflation In 1970s Wage-Price Spiral, Stagflation In 1970s Fundamentally the stagflation of the 1970s occurred because global policymakers engendered a spiral of higher wages and higher prices. The wage-price spiral was exacerbated by a falling dollar, after President Nixon abandoned the gold standard, and a commodity price surge (Chart 2). Monetary policy clearly played a role. It was too easy for too long, with broad money supply consistently rising relative to nominal GDP (Chart 3). Central banks including the Federal Reserve were focused exclusively on employment. Policymakers saw the primary risk to the institution’s credibility as recession and unemployment, not inflation. Fear of the Great Depression lurked under the surface. Fiscal policy also played a role. The size of the US budget deficit at this time is often exaggerated but there is no question that they were growing and contributed to the bout of inflation and spike in bond yields (Chart 4). The reason was not only President Johnson’s large social spending program, known as the “Great Society.” It was also Johnson’s war – the Vietnam war. Chart 3Central Banks Focused On Employment, Not Prices, In 1970s Central Banks Focused On Employment, Not Prices, In 1970s Central Banks Focused On Employment, Not Prices, In 1970s On top of this heady mix of inflationary variables came geopolitics. The Yom Kippur war in 1973 prompted Arab states to impose an embargo on Israel’s supporters in the West. The Arab embargo cut off 8% of global oil demand at the time. Oil prices skyrocketed, precipitating a deep recession (Chart 5). Chart 4Johnson's 'Great Society' And Vietnam War Spending Johnson's 'Great Society' And Vietnam War Spending Johnson's 'Great Society' And Vietnam War Spending The embargo came to a halt in spring of 1974 after Israeli forces withdrew to the east of the Suez Canal. The oil shock exacerbated the underlying inflationary wave that continued throughout the decade. The Iranian revolution triggered another oil shock in 1979, bringing the rise in general prices to their peak in the early 1980s, at which point policymakers intervened decisively. Chart 5Arab Oil Embargo And Iranian Revolution Arab Oil Embargo And Iranian Revolution Arab Oil Embargo And Iranian Revolution There is an analogy with today’s global policy mix. Fear of the Great Recession and deflation rules within policymaking circles, albeit less so among the general public. The Fed and the European Central Bank have adjusted their strategies to pursue an average inflation target and “maximum employment.” Chart 6Wage-Price Spiral Today? Wage-Price Spiral Today? Wage-Price Spiral Today? ​​​​​​ The Biden administration is reviving big government with a framework agreement of around $1.2 trillion in new deficit spending on infrastructure, green energy, and social programs likely to pass Congress before year’s end. In short, the macro and policy backdrop are changing in a way that is reminiscent of the 1970s despite various structural differences between the two periods. It is too early to declare that a wage-price spiral has developed but core inflation is rising and investors are right to be concerned about the direction and potential for inflation surprises down the road (Chart 6). These trends would not be nearly as concerning if they were not occurring in the context of a shift in public opinion in favor of government versus markets, labor versus capital, onshoring versus offshoring, and protectionism versus free trade. Investors should note that the last policy sea change (in the opposite direction) lasted roughly 30-40 years. The global savings glut – shown here as the combined current account balances of the world’s major economies – has begun to decline, implying that a major deflationary force might be subsiding. Asian exporters apparently have substantial pricing power, as witnessed by rising export prices, although they have yet to break above the secular downtrend of the post-2008 period (Chart 7). Chart 7Hypo-Globalization Is Inflationary Hypo-Globalization Is Inflationary Hypo-Globalization Is Inflationary A commodity price surge is also underway, of course, though it is so far manageable. The US and EU economies are less energy-intensive than in the 1970s and there is considerable buffer between today’s high prices and an economic recession (Chart 8). Chart 8Wage-Price Spiral Today? Wage-Price Spiral Today? Wage-Price Spiral Today? The problem is that there is a diminishing margin of safety. Furthermore, a crisis in the Middle East is not far-fetched, as there is a concrete and distinct reason for worrying about one: the US’s unresolved collision course with Iran. A crisis in the Persian Gulf would greatly exacerbate today’s energy shortages. Iran: The Risk Of An Oil Shock Iran now says it will rejoin diplomatic talks over its nuclear program in late November. This development was expected, and is important, but it masks the urgent and dangerous trajectory of events that could blow up any day now. It is emphatically not an “all clear” sign for geopolitical risk in the Persian Gulf. The US is hinting, merely hinting, that it is willing to use military force to prevent Iran from going nuclear. The Iranians doubt US appetite for war and have every reason to think that nuclear status will guarantee them regime survival. Thus the Iranians are incentivized to use diplomacy as a screen while pursuing nuclear weaponization – unless the US and Israel make a convincing display of military strength to force Iran back to genuine diplomacy. A convincing display is hard to do. A secret war is taking place, of sabotage and cyber-attacks. On October 26 a cyber-attack disrupted Iranian gas stations. But even attacks on nuclear scientists and facilities have not dissuaded the Iranians from making progress on their nuclear program yet. Iran does not want to be attacked but it knows that a ground invasion is virtually impossible and air strikes alone have a poor record of winning wars. The Iranians have achieved 60% highly enriched uranium and are expected to achieve nuclear breakout capacity – the ability to make a nuclear device – sometime between now and December (Table 1). The IAEA no longer has any visibility in Iran. The regime’s verified production of uranium metal can only be used for the construction of a warhead. Recent technical progress may be irreversible, according to the Institute for Science and International Security.1 If that is true then the upcoming round of diplomatic negotiations is already doomed. Table 1Iran’s Compliance With Nuclear Deal And Time Until Breakout (Oct 2021) Bad Time For An Oil Shock! (GeoRisk Update) Bad Time For An Oil Shock! (GeoRisk Update) American policymakers seem overconfident in the face of this clear nuclear proliferation risk. This is strange given that North Korea successfully manipulated them over the past three decades and now has an arsenal of 40-50 nuclear weapons. The consensus goes as follows: Regime instability: Americans emphasize that the Iranian regime is unstable, lacks genuine support, and faces a large and restive youth population. This is all true. Indeed Iran is one of the most likely candidates for major regime instability in the wake of the COVID-19 shock. Chart 9AIran's Economy Sees Inflation Spike ... Iran's Economy Sees Inflation Spike ... Iran's Economy Sees Inflation Spike ... ​​​​​​ Chart 9B... Yet Some Green Shoots Are Rising ... Yet Some Green Shoots Are Rising ... Yet Some Green Shoots Are Rising However, popular protest has not had any effect on the regime over the past 12 years. Today the economy is improving and illicit oil revenues are rising (Chart 9). A new nationalist government is in charge that has far greater support than the discredited reformist faction that failed on both the economic and foreign policy fronts (Chart 10). The sophisticated idea that achieving nuclear breakout will somehow weaken the regime is wishful thinking.  If it provokes US and/or Israeli air strikes, it will most likely see the people rally around the flag and convince the next generation to adopt the revolutionary cause.2 If it does not provoke a war, then the regime’s strategic wisdom will be confirmed. American military and economic superiority: Americans tend to think that Iran will back down in the face of the US’s and Israel’s overwhelming military and economic superiority. It is true that a massive show of force – combined with the sale of specialized weaponry to Israel to enable a successful strike against extremely hardened nuclear facilities – could force Iran to pause its nuclear quest and go back to negotiations. Yet the US’s awesome display of military power in both Iraq and Afghanistan ended in ignominy and have not deterred Iran, just next door, after 20 years. Nor have American economic sanctions, including “maximum pressure” sanctions since 2019. The US is starkly divided, very few people view Iran as a major threat, and there is an aversion to wars in the Middle East (Chart 11). The Iranians could be forgiven for doubting that the US has the appetite to enforce its demands. Chart 10 ​​​​​​ Chart 11 ​​​​​​ In short the US is attempting to turn its strategic focus to China and Asia Pacific, which creates a power vacuum in the Middle East that Iran may attempt to fill. Meanwhile global supply and demand balances for energy are tight, with shortages popping up around the world, giving Iran greater leverage. From an investment point of view, a crisis is likely in the near term regardless of what happens afterwards. A crisis is necessary to force the US and Iran to return to a durable nuclear deal like in 2015. Otherwise Iran will reach nuclear breakout and an even bigger crisis will erupt, potentially forcing the US and Israel (or Israel alone) to take military action. Diplomatic efforts will need to have some quick and substantial victories in the coming months to convince us that the countries have moved off their collision course. A conflict with Iran will not necessarily go to the extreme of Iran shutting down the Strait of Hormuz and cutting off 21% of the world’s oil and 26% of liquefied natural gas (Chart 12). If that happens a global recession is unavoidable. It would more likely involve lesser conflicts, at least initially, such as “Tanker War 2.0” in the Persian Gulf.3 Or it could involve a flare-up of the ongoing proxy war by missile and drone strikes, such as with the Abqaiq attack in 2019 that knocked 5.7 million barrels per day offline overnight. The impact on oil markets will depend on the nature and magnitude of the event. Chart 12 What are the odds of a military conflict? In past reports we have demonstrated that there is a 40% chance of conflict with Iran. The country’s nuclear program is at a critical juncture. The longer the world goes without a diplomatic track to defuse tensions, the more investors should brace for negative surprises. Bottom Line: There is a clear and present danger of a geopolitical oil shock. The implication is that oil and LNG prices could spike in the coming zero-to-12 months. The implication would be a dramatic “up then down” movement in global energy prices. Inflation expectations should benefit from simmering tensions but a full-blown war would cause an extreme price spike and global recession. China: The Return Of The Authoritative Person Another reason that today’s inflation risk could last longer than expected is that China’s government is likely to backpedal from overtightening monetary, fiscal, and regulatory policy. If this is true then China will secure its economic recovery, the global recovery will continue, commodity prices will stay elevated, and the inflation expectations and bond yields will recover. If it is not true then investors will start talking about disinflation and deflation again soon. We are not bullish on Chinese assets – far from it. We see China entering a property-induced debt-deflation crisis over the long run. But over the 2021-22 period we have argued that China would pull back from the brink of overtightening. Our GeoRisk Indicator for China highlights how policy risk remains elevated (see Appendix). So far our assessment appears largely accurate. The government has quietly intervened to prevent the troubled developer Evergrande from suffering a Lehman-style collapse. The long-delayed imposition of a nationwide property tax is once again being diluted into a few regional trial balloons. Alibaba founder Jack Ma, whom the government disappeared last year, has reappeared in public view, which implies that Beijing recognizes that its crackdown on Big Tech could cause long-term damage to innovation. At this critical juncture, a mysterious “authoritative” commentator has returned to the scene after five years of silence. Widely believed to be Vice Premier Liu He, a Politburo member and Xi Jinping confidante on economic affairs, the authoritative person argues in a recent editorial that China will stick with its current economic policies.4 However, the message was not entirely hawkish. Table 2 highlights the key arguments – China is not oblivious to the risk of a policy mistake. Table 2Messages From China’s ‘Authoritative Person’ On Economic Policy (2021) Bad Time For An Oil Shock! (GeoRisk Update) Bad Time For An Oil Shock! (GeoRisk Update) Readers will recall that a similar “authoritative Person” first appeared in the People’s Daily in May 2016. At that time, the Chinese government had just relented in the face of economic instability and stimulated the economy. It saw a 3.5% of GDP increase in fiscal spending and a 10.0% of GDP increase in the credit impulse from the trough in 2015 to the peak in 2016. The authoritative person was explaining that the intention to reform would persist despite the relapse into debt-fueled growth. So one must wonder today whether the authoritative person is emerging because Beijing is sticking to its guns (consensus view) or rather because it is gradually being forced to relax policy by the manifest risk of financial instability. To be fair, a recent announcement on government special purpose bonds does not indicate major fiscal easing. If local governments accelerate their issuance of new special purpose bonds to meet their quota for the year then they are still not dramatically increasing the fiscal support for the economy. But this announcement could protect against downside growth risks. The first quarter of 2022 will be the true test of whether China will remain hawkish. Going forward there are two significant dangers as we see it. The first is that policymakers prove ideological rather than pragmatic. An autocratic government could get so wrapped up in its populist campaign to restrain high housing costs that it refuses to slacken policies enough and causes a crash. The second danger is that inflation stays higher for longer, preventing authorities from easing policy even when they know they need to do so to stabilize growth. The second danger is the bigger of the two risks. As for the first risk, ideology will take a backseat to necessity. Xi Jinping needs to secure key promotions for his faction in the top positions of the Communist Party at the twentieth national party congress in 2022. He cannot be sure to succeed if the economy is in free fall. A self-induced crash would be a very peculiar way of trying to solidify one’s stature as leader for life at the critical hour. Similarly China cannot maintain a long-term great power competition with the United States if it deliberately triggers property deflation and financial turmoil. It can and will continue modernizing and upgrading its military, e.g. developing hypersonic missiles, even if it faces financial turmoil. But it will have a much greater chance of neutralizing US regional allies and creating a regional buffer space if its economic growth is stable. Ultimately China cannot prevent financial instability, economic distress, and political risk from rising in the coming years. There will be a reckoning for its vast imbalances, as with all countries. It could be that this reckoning will upset the Xi administration’s best-laid plans for 2022. But before that happens we expect policy to ease. A policy mistake today would mean that very negative economic outcomes will arrive precisely in time to affect sociopolitical stability ahead of the party congress next fall. We will keep betting against that. Bottom Line: China’s “authoritative” media commentator shows that policymakers are not as hawkish as the consensus holds. The main takeaway is that policymakers will adjust the intensity of their reform efforts to maintain stability. This is standard Chinese policymaking and it is more important than usual ahead of the political rotation in 2022. Otherwise global inflation risk will quickly give way to deflation risk as defaults among China’s property developers spread and morph into broader financial and economic instability. Indo-Pakistani Ceasefire: A Breakdown Is Nigh India and Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire along the line of control in February 2021. While the agreement has held up so far, a breakdown is probably around the corner. It was never likely to last for long. Over the short run, the ceasefire made sense for both countries: COVID-19 Risks: The first wave of the pandemic had abated but COVID-19-related risks loomed large. India had administered less than 15 million vaccine doses back then and Pakistan only 100,000. Dangerous Transitions Were Underway: With America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan in the works, Pakistan was fully focused on its western border. India was pre-occupied with its eastern front, where skirmishes with Chinese troops forced it to redirect some of its military focus. As we now head towards the end of 2021, these constraints are no longer binding. COVID-19 Risks Under Control: The vaccination campaign in India and Pakistan has gathered pace. More than 50% of India’s population and 30% of Pakistan’s have been given at least one dose. Pakistan’s Ducks Are Lined-up In Afghanistan: America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan has been completed. Afghanistan is under Taliban’s control and Pakistan has a better hold over the affairs of its western neighbor. One constraint remains: India and China remain embroiled in border disputes. Conciliatory talks between their military commanders broke down a fortnight ago. Winter makes it nearly impossible to undertake significant operations in the Himalayas but a failure of coordination today could set up a conflict either immediately or in the spring. While India may see greater value in maintaining the ceasefire than Pakistan, India has elections due in key northern states in 2022. India’s northern states harbor even less favorable views of Pakistan than the rest of India. Hence any small event could trigger a disproportionate response from India. Bottom Line: While it is impossible to predict the timing, a breakdown in the Indo-Pakistani ceasefire may materialize in 2022 or sooner. Depending on the exact nature of any conflict, a geopolitically induced selloff in Indian equities could create a much-needed consolidation of this year’s rally and ultimately a buying opportunity. Russia, Global Terrorism, And Great Power Relations Part of Putin’s strategy of rebuilding the Russian empire involves ensuring that Russia has a seat at the table for every major negotiation in Eurasia. Now that the US has withdrawn forces from Afghanistan, Russia is pursuing a greater role there. Most recently Russia hosted delegations from China, Pakistan, India, and the Taliban. India too is planning to host a national security advisor-level conference next month to discuss the Afghanistan situation. Do these conferences matter for global investors? Not directly. But regional developments can give insight into the strategies of the great powers in a world that is witnessing a secular rise in geopolitical risk. Chart 13 China, Russia, and India have skin in the game when it comes to Afghanistan’s future. This is because all three powers have much to lose if Afghanistan becomes a large-scale incubator for terrorists who can infiltrate Russia through Central Asia, China through Xinjiang, or India through Pakistan. Hence all three regional powers will be constrained to stay involved in the affairs of Afghanistan. Terrorism-related risks in South Asia have been capped over the last decade due to the American war (Chart 13). The US withdrawal will lead to the activation of latent terrorist activity. This poses risks specifically for India, which has a history of being targeted by Afghani terrorist groups. And yet, while China and Russia saw the Afghan vacuum coming and have been engaging with Taliban from the get-go, India only recently began engaging with Taliban. The evolution of Afghanistan under the Taliban will also influence the risk of terrorism for the rest of the world. In the wake of the global pandemic and recession, social misery and regime failures in areas with large youth populations will continue to combine with modern communications technology to create a revival of terrorist threats (Chart 14). Chart 14 American officials recently warned of the potential for transnational attacks based in Afghanistan to strike the homeland within six months. That risk may be exaggerated today but it is real over the long run, especially as US intelligence turns its strategic focus toward states and away from non-state actors. India, Europe, and other targets are probably even more vulnerable than the United States. If Russia and China succeed in shaping the new Afghanistan’s leadership then the focus of militant proxies will be directed elsewhere. Beyond terrorism, if Russia and China coordinate closely over Afghanistan then India may be left in the cold. This would reinforce recent trends in which a tightening Russo-Chinese partnership hastens India’s shift away from neutrality and toward favoring the US and the West in strategic matters. If these trends continue to the point of alliance formation, then they increase the risk that any conflicts between two powers will implicate others. Bottom Line: Afghanistan is now a regional barometer of multilateral cooperation on counterterrorism, the exclusivity of Russo-Chinese cooperation, and India’s strategic isolation or alignment with the West. Investment Takeaways It is too soon to play down inflation risks. We share the BCA House View that they will subside next year as pandemic effects wane. But we also see clear near-term risks to this view. In the short run (zero to 12 months), a distinct risk of a Middle Eastern geopolitical crisis looms. A gradual escalation of tensions is inflationary whereas a sharp spike in conflict would push energy prices into punitive territory and kill global demand. Over the next 12 months, China’s economic and financial instability will also elicit policy easing or fiscal stimulus as necessary to preserve stability, as highlighted by the regime’s mouthpiece. Obviously stimulus will not be utilized if the economic recovery is stable, given elevated producer prices. In a future report we will show that Russia is willing and able to manipulate natural gas prices to increase its bargaining leverage over Europe. This dynamic, combined with the risk of cold winter weather exacerbating shortages, suggests that the worst is not yet over. Geopolitical conflict with Russia will resume over the long run. Stay long gold as a hedge against both inflation and geopolitical crises involving Iran, Taiwan/China, and Russia. Maintain “value” plays as a cheap hedge against inflation. Book a profit of 2.5% on our short trade for currencies of emerging market “strongmen,” Turkey, Brazil, and the Philippines. Our view is still negative on these economies. Stay long cyber-security stocks. Over the long run, inflation risk must be monitored. We expect significant inflation risk to persist as a result of a generational change in global policy in favor of government and labor over business and capital. But the US is maintaining easy immigration policy and boosting productivity-enhancing investments. Meanwhile China’s secular slowdown is disinflationary. The dollar may remain resilient in the face of persistently high geopolitical risk. The jury is still out.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Ritika Mankar, CFA Editor/Strategist ritika.mankar@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      David Albright and Sarah Burkhard, "Iran’s Recent, Irreversible Nuclear Advances," Institute for Science and International Security, September 22, 2021, isis-online.org. 2     Ray Takeyh, "The Bomb Will Backfire On Iran," Foreign Affairs, October 18, 2021, foreignaffairs.com. 3     See Aaron Stein and Afshon Ostovar, "Tanker War 2.0: Iranian Strategy In The Gulf," Foreign Policy Research Institute, August 10, 2021, fpri.org. 4     "Ten Questions About China’s Economy," Xinhua, October 24, 2021, news.cn.     Section II: 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-Province of China: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan-Province of China: 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 An Iran crisis is imminent. We still think a US-Iran détente is possible but our conviction is lower until Biden makes a successful show of force. Oil prices will be volatile. Fiscal drag is a risk to the cyclical global macro view. But developed markets are more fiscally proactive than they were after the global financial crisis. Elections will reinforce that, starting in Germany, Canada, and Japan. The Chinese and Russian spheres are still brimming with political and geopolitical risk. But China will ease monetary and fiscal policy on the margin over the coming 12 months. Afghanistan will not upset our outlook on the German and French elections, which is positive for the euro and European stocks. Feature Chart 1Bull Market In Iran Tensions Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Iran is now the most pressing geopolitical risk in the short term (Chart 1). The Biden administration has been chastened by the messy withdrawal from Afghanistan and will be exceedingly reactive if it is provoked by foreign powers. Nuclear weapons improve regime survivability. Survival is what the Islamic Republic wants. Iran is surrounded by enemies in its region and under constant pressure from the United States. Hence Iran will never ultimately give up its nuclear program, as we have maintained. Chart 2Biden Unlikely To Lift Iran Sanctions Unilaterally Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) However, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei could still agree to a deal in which the US reduces economic sanctions while Iran allows some restrictions on uranium enrichment for a limited period of time (the 2015 nuclear deal’s key provisions expire from 2023 through 2030). This would be a stopgap measure to delay the march into war. The problem is that rejoining the 2015 deal requires the US to ease sanctions first, since the US walked away from the deal in 2018. Iran would need domestic political cover to rejoin it. Biden has the executive authority to ease sanctions unilaterally but after Afghanistan he lacks the political capital to do so (Chart 2). So Biden cannot ease sanctions until Iran pares back its nuclear activities. But Iran has no reason to pare back if the US does not ease sanctions. Iran is now enriching some uranium to a purity of 60%. Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz says it will reach “nuclear breakout” capability – enough fissile material to build a bomb – within 10 weeks, i.e. mid-October. Anonymous officials from the Biden administration told the Associated Press it will be “months or less,” which could mean September, October, or November (Table 1). Table 1Iran Nearing "Breakout" Nuclear Capability Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Meanwhile the new Iranian government of President Ebrahim Raisi, a hardliner who is tipped to take over as Supreme Leader once Ali Khamenei steps down, is implying that it will not rejoin negotiations until November. All of these timelines are blurry but the implication is that Iran will not resume talks until it has achieved nuclear breakout. Israel will continue its campaign of sabotage against the regime. It may be pressed to the point of launching air strikes, as it did against nuclear facilities in Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007 under what is known as the “Begin Doctrine.” Chart 3Israel Cannot Risk Losing US Security Guarantee Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) The constraint on Israel is that it cannot afford to lose America’s public support and defense alliance since it would find itself isolated and vulnerable in its region (Chart 3). But if Israeli intelligence concludes that the Iranians truly stand on the verge of achieving a deliverable nuclear weapon, the country will likely be driven to launch air strikes. Once the Iranians test and display a viable nuclear deterrent it will be too late. Four US presidents, including Biden, have declared that Iran will not be allowed to get nuclear weapons. Biden and the Democrats favor diplomacy, as Biden made clear in his bilateral summit with Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett last week. But Biden also admitted that if diplomacy fails there are “other options.” The Israelis currently have a weak government but it is unified against a nuclear-armed Iran. At very least Bennett will underscore red lines to indicate that Israel’s vigilance has not declined despite hawkish Benjamin Netanyahu’s fall from power. Still, Iran may decide it has an historic opportunity to make a dash for the bomb if it thinks that the US will fail to support an Israeli attack. The US has lost leverage in negotiations since 2015. It no longer has troops stationed on Iran’s east and west flanks. It no longer has the same degree of Chinese and Russian cooperation. It is even more internally divided. Iran has no guarantee that the US will not undergo another paroxysm of nationalism in 2024 and try to attack it. The faction that opposed the deal all along is now in power and may believe it has the best chance in its lifetime to achieve nuclear breakout. The only reason a short-term deal is possible is because Khamenei may believe the Israelis will attack with full American support. He agreed to the 2015 deal. He also fears that the combination of economic sanctions and simmering social unrest will create a rift when he dies or passes the leadership to his successor. Iran has survived the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” sanctions but it is still vulnerable (Chart 4). Chart 4Supreme Leader Focuses On Regime Survival Supreme Leader Focuses On Regime Survival Supreme Leader Focuses On Regime Survival Moreover Biden is offering Khamenei a deal that does not require abandoning the nuclear program and does not prevent Iran from enhancing its missile capabilities. By taking the deal he might prevent his enemies from unifying, forestall immediate war, and pave the way for a smooth succession, while still pursuing the ultimate goal of nuclear weaponization. Bringing it all together, the world today stands at a critical juncture with regard to Iran and the unfinished business of the US wars in the Middle East. Unless the US and Israel stage a unified and convincing show of force, whether preemptively or in response to Iranian provocations, the Iranians will be justified in concluding that they have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to pursue the bomb. They could sneak past the global powers and obtain a nuclear deterrent and regime security, like North Korea did. This could easily precipitate a war. Biden will probably continue to be reactive rather than proactive. If the Iranians are silent then it will be clear that Khamenei still sees the value in a short-term deal. But if they continue their march toward nuclear breakout, as is the case as we go to press, then Biden will have to make a massive show of force. The goal would be to underscore the US’s red lines and drive Iran back to negotiating table. If Biden blinks, he will incentivize Iran to make a dash for the bomb. Either way a crisis is imminent. Israel will continue to use sabotage and underscore red lines while the Iranians will continue to escalate their attacks on Israel via militant proxies and attacks on tankers (Map 1). Map 1Secret War Escalates In Middle East Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Bottom Line: After a crisis, either diplomacy will be restored, or the Middle East will be on a new war path. The war path points to a drastically different geopolitical backdrop for the global economy. If the US and Iran strike a short-term deal, Iranian oil will flow and the US will shift its strategic focus to pressuring China, which is negative for global growth and positive for the dollar. If the US and Iran start down the war path, oil supply disruptions will rise and the dollar will fall. Implications For Oil Prices And OPEC 2.0 The probability of a near-term conflict is clear from our decision tree, which remains the same as in June 2019 (Diagram 1). Diagram 1US-Iran Conflict: Critical Juncture In Our Decision Tree Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Shows of force and an escalation in the secret war will cause temporary but possibly sharp spikes in oil prices in the short term. OPEC 2.0 remains intact so far this year, as expected. The likelihood that the global economic recovery will continue should encourage the Saudis, Russians, Emiratis and others to maintain production discipline to drain inventories and keep Brent crude prices above $60 per barrel. OPEC 2.0 is a weak link in oil prices, however, because Russians are less oil-dependent than the Gulf Arab states and do not need as high of oil prices for their government budget to break even (Chart 5). Periodically this dynamic leads the cartel to break down. None of the petro-states want to push oil prices up so high that they hasten the global green energy transition. Chart 5OPEC 2.0 Keeps Price Within Fiscal Breakeven Oil Price Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Chart 6Oil Price Risks Lie To Upside Until US-Iran Deal Occurs Oil Price Risks Lie To Upside Until US-Iran Deal Occurs Oil Price Risks Lie To Upside Until US-Iran Deal Occurs As long as OPEC 2.0 remains disciplined, average Brent crude oil prices will gradually rise to $80 barrels per day by the end of 2024, according to our Commodity & Energy Strategy (Chart 6). Imminent firefights will cause prices to spike at least temporarily when large amounts of capacity are taken offline. Global spare capacity is probably sufficient to handle one-off disruptions but an open-ended military conflict in the Persian Gulf or Strait of Hormuz would be a different story. After the next crisis, everything depends on whether the US and Israel establish a credible threat and thus restore diplomacy. Any US-Iran strategic détente would unleash Iranian production and could well motivate the Gulf Arabs to pump more oil and deny Iran market share. Bottom Line: Given that any US-Iran deal would also be short-term in nature, and may not even stabilize the region, some of the downside risks are fading at the moment. The US and China are also sucking in more commodities as they gear up for great power struggle. The geopolitical outlook is positive for oil prices in these respects. But OPEC 2.0 is the weak link in this expectation so we expect volatility. Global Fiscal Taps Will Stay Open Markets have wavered in recent months over softness in the global economic recovery, COVID-19 variants, and China’s policy tightening. The world faces a substantial fiscal drag in the coming years as government budgets correct from the giant deficits witnessed during the crisis. Nevertheless policymakers are still able to deliver some positive fiscal surprises on the margin. Developed markets have turned fiscally proactive over the past decade. They rejected austerity because it was seen as fueling populist political outcomes that threatened the established parties. Note that this change began with conservative governments (e.g. Japan, UK, US, Germany), implying that left-leaning governments will open the fiscal taps further whenever they come to power (e.g. Canada, the US, Italy, and likely Germany next). Chart 7Global Fiscal Taps Will Stay Open Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Chart 7 updates the pandemic-era fiscal stimulus of major economies, with light-shaded bars highlighting new fiscal measures that are in development but have not yet been included in the IMF’s data set. The US remains at the top followed by Italy, which also saw populist electoral outcomes over the past decade. Chart 8US Fiscal Taps Open At Least Until 2023 US Fiscal Taps Open At Least Until 2023 US Fiscal Taps Open At Least Until 2023 The Biden administration is on the verge of passing a $550 billion bipartisan infrastructure bill. We maintain 80% subjective odds of passage – despite the messy pullout from Afghanistan. Assuming it passes, Democrats will proceed to their $3.5 trillion social welfare bill. This bill will inevitably be watered down – we expect a net deficit impact of around $1-$1.5 trillion for both bills – but it can pass via the partisan “budget reconciliation” process. We give 50% subjective odds today but will upgrade to 65% after infrastructure passes. The need to suspend the debt ceiling will raise volatility this fall but ultimately neither party has an interest in a national debt default. The US is expanding social spending even as geopolitical challenges prevent it from cutting defense spending, which might otherwise be expected after Afghanistan and Iraq. The US budget balance will contract after the crisis but then it will remain elevated, having taken a permanent step up as a result of populism. The impact should be a flat or falling dollar on a cyclical basis, even though we think geopolitical conflict will sustain the dollar as the leading reserve currency over the long run (Chart 8). So the dollar view remains neutral for now. Bottom Line: The US is facing a 5.9% contraction in the budget deficit in 2022 but the blow will be cushioned somewhat by two large spending bills, which will put budget deficits on a rising trajectory over the course of the decade. Big government is back. Developed Market Fiscal Moves (Outside The US) Chart 9German Opinion Favors New Left-Wing Coalition Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Fiscal drag is also a risk for other developed markets – but here too a substantial shift away from prudence has taken place, which is likely to be signaled to investors by the outperformance of left-wing parties in Germany’s upcoming election. Germany is only scheduled to add EUR 2.4 billion to the 25.6 billion it will receive under the EU’s pandemic recovery fund, but Berlin is likely to bring positive fiscal surprises due to the federal election on September 26. Germany will likely see a left-wing coalition replace Chancellor Angela Merkel and her long-ruling Christian Democrats (Chart 9). The platforms of the different parties can be viewed in Table 2. Our GeoRisk Indicator for Germany confirms that political risk is elevated but in this case the risk brings upside to risk assets (Appendix). Table 2German Party Platforms Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) While we expected the Greens to perform better than they are in current polling, the point is the high probability of a shift to a new left-wing government. The Social Democrats are reviving under the leadership of Olaf Scholz (Chart 10). Tellingly, Scholz led the charge for Germany to loosen its fiscal belt back in 2019, prior to the global pandemic. Chart 10Germany: Online Markets Betting On Scholz Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Chart 11Canada: Trudeau Takes A Calculated Risk Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) In June, the cabinet approved a draft 2022 budget plan supported by Scholz that would contain new borrowing worth EUR 99.7 bn ($119 billion). This amount is not included in the chart above but it should be seen as the minimum to be passed under the new government. If a left-wing coalition is formed, as we expect, the amount will be larger, given that both the Social Democrats and the Greens have been restrained by Merkel’s party. Canada turned fiscally proactive in 2015, when the institutional ruling party, the Liberals, outflanked the more progressive New Democrats by calling for budget deficits instead of a balanced budget. The Liberals saw a drop in support in 2019 but are now calling a snap election. Prime Minister Trudeau is not as popular in general opinion as he is in the news media but his party still leads the polls (Chart 11). The Conservatives are geographically isolated and, more importantly, are out of step with the median voter on the key issues (Table 3). Table 3Canada: Liberal Agenda Lines Up With Top Voter Priorities Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Nevertheless it is a risky time to call an election – our GeoRisk Indicator for Canada is soaring (Appendix). Granting that the Liberals are very unlikely to fall from power, whatever their strength in parliament, the key point is that parliament already approved of CAD 100 billion in new spending over the coming three years. Any upside surprise would give Trudeau the ability to push for still more deficit spending, likely focused on climate change. Chart 12Japan: Suga Will Go, LDP Will Stimulate Japan: Suga Will Go, LDP Will Stimulate Japan: Suga Will Go, LDP Will Stimulate Japanese politics are heating up ahead of the Liberal Democrats’ leadership election on September 29 and the general election, due by November 28. Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga’s sole purpose in life was to stand in for Shinzo Abe in overseeing the Tokyo Olympics. Now they are done and Suga will likely be axed – if he somehow survives the election, he will not last long after, as his approval rating is in freefall. The Liberal Democrats are still the only game in town. They will try to minimize the downside risks they face in the general election by passing a new stimulus package (Chart 12). Rumor has it that the new package will nominally be worth JPY 10-15 trillion, though we expect the party to go bigger, and LDP heavyweight Toshihiro Nikai has proposed a 30 trillion headline number. It is extremely unlikely that the election will cause a hung parliament or any political shift that jeopardizes passage of the bill. Abenomics remains the policy setting – and consumption tax hikes are no longer on the horizon to impede the second arrow of Abenomics: fiscal policy. Not all countries are projecting new spending. A stronger-than-expected showing by the Christian Democrats would result in gridlock in Germany. Meanwhile the UK may signal belt-tightening in October. Bottom Line: Germany, Canada, and Japan are likely to take some of the edge off of expected fiscal drag next year. Emerging Market Fiscal Moves (And China Regulatory Update) Among the emerging markets, Russia and China are notable in Chart 7 above for having such a small fiscal stimulus during this crisis. Russia has announced some fiscal measures ahead of the September 19 Duma election but they are small: $5.2 billion in social spending, $10 billion in strategic goals over three years, and a possible $6.8 billion increase in payments to pensioners. Fiscal austerity in Russia is one reason we expect domestic political risk to remain elevated and hence for President Putin to stoke conflicts in his near abroad (see our Russian risk indicator in the Appendix). There are plenty of signs that Belarussian tensions with the Baltic states and Poland can escalate in the near term, as can fighting in Ukraine in the wake of Biden’s new defense agreement and second package of military aid. China’s actual stimulus was much larger than shown in Chart 7 above because it mostly consisted of a surge in state-controlled bank lending. China is likely to ease monetary and fiscal policy on the margin over the coming 12 months to secure the recovery in time for the national party congress in 2022. But China’s regulatory crackdown will continue during that time and our GeoRisk Indicator clearly shows the uptick in risk this year (Appendix). Chart 13China Expands Unionization? China Expands Unionization? China Expands Unionization? The regulatory crackdown is part of a cyclical consolidation of Xi Jinping’s power as well as a broader, secular trend of reasserting Communist Party and centralization in China. The latest developments underscore our view that investors should not play any technical rebound in Chinese equities. The increase in censorship of financial media is especially troubling. Just as the government struggles to deal with systemic financial problems (e.g. the failing property giant Evergrande, a possible “Lehman moment”), the lack of transparency and information asymmetry will get worse. The media is focusing on the government’s interventions into public morality, setting a “correct beauty standard” for entertainers and limiting kids to three hours of video games per week. But for investors what matters is that the regulatory crackdown is proceeding to the medical sector. High health costs (like high housing and education costs) are another target of the Xi administration in trying to increase popular support and legitimacy. Central government-mandated unionization in tech companies will hurt the tech sector without promoting social stability. Chinese unions do not operate like those in the West and are unlikely ever to do so. If they did, it would compound the preexisting structural problem of rising wages (Chart 13). Wages are forcing an economic transition onto Beijing, which raises systemic risks permanently across all sectors. Bottom Line: Political and geopolitical risk are still elevated in China and Russia. China will ease monetary and fiscal policy gradually over the coming year but the regulatory crackdown will persist at least until the 2022 political reshuffle. Afghanistan: The Refugee Fallout September 2021 will officially mark the beginning of Taliban’s second bout of power in Afghanistan. Will Afghanistan be the only country to spawn an outflux of refugees? Will the Taliban wresting power in Afghanistan trigger another refugee crisis for Europe? How is the rise of the Taliban likely to affect geopolitics in South Asia? Will Afghanistan Be The Last Major Country To Spawn Refugees? Absolutely not. We expect regime failures to affect the global economy over the next few years. The global growth engine functions asymmetrically and is powered only by a fistful of countries. As economic growth in poor countries fails to keep pace with that of top performers, institutional turmoil is bound to follow. This trend will only add to the growing problem of refugees that the world has seen in the post-WWII era. History suggests that the number of refugees in the world at any point in time is a function of economic prosperity (or the lack thereof) in poorer continents (Chart 14). For instance, the periods spanning 1980-90 and 2015-20 saw the world’s poorer continents lose their share in global GDP. Unsurprisingly these phases also saw a marked increase in the number of refugees. With the world’s poorer continents expected to lose share in global GDP again going forward, the number of refugees in the world will only rise. Chart 14Refugee Flows Rise When Growth Weak In Poor Continents Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Citizens of Syria, Venezuela, Afghanistan, South Sudan, and Myanmar today account for two-thirds of all refugees globally. To start with, these five countries’ share in global GDP was low at 0.8% in the 1980s. Now their share in global GDP is set to fall to 0.2% over the next five years (Chart 15). Chart 15Refugee Exporters Hit All-Time Low In Global GDP Share Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Per capita incomes in top refugee source countries tend to be very low. Whilst regime fractures appear to be the proximate cause of refugee outflux, an economic collapse is probably the root cause of the civil strife and waves of refugee movement seen out of the top refugee source countries. Another factor that could have a bearing is the rise of multipolarity. Shifting power structures in the global economy affect the stability of regimes with weak institutions. Instability in Afghanistan has been a direct result of the rise and the fall of the British and Russian empires. American imperial overreach is just the latest episode. If another Middle Eastern war erupts, the implications are obvious. But so too are the implications of US-China proxy wars in Southeast Asia or Russia-West proxy wars in eastern Europe. Bottom Line: With poorer continents’ economic prospects likely to remain weak and with multipolarity here to stay, the world’s refugee problem is here to stay too. Is A Repeat Of 2015 Refugee Crisis Likely In 2021? No. 2021 will not be a replica of 2015. This is owing to two key reasons. First, Afghanistan has long witnessed a steady outflow of refugees – especially at the end of the twentieth century but also throughout the US’s 20-year war there. The magnitude of the refugee problem in 2021 will be significantly smaller than that in 2015. Secondly, voters are now differentiating between immigrants and refugees with the latter entity gaining greater acceptance (Chart 16). Chart 16DM Attitudes Permissive Toward Refugees Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Chart 17Refugees Will Not Change Game In German/French Elections Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Concerns about refugees will gain some political traction but it will reinforce rather than upset the current trajectory in the most important upcoming elections, in Germany in September and France next April. True, these countries feature in the list of top countries to which Afghan refugees flee and will see some political backlash (Chart 17). But the outcome may be counterintuitive. In the German election, any boost to the far-right will underscore the likely underperformance of the ruling Christian Democrats. So the German elections will produce a left-wing surprise – and yet, even if the Greens won the chancellorship (the true surprise scenario, looking much less likely now), investors will cheer the pro-Europe and pro-fiscal result. The French election is overcrowded with right-wing candidates, both center-right and far-right, giving President Macron the ability to pivot to the left to reinforce his incumbent advantage next spring. Again, the euro and the equity market will rise on the status quo despite the political risk shown in our indicator (Appendix). Of course, immigration and refugees will cause shocks to European politics in future, especially as more regime failures in the third world take place to add to Afghanistan and Ethiopia. But in the short run they are likely to reinforce the fact that European politics are an oasis of stability given what is happening in the US, China, Brazil, and even Russia and India. Bottom Line: 2021 will not see a repeat of the 2015 refugee crisis. Ironically Afghan refugees could reinforce European integration in both German and French elections. The magnitude of the Afghan crisis is smaller than in the past and most Afghan refugees are likely to migrate to Pakistan and Iran (Chart 17). But more regime failures will ensure that the flow of people becomes a political risk again sometime in the future. What Does The Rise Of Taliban Mean For India? The Taliban first held power in Afghanistan from 1996-2001. This was one of the most fraught geopolitical periods in South Asia since the 1970s. Now optimists argue that Taliban 2.0 is different. Taliban leaders are engaging in discussions with an ex-president who was backed by America and making positive overtures towards India. So, will this time be different? It is worth noting that Taliban 2.0 will have to function within two major constraints. First, Afghanistan is deeply divided and diverse. Afghanistan’s national anthem refers to fourteen ethnic groups. Running a stable government is inherently challenging in this mountainous country. With Taliban being dominated by one ethnic group and with limited financial resources at hand, the Taliban will continue to use brute force to keep competing political groups at bay. Chart 18Taliban In Line With Afghanis On Sharia Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) Biden's Show Of Force (GeoRisk Update) At the same time, to maintain legitimacy and power, the Taliban will have to support aligned political groups operating in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. Second, an overwhelming majority of Afghani citizens want Sharia law, i.e. a legal code based on Islamic scripture as the official law of the land (Chart 18). Hence if the Taliban enforces a Sharia-based legal system in Afghanistan then it will fall in line with what the broader population demands. It is against this backdrop that Taliban 2.0 is bound to have several similarities with the version that ruled from 1996-2001. Additionally, US withdrawal from Afghanistan will revive a range of latent terrorist movements in the region. This poses risks for outside countries, not least India, which has a long history of being targeted by Afghani terrorist groups. The US will remain engaged in counter-terrorism operations. To complicate matters, India’s North has an even more unfavorable view of Pakistan than the rest of India. With the northern voter’s importance rising, India’s administration may be forced to respond more aggressively to a terrorist event than would have been the case about a decade ago. It is also possible that terrorism will strike at China over time given its treatment of Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang. China’s economic footprint in Afghanistan could precipitate such a shift. Bottom Line: US withdrawal from Afghanistan is bound to add to geopolitical risks as latent terrorist forces will be activated. India has a long history of being targeted by Afghani terrorist movements. Incidentally, it will take time for transnational terrorism based in Afghanistan to mount successful attacks at the West once again, given that western intelligence services are more aware of the problem than they were in 2000. But non-state actors may regain the element of surprise over time, given that the western powers are increasingly focused on state-to-state struggle in a new era of great power competition.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Ritika Mankar, CFA Editor/Strategist ritika.mankar@bcaresearch.com   Section II: 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: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: 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 Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights The US dollar’s reserve status will remain intact for the foreseeable future. While this privilege is fraying at the edges, there are no viable alternatives just yet. There is an overarching incentive for any country to hold onto its currency’s power. For the US, it is still well within their ability to keep this “exorbitant privilege.” That said, there will be rolling doubts about the ability of the US to maintain its large currency sphere. This will create tidal waves in the currency’s path, providing plenty of trading opportunities for investors. China is on track to surpass the US in economic size, but it is far from dethroning the US in the military realm. However, it is gradually gaining the ability to deny the US access to its immediate offshore areas and may already be capable of winning a war over nearby islands like Taiwan. Watch the RMB over the next few decades. From a macro and cyclical perspective, the dollar is likely to decline as global growth picks up and the Fed lags market expectations in raising rates. From a geopolitical perspective, however, the backdrop is neutral-to-bullish for the dollar over the next three to five years. Feature Having the world’s reserve currency comes with a few advantages, which any governments would be loath to give up. The most important advantage is the ability to settle one’s balance of payments in one’s own currency. This not only facilitates trade for the reserve nation, it also reinforces the turnover of the reserve currency internationally. The value of this privilege is as much symbolic as economic. This “first mover advantage” or adoption of one’s currency internationally automatically ordains the resident central bank as the world’s bank. The primary advantage here is being able to dictate global financial conditions, expanding and contracting money supply to address domestic and global funding pressures. As compensation for this task, the world provides one with non-negligible seigniorage revenue. Being the world’s central bank also comes with another crucial advantage: being able to choose which international projects will be funded, while using cheaply issued local debt to finance these investments. Of course, any sensible society will earn more on its investments than it pays on the debt issued. There is a geopolitical angle to having the world’s reserve currency. A nation’s currency is widely held because of strategic depth—its ability to secure the people who trade in that currency and the property denominated in it. Deposits and transactions can be monitored, secured, or even halted at the behest of the sovereign. Holding the currency means one can maintain one’s purchasing power, given that it is backed by the most powerful country in the world. As the reserve currency becomes the de facto international medium of exchange, having stood the test of time through various crises, this allows the resident country to alter its purchasing power to achieve both national and international goals. Throughout history, having the world’s reserve currency has been the pursuit of many governments and kingdoms. In the current paradigm, the US enjoys this privilege. But could that change? And if so, how and when? Our goal in this report is threefold. First, why would any country want to maintain reserve status? Second, does the US still possess the apparatus to keep the dollar as a reserve asset over the next decade? And finally, are there any identifiable threats to the US dollar reserve status beyond a ten-year horizon? The Imperative To Maintain Status Quo Global trade is still largely conducted in US dollars. According to the BIS triennial central bank survey, 88.3% of transactions globally were in dollars just before the pandemic, a percentage that has been rather resilient over the last two decades (Chart I-1). It is true that currencies such as the Chinese renminbi have been gaining international acceptance, but displacing a currency that dominates almost 90% of global transactions is a herculean task. Surprisingly, the world has been transacting less often in euros and Japanese yen, currencies that also commanded international appeal in recent history. Chart I-1The US Dollar Still Dominates Global Transactions Is The Dollar’s Reserve Status Under Threat? Is The Dollar’s Reserve Status Under Threat? The big benefit for the US comes from being able to settle its balance of payments in dollars. This not only lowers transaction costs (by lowering exchange rate risk), but it also provides the ability to cheaply borrow in your own currency to pay for imports. Having global trade largely denominated in US dollars also establishes a network of systems that make it much easier to settle trade in that currency. It is remarkable that, despite running a persistent current account deficit, the US dollar has tended to appreciate during crises, a privilege other deficit countries do not enjoy (Chart I-2). Strong network effects make the US dollar the currency of choice during crises. Chart I-2Despite Running A Current Account Deficit, The Dollar Tends To Rise During Crises Is The Dollar’s Reserve Status Under Threat? Is The Dollar’s Reserve Status Under Threat? Chart I-3The US Generates Non-Negligible Seignorage Revenue The US Generates Non-Negligible Seignorage Revenue The US Generates Non-Negligible Seignorage Revenue Being at the center of the global financial architecture comes with an important benefit beyond trade: the ability to dictate financial conditions both domestically and globally. Consider a scenario in which the US and the global economy are facing a downturn. In this scenario, the Federal Reserve can be instrumental in turning the tide: To stimulate the US economy, the Fed lowers interest rates and/or runs a wider fiscal deficit. The central bank helps finance this fiscal deficit by expanding the monetary base (benefitting from seigniorage revenue). As the Fed drops interest rates, the yield curve steepens. Banks use the positive term structure to borrow at the short end of the curve and lend at the longer end. This boosts the US money supply. As firms borrow to invest, this increases demand for imports (machinery, commodities, consumer goods), widening the US current account deficit. US trade is settled in dollars, increasing the international supply of the greenback. To maintain competitiveness, other central banks purchase these dollars from the private sector, in exchange for their local currency. As global USD reserves rise, they can be reinvested back into Treasuries and held in custody at the Fed. In essence, the US can finance its budget deficit through a strong capital account surplus. The seigniorage revenue that the US enjoys by easing both domestic and international financing conditions is about $100 billion a year or roughly 0.5% of GDP (Chart I-3). But the goodwill from being able to dictate both domestic and international financial conditions is far greater. At BCA, one of our favorite measures of global dollar liquidity is the sum of the Fed’s custody holdings together with the US monetary base. Every time this measure has severely contracted in the past, the shortage of dollars has triggered a financial crisis somewhere, typically among other countries running deficits (Chart I-4), a highlight of the importance of the US as a global financier. Chart I-4US Money Supply And Global Liquidity US Money Supply And Global Liquidity US Money Supply And Global Liquidity Chart I-5Despite A Liability Shortfall, US Assets Generate A Net Profit Despite A Liability Shortfall, US Assets Generate A Net Profit Despite A Liability Shortfall, US Assets Generate A Net Profit Beyond seigniorage revenue, the US enjoys another advantage—being able to earn much more on its international investments than it pays on its liabilities. The US generates an excess return of 1% of GDP from its external assets, despite having a net liability shortfall of 67% of GDP (Chart I-5). The ability to issue debt that will be gobbled up by foreigners, and in part use these proceeds to generate a higher overall return on investments made abroad, does indeed constitute an “exorbitant privilege.” In a nutshell, there is a very strong incentive for the US to keep the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. One short-term implication is that the Fed might only taper asset purchases and/or raise interest rates in an environment in which both global and US growth are strong, or it could otherwise trigger a global liquidity crisis. This will be particularly the case given the Delta variant of COVID-19 is still hemorrhaging global economic activity. An Overreach In The Dollar’s Influence There is a political advantage to the US dollar’s reserve status that is often overlooked: transactions conducted in US dollars anywhere in the world fall under US law. In simple terms, if a company in any country buys energy from Iran and the transaction is done in US dollars, the Treasury has powers to sanction the parties involved. Since most companies across the world cannot afford to be locked out of the US financial system, they will tend to comply with US sanctions. Even companies that operate under the umbrella of great powers, such as China and Russia, still tend to adhere to US sanctions, because they do not want to jeopardize their trade with US allies, such as the European Union. Of course, China, Russia, and Iran are actively seeking alternative transaction systems to bypass the dollar and US sanctions. But they do not yet trust each other’s currencies. Chart I-6A Deep And Liquid Pool Of Treasurys A Deep And Liquid Pool Of Treasurys A Deep And Liquid Pool Of Treasurys The euro is the only viable alternative; however, the euro’s share of global transactions has fallen, despite the EU’s solidification as a monetary union over the past decade and despite the unprecedented deterioration of US relations with China and Russia. The EU could do great damage to the USD’s standing if it joined Russia’s and China’s efforts wholeheartedly, but the EU is still a major trading partner of the US and shares many of the same foreign policy aims. It is also chronically short of aggregate demand and runs trade and current account surpluses, depriving trade partners of euro savings or a debt market to recycle those savings (Chart I-6). Historically, having the world’s reserve currency allows the US to conduct international accords that serve both domestic and foreign interests. The Plaza Accord, signed in the 1980s to depreciate the US dollar, served both US interests in rebalancing the deficit and international interests in financing global trade. The 1980s were golden years for Japan and the Asian tigers on the back of a weak USD, allowing entities to borrow in greenbacks and profitably invest in Asian growth. Once the US dollar had depreciated by a fair amount, threatening its store of value, the US engineered the Louvre Accord to stabilize exchange rates. Ultimately, when various Asian bubbles popped, investors thought of nowhere better to flee than to the safety of the US dollar. The same thing happened after the emerging market boom of the 2000s and the eventual bust of the 2010s. Today, the US may not be able to organize an international intervention, if one should be necessary in the coming years. Past experience shows that countries act unilaterally and coordinated interventions lack staying power. Neither Europe nor Japan is in the position today to allow currency appreciation, as they were in the past. And the US has shown itself unable to combat its trading partners’ depreciation, as in the case of China, whose renminbi remains below 2014 levels. The bottom line is that there is nothing to stop the US from attempting to stretch its overreach too far, which would create a backlash that diminishes the dollar’s status. This is especially the case given trust in the US government is quite low by historical standards, which for now points to a lower dollar cyclically (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Trust In The US Government And The Dollar Is The Dollar’s Reserve Status Under Threat? Is The Dollar’s Reserve Status Under Threat? This is not to say that other countries with reserve aspirations can tolerate sustained appreciation. China has recommitted to manufacturing supremacy in its latest five-year plan, as it fears the political consequences of rapid deindustrialization. As such, the renminbi will be periodically capped to maintain competitiveness. Can The US Maintain Status Quo? Chart I-8A Lifespan Of Reserve Currencies Is The Dollar’s Reserve Status Under Threat? Is The Dollar’s Reserve Status Under Threat? Over the last few centuries, reserve currencies have tended to have a lifespan of about 100 years (Chart I-8). The reason is that global wars tend to knock the leading power off its geopolitical pedestal, devaluing its currency and giving rise to a new peace settlement with a new ascendant country whose currency then becomes the basis for international trade. Such was the case for Spain, France, the UK, and the United States in a pattern of war and peace since the sixteenth century. Granting that the US dollar took the baton from sterling in the 1920s and that the post-World War II peace settlement is eroding in the face of escalating geopolitical competition, it is reasonable to ask whether or not the US might lose its grip on this power. To assess this possibility, it is instructive to revisit the anatomy of a reserve currency: Typically, a reserve currency tends to be that of the “greatest” nation. For the same reason, the reserve nation tends to be the wealthiest, which ensures that its currency is a store of value and that it can act as a buyer of last resort during crisis (Chart I-9). This reasoning is straightforward when a global empire is recognizable and unopposed. But in the current context of multipolarity, or great power competition, the paradigm could start to shift. Global trade is slowing globally, but it is accelerating in Asia (Chart I-10). China is a larger trading partner than the US for many emerging markets and is slated to surpass the US economy over the next decade. The renminbi has a long way to go to rival the dollar, but it is gradually rising and its place within the global reserve currency basket is much smaller than its share of global trade or output, implying room for growth (Chart I-11). Chart I-9Wealth And Reserve Currency Status Go Hand-In-Hand Is The Dollar’s Reserve Status Under Threat? Is The Dollar’s Reserve Status Under Threat? Chart I-10Trade In Asia Is Booming Is The Dollar’s Reserve Status Under Threat? Is The Dollar’s Reserve Status Under Threat? Chart I-11Adoption Of The RMB Has Room To Grow Adoption Of The RMB Has Room To Grow Adoption Of The RMB Has Room To Grow To maintain hegemonic power (especially controlling the vital supply routes of prosperity), the reserve nation needs military might above and beyond everyone else. It helps that US military spending remains the biggest in the world, in part financed by US liabilities (Chart I-12). China is far from dethroning the US in the military realm. But it is gradually gaining the ability to deny the US access to its immediate offshore areas and may already be capable of winning a war over nearby islands like Taiwan. Moreover, its naval power is set to grow substantially between now and 2030 (Table I-1). Already, over the past decade, the US stood helplessly by when Russia and China annexed Crimea and the reefs of the South China Sea. It is possible to imagine a series of events that erode US security guarantees in the region, even as the US loses economic primacy. Chart I-12The US Still Maintains Military Might Is The Dollar’s Reserve Status Under Threat? Is The Dollar’s Reserve Status Under Threat? Table I-1China’s Economic And Naval Growth Slated To Reduce American Primacy In Asia Pacific Is The Dollar’s Reserve Status Under Threat? Is The Dollar’s Reserve Status Under Threat? The reserve currency nation needs to run deficits to finance activity in the rest of the world. That requires having deep and liquid capital markets to absorb global savings. There is considerable trust or “goodwill” that makes the US Treasury market the most liquid debt exchange pool in the world. This remains the case today (previously mentioned Chart I-6). Even so, this trend is shifting. The growth in euro- and yen-denominated debt is exploding. This mirrors the gradual shift in the allocation of FX reserves away from dollars into other currencies. If the US began to use the dollar as a geopolitical weapon recklessly, foreign entities may have no other choice but to rally into other currency blocks, including the euro (and perhaps eventually the yuan). This will take years, but it is worth noting that global allocation to FX reserves have fallen from around 80% toward USDs in the 70s to around 60% today (Chart I-13). Chart I-13The Dollar Reserve Status Has Been Ebbing The Dollar Reserve Status Has Been Ebbing The Dollar Reserve Status Has Been Ebbing On the political front, there is some evidence that public opinion on the dollar is fading, although it is far from damning. A Pew survey on the trust in the US government is near decade lows and has tracked the ebb and flow of changes in the dollar (previously shown Chart I-7). Trust in government will probably not get much worse in the coming years, as the pandemic will wane and stimulus will secure the economic recovery, but too much stimulus could conceivably ignite an inflation problem that weighs on trust. True, populism has driven the US government under two administrations into extreme deficit spending. With the pandemic as a catalyst, US deficits have reached WWII levels despite the absence of a war. However, the Biden administration’s $3.5 trillion spending bill will be watered down heavily – and the 2022 midterms will likely restore gridlock in Congress, freezing fiscal policy through at least 2025. In other words, fiscal policy is negative for the dollar in the very near term, but the fiscal outlook is not yet so extravagant as to suggest a loss of reserve currency status. After all, there is some positive news for the US. The US demonstrated its leadership in innovation with the COVID-19 vaccines; it survived its constitutional stress test in the 2020 election; it is now shifting from failed “nation building” abroad to nation building at home; and its companies remain the most innovative and efficient, judging by global equity market capitalization (Chart I-14). China, meanwhile, is facing the most severe test of its political and economic system since it marketized its economy in 1979. Investors should not lose sight of the fact that, since the rise of President Xi Jinping and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, global policy uncertainty has tended to outpace US policy uncertainty, attracting flows into the dollar (Chart I-15). Given that China and Russia are both pursuing autocratic governments at the expense of the private economy, it would not be surprising to see global policy uncertainty take the lead once again, confirming the decade trend of global flows favoring the US when uncertainty rises. Chart I-14American Primacy Still Clear In Equity Market American Primacy Still Clear In Equity Market American Primacy Still Clear In Equity Market Chart I-15Higher Policy Uncertainty Good For Dollar Higher Policy Uncertainty Good For Dollar Higher Policy Uncertainty Good For Dollar The bottom line is that the US dollar is gradually declining as a share of the global currency reserve basket, just as the US economy and military are gradually declining as a share of global output and defense spending. Yet the US will remain the first or second largest economy and premier military power for a long time, and the dollar still lacks a viable single replacement. A major war or geopolitical crisis is probably necessary to precipitate a major breakdown. The Iranian Revolution and September 11 attacks both had this kind of effect (see 1979 and 2001 in Chart I-13 above). But COVID-19 is less clear. If China and Europe emerge as more stable than the US, then the post-pandemic aftermath will bring more bad news for the dollar. Investment Implications From a geopolitical perspective, the backdrop is neutral for the dollar beyond the next twelve to eighteen months. An escalating conflict with Iran—which is possible in the near term—would echo the early 2000s and weigh on the currency. But a deal with Iran and a strategic pivot to Asia would compound China’s domestic political problems and likely boost the greenback. Chart I-16US Twin Deficits And The Dollar US Twin Deficits And The Dollar US Twin Deficits And The Dollar From a macro and cyclical perspective, however, the view is clearly negative for the dollar. Over the next five years, the U.S. Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the U.S. budget deficit will shrink and then begin expanding again to -5% of GDP. If one assumes that the current account deficit will widen somewhat, then stabilize, the twin deficits will be pinned at around -10% of GDP. Markets have typically punished the dollar on rising twin deficits (Chart I-16). This suggests near-term pressure on the dollar’s reserve status is to the downside. EM currencies may hold a key to the performance of the dollar. While most EM economies remain hostage to the virus, a coiled-spring rebound cannot be ruled out as populations become vaccinated. China’s Politburo signaled in July that it will no longer tighten monetary and fiscal policy. We would expect policy easing over the next twelve months to ensure the economy is stable in advance of the fall 2022 party congress. If the virus wanes and China’s economy is stimulated, global growth will improve and the dollar will fall.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com

Highlights The chaotic US withdrawal from Afghanistan is symbolic – the US is conducting a strategic pivot to Asia Pacific to confront China. US-Iran negotiations are the linchpin of this pivot. If they fail, war risk will revive in the Middle East and the US will remain entangled in the region. At the moment, there is no deal, so investors should brace for a geopolitical risk premium in oil prices. That is, as long as global demand holds up despite COVID-19, and as long as the OPEC 2.0 cartel remains disciplined. We think they will in the short run. The US and Iran still have fundamental reasons to agree to a deal. If they do, the US will regain global room for maneuver while China’s and Russia’s window of opportunity will close. The implication is that markets face near-term oil supply risks – and long-term geopolitical risks due to Great Power rivalry in Eastern Europe and East Asia. Feature Events in Afghanistan have little macroeconomic significance but the geopolitical changes underway are profound and should be viewed through the lens of our second key view for 2021: the US strategic pivot to Asia. Chart 1The US Pivot To Asia Runs Through Iran Not Afghanistan The US Pivot To Asia Runs Through Iran Not Afghanistan The US Pivot To Asia Runs Through Iran Not Afghanistan As we go to press the Taliban is reconquering swathes of Afghanistan while US armed forces evacuate embassy staff and civilians. The chaotic scenes are reminiscent of the US’s humiliating flight from Saigon, Vietnam in 1975. As with Vietnam, the immediate image is one of American weakness but the reality over the long run is likely to be different. Over the past decade we have chronicled the US’s efforts to disentangle itself from wars of choice in the Middle East and South Asia. In accordance with US grand strategy, Washington is refocusing its attention on its rivalries with Russia and especially China, the only power capable of supplanting the US as a global leader (Chart 1). The US has struggled to conduct this “pivot to Asia” over the past decade but the underlying trajectory is clear: while trying to manage its strategic interests in the Middle East through naval power, the US will need to devote greater resources and attention to shoring up its economic and military ties in Asia Pacific (Map 1). The Middle East still plays a critical role – notably through China’s energy import needs – but primarily via the Persian Gulf. Map 1The US Seeks Balance In Middle East In Order To Pivot To Asia And Confront China Afghanistan? Watch Iran And China Afghanistan? Watch Iran And China Thus the critical geopolitical risks today stem from Iran and the Middle East on one hand, and China on the other. They do not stem from the US’s belated and messy exit from Afghanistan, which has limited market relevance outside of South Asia. First, however, we will address the political impact in the United States. US Political Implications Chart 2Americans Agree With Biden And Trump On Exit From Afghanistan Afghanistan? Watch Iran And China Afghanistan? Watch Iran And China American popular opinion has long turned against the “forever wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan, which cumulatively have cost $6.4 trillion and about 7,000 American troops dead1 (Chart 2). Three presidents, from two political parties, campaigned and won election on the basis of winding down these wars. The only presidential candidate since Republicans George W. Bush and John McCain who took a hawkish stance for persistent military engagement, Hillary Clinton, nearly lost the Democratic nomination and did lose the general election to a Republican, President Trump, who had reversed his party’s stance to advocate strategic withdrawal. War hawks have been sidelined in both parties. This is notable even if it were not the case that the current President Biden, whose son Beau fought in Afghanistan, had opposed the troop surge there under Obama. True, Biden will use drones, surgical strikes, and limited troop rotations to manage the aftermath in Afghanistan, both militarily and politically. Americans are still concerned about terrorism in general and any sign of a resurgent terrorist threat to the US homeland will be politically potent (Chart 3). But neither Biden nor the US can roll back the Taliban’s latest gains or achieve anything in Afghanistan that has not been achieved over the past twenty years.   Chart 3American Public Cares About Terrorism, Not Afghanistan Per Se Afghanistan? Watch Iran And China Afghanistan? Watch Iran And China True, Biden will suffer a political black eye from Afghanistan. His approval rating has already fallen to 49.6%, slipping beneath 50% for the first time, in the face of the Delta variant of COVID-19 and the Afghan debacle. In both cases his early optimistic statements have now become liabilities. Biden is also 79 years old, which will make the 2024 campaign questionable, and he faces mounting problems in other areas, from lax border security and immigration enforcement to rising domestic crime. Nevertheless, Biden still has sufficient political capital to push through one or both of his major domestic legislative proposals by the end of the year, despite thin majorities in both the House and Senate. Afghanistan will not affect that, for three reasons: 1. The US economy is likely to continue to recover despite hiccups due to the lingering pandemic, since the vaccines so far are effective. The labor market is recovering and business capex and government support are robust. Setbacks, such as volatile consumer confidence, will help Biden pass bills designed to shore up the economy. 2. The public fundamentally agrees with Biden (and Trump) on military withdrawal, as mentioned. Voters will only turn against him if a major attack reinforces an image of weakness on terrorism. A major attack based in Afghanistan is not nearly as likely to succeed as it was prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks. But Biden also faces an imminent increase in tensions in the Middle East that could result in attacks on the US or its allies, or other events that reinforce any image of foreign policy failure. 3. Biden has broad popular support for his infrastructure deal, which also has bipartisan buy-in, with 19 Republican Senators already having voted for it. Further, the Democratic Party has a special fast-track mechanism for passing his social spending agenda, though conviction levels must be modest on this $3.5 trillion bill, which is controversial and will have to be winnowed to pass on a partisan vote in the Senate. If we are correct that Afghanistan will not derail Biden’s legislative efforts then it will not fundamentally affect US fiscal policy or the global macro outlook. Note, however, that a failure of Biden’s bills would be significant for both domestic and global economy and financial markets as it would suggest that US fiscal policy is dysfunctional even under single party rule and would thus help to usher back in a disinflationary context. Might Afghanistan affect the midterm elections and hence the US policy setup post-2022? Not decisively. Republicans are more likely than not to retake at least the House of Representatives regardless. This is a cyclical aspect of US politics driven by voter turnout and other factors. Democrats are partly shielded in public opinion due to the Trump administration’s attempts to pull out of foreign wars. But surely a black eye on terrorism or foreign policy would not help. Similarly, a major failure to manage the Middle East, South Asia, and the pivot to Asia Pacific would marginally hurt the Democrats in 2024, but that is a long way off. Geopolitical Implications The Taliban’s reconquest of Afghanistan has very little if any direct significance for global financial markets. Pakistan and India are the two major markets most likely to be directly affected – and their own geopolitical tensions will escalate as a result – yet both equity markets have been outperforming over the course of the Taliban’s military gains (Chart 4). Afghanistan’s impacts are indirect at best. However, the US withdrawal connects with major geopolitical currents, with both macro and market significance. Afghanistan often marks the tendency of empires to overreach. Russia’s failure in Afghanistan contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, though Russia’s command economy was unsustainable anyway. British failures in Afghanistan in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries did not lead to the British empire’s decline – that was due to the world wars – but Afghanistan did accentuate its limitations. Since 9/11 and the US’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US public’s economic malaise, political polarization, and loss of faith in public institutions have gotten worse. In turn, political divisions have impeded the government’s ability to respond cogently to financial and economic crisis, the resurgence of Russia, the rise of China, nuclear proliferation, constitutional controversies, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Once again Afghanistan marked imperial overreach. It is natural for investors to be concerned about the stability of the United States. And yet the US’s global power has recently stabilized (Chart 5). The US survived the 2020 stress test and innovated new vaccines for the pandemic. It is passing laws to upgrade its domestic technological, manufacturing, and infrastructural base and confronting its global rivals. Chart 4If Indo-Pak Markets Shrug Off Taliban Wins, So Can You If Indo-Pak Markets Shrug Off Taliban Wins, So Can You If Indo-Pak Markets Shrug Off Taliban Wins, So Can You Chart 5US Geopolitical Power Is Stabilizing Afghanistan? Watch Iran And China Afghanistan? Watch Iran And China Chart 6US Not Shrinking From Global Role US Not Shrinking From Global Role US Not Shrinking From Global Role The US is not retreating from its global role, judging by defense spending or trade balances (Chart 6). While the desire to phase out wars could theoretically open the way to defense cuts, the reality is that the great power confrontation with China and Russia will demand continued large defense spending. The US also continues to run large trade deficits, due to its shortage of domestic savings, which gives it influence as a consumer and provider of dollar liquidity across the world. The critical geopolitical problem is Iran, where events have reached a critical juncture: To create a semblance of a balance of power in the Middle East, the US needs an understanding with Iran, which is locked in a struggle with Saudi Arabia over the vulnerable buffer state of Iraq. President Biden was not able to rejoin the 2015 détente with Iran prior to the inauguration of the new president, Ebrahim Raisi, who is a hawk and whose confrontational policies will lead to an escalation of Middle Eastern geopolitical risk in the short term – and, if no US-Iran deal is reached, over the long term. Iran recognizes the US’s war-weariness, as demonstrated by withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan. It was also exposed to economic sanctions after the US’s 2018-19 abrogation of the 2015 nuclear deal – it cannot trust the US to hold to a deal across administrations. Still, both the US and Iran face substantial strategic forces pressuring them to conclude a deal. The US needs to pivot to Asia while Iran needs to improve its economy and reduce social unrest prior to its looming leadership succession. But the time frame for negotiation is uncertain. Any failure to agree would revive the risk of a major war that would keep the US entangled in the region. Thus the pivot to Asia could be disrupted again, with major consequences for global politics, not because of Afghanistan but because of a failure to cut a deal with Iran. If the US succeeds in reducing its commitments to the Middle East and South Asia, the window of opportunity that China and Russia have enjoyed since 2001 will close. They will face a United States that has greater room for maneuver on a global scale. This is a threat to their own spheres of influence. But neither Beijing nor Moscow has an interest in a nuclear-armed Iran, so a US-Iran deal is still possible. Unless and until the US and Iran normalize relations, the Middle East is exposed to heightened geopolitical risk and hence oil supply risk. Global oil spare capacity is sufficient to swallow small disturbances but not major risks to stability, such as in Iraq or the Strait of Hormuz. Investment Takeaways Chart 7Near-Term US-Iran Risks Help Oil...Long-Term US-China Risks Help Dollar Near-Term US-Iran Risks Help Oil...Long-Term US-China Risks Help Dollar Near-Term US-Iran Risks Help Oil...Long-Term US-China Risks Help Dollar Back in 2001, the combination of American war spending, and conflict in the Middle East, combined with China’s massive economic opening after joining the WTO, led to a falling US dollar and an oil bull market. Today the US’s massive budget deficits and current account deficits present a structural headwind to the US dollar. Yet the greenback has remained resilient this year. While the pandemic will fade as long as vaccines continue to be effective, China’s potential growth is slowing even as it faces an unprecedented confrontation with the US and its allies. Until the US and Iran normalize relations, geopolitics will tend to threaten Middle Eastern oil supply and put upward pressure on oil prices. However, if the US manages the pivot to Asia, China will face more resolute opposition in its sphere of influence, which will tend to strengthen the dollar. The dollar and oil still tend to move in opposite directions. These geopolitical trends will be influential in determining which direction prevails (Chart 7). Thus geopolitics poses an upward risk to oil prices for now.     Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see Crawford, Neta, "United States Budgetary Costs and Obligations of Post 9/11 Wars Through FY 2020: $6.4 trillion", Watson Institute, Brown University.

Highlights Investors should view social media as a technological innovation with negative productivity growth. Social media has contributed to policy mistakes – such as fiscal austerity and protectionism – that have acted as shocks to aggregate demand over the past 15 years. The cyclical component of productivity was long lasting in nature during the last economic expansion. Forces that negatively impact economic growth but do not change the factors of production necessarily reduce measured productivity, and repeated policy mistakes strongly contributed to the slow growth profile of the last economic cycle. Political polarization in a rapidly changing world is the root cause of these policy shocks, but social media likely facilitated and magnified them. The risks of additional mistakes from populism remain present, even before considering other risks to society from social media: a reduction in mental health among young social media users, and the role that social media has played in spreading misinformation. A potential revival in protectionist sentiment is a risk to a constructive cyclical view that we will be closely monitoring over the coming 12-24 months. Investors with concentrated positions in social media stocks should be aware of the potential idiosyncratic risks facing these companies from the public’s impression of the impact of social media on society – especially if social media companies come to be widely associated with political gridlock, the polarization of society, and failed economic policies (as already appears to be the case). Feature Investors should view social media as a technological innovation with negative productivity growth. Social media has contributed to policy mistakes – such as fiscal austerity and protectionism – that have acted as shocks to aggregate demand over the past 15 years. Political polarization in a rapidly changing world is the root cause of these policy shocks, but social media likely facilitated and magnified them. While the risk of premature fiscal consolidation appears low today compared to the 2010-14 period, the pandemic and its aftermath could force the Biden administration or Congressional Democrats toward protectionist or otherwise populist actions over the coming year in the lead up to the 2022 mid-term elections. The midterms, for their part, are expected to bring gridlock back into US politics, which could remove fiscal options should the economy backslide. Frequent shocks during the last economic expansion reinforced the narrative of secular stagnation. In the coming years, any additional policy shocks following a return to economic normality will again be seen by both investors and the Fed as strong justification for low interest rates – despite the case for cyclically and structurally higher bond yields. In addition, investors with concentrated positions in social media companies should take seriously the long-term idiosyncratic risks facing these stocks. These risks stem from the public’s impression of the impact of social media on society, particularly if social media comes to be widely associated with political gridlock, the polarization of society, and failed economic policies. A Brief History Of Social Media The earliest social networking websites date back to the late 1990s, but the most influential social media platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter, originated in the mid-2000s. Prior to the advent of modern-day smartphones, user access to platforms such as Facebook and Twitter was limited to the websites of these platforms (desktop access). Following the release of the first iPhone in June 2007, however, mobile social media applications became available, allowing users much more convenient access to these platforms. Charts II-1 and II-2 highlight the impact that smartphones have had on the spread of social media, especially since the release of the iPhone 3G in 2008. In 2006, Facebook had roughly 12 million monthly active users; by 2009, this number had climbed to 360 million, growing to over 600 million the year after. Twitter, by contrast, grew somewhat later, reaching 100 million monthly active users in Q3 2011. Chart II-1Facebook: Monthly Active Users August 2021 August 2021 Chart II-2Twitter: Monthly Active Users Worldwide August 2021 August 2021   Social media usage is more common among those who are younger, but Chart II-3 highlights that usage has risen over time for all age groups. As of Q1 2021, 81% of Americans aged 30-49 reported using at least one social media website, compared to 73% of those aged 50-64 and 45% of those aged 65 and over. Chart II-4 highlights that the usage of Twitter skews in particular toward the young, and that, by contrast, Facebook and YouTube are the social media platforms of choice among older Americans. Chart II-3A Sizeable Majority Of US Adults Regularly Use Social Media A Sizeable Majority Of US Adults Regularly Use Social Media A Sizeable Majority Of US Adults Regularly Use Social Media Chart II-4Older Americans Use Facebook Far More Than Twitter August 2021 August 2021 Chart II-5Social Media Has Changed The Way People Consume News August 2021 August 2021 As a final point documenting the development and significance of social media, Chart II-5 highlights that more Americans now report consuming news often (roughly once per day) from a smartphone, computer, or tablet other than from television. Radio and print have been completely eclipsed as sources of frequent news. The major news publications themselves are often promoted through social media, but the rise of the Internet has weighed heavily on the journalism industry. Social media has, for better and for worse, enabled the rapid proliferation of alternative news, citizen journalism, rumor, conspiracy theories, and foreign disinformation. The Link Between Social Media And Post-GFC Austerity Following the 2008-2009 global financial crisis (GFC), there have been at least five deeply impactful non-monetary shocks to the US and global economies that have contributed to the disconnection between growth and interest rates: A prolonged period of US household deleveraging from 2008-2014 The Euro Area sovereign debt crisis Fiscal austerity in the US, UK, and Euro Area from 2010 – 2012/2014 The US dollar / oil price shock of 2014 The rise of populist economic policies, such as the UK decision to leave the European Union, and the US-initiated trade war of 2018-2019. Among these shocks to growth, social media has had a clear impact on two of them. In the case of austerity in the aftermath of the Great Recession, a sharp rise in fiscal conservatism in 2009 and 2010, emblematized by the rise of the US Tea Party, profoundly affected the 2010 US midterm elections. It is not surprising that there was a fiscally conservative backlash following the crisis: the US budget deficit and debt-to-GDP ratio soared after the economy collapsed and the government enacted fiscal stimulus to bail out the banking system. And midterm elections in the US often lead to significant gains for the opposition party However, Tea Party supporters rapidly took up a new means of communicating to mobilize politically, and there is evidence that this contributed to their electoral success. Chart II-6 illustrates that the number of tweets with the Tea Party hashtag rose significantly in 2010 in the lead-up to the election, which saw the Republican Party take control of the House of Representatives as well as the victory of several Tea Party-endorsed politicians. Table II-1 highlights that Tea Party candidates, who rode the wave of fiscal conservatism, significantly outperformed Democrats and non-Tea Party Republicans in the use of Twitter during the 2010 campaign, underscoring that social media use was a factor aiding outreach to voters. Chart II-6Tea Party Supporters Rapidly Adopted Social Media To Mobilize Politically Tea Party Supporters Rapidly Adopted Social Media To Mobilize Politically Tea Party Supporters Rapidly Adopted Social Media To Mobilize Politically Table II-1Tea Party Candidates Significantly Outperformed In Their Use Of Social Media August 2021 August 2021   And while it is more difficult to analyze the use and impact of Facebook by Tea Party candidates and supporters owing to inherent differences in the structure of the Facebook platform, interviews with core organizers of both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements have noted that activists in these ideologically opposed groups viewed Facebook as the most important social networking service for their political activities.1 Under normal circumstances, we agree that fiscal policy should be symmetric, with reduced fiscal support during economic expansions following fiscal easing during recessions. But in the context of multi-year household deleveraging, the fiscal drag that occurred in following the 2010 midterm elections was clearly a policy mistake. This mistake occurred partially under full Democratic control of government and especially under a gridlocked Congress after 2010. Chart II-7 highlights that the contribution to growth from government spending turned sharpy negative in 2010 and continued to subtract from growth for some time thereafter. In addition, panel of Chart II-7 highlights that the US economic policy uncertainty index rose in 2010 after falling during the first year of the recovery, reaching a new high in 2011 during the Tea Party-inspired debt ceiling crisis. Chart II-7The Fiscal Drag That Followed The 2010 Midterm Elections Was A Clear Policy Mistake The Fiscal Drag That Followed The 2010 Midterm Elections Was A Clear Policy Mistake The Fiscal Drag That Followed The 2010 Midterm Elections Was A Clear Policy Mistake Chart II-8Policy Mistakes Significantly Contributed To Last Cycle's Subpar Growth Profile Policy Mistakes Significantly Contributed To Last Cycle's Subpar Growth Profile Policy Mistakes Significantly Contributed To Last Cycle's Subpar Growth Profile In addition to the negative impact of government spending on economic growth, this extreme uncertainty very likely damaged confidence in the economic recovery, contributing to the subpar pace of growth in the first half of the last economic expansion. Chart II-8 highlights the weak evolution in real per capita GDP from 2009-2019 compared with previous economic cycles, which was caused by a prolonged household balance sheet recovery process that was made worse by policy mistakes. To be sure, the UK and the EU did not have a Tea Party, and yet political elites imposed fiscal austerity. It is also the case that President Obama was the first president to embrace social media as a political and public relations tool. So it cannot be said that either social media or the Republican Party are uniquely to blame for the policy mistakes of that era. But US fiscal policy would have been considerably looser in the 2010s if not for the Tea Party backlash, which was partly enabled by social media. Too tight of fiscal policy in turn fed populism and produced additional policy mistakes down the road. From Fiscal Drag To Populism While social media is clearly not the root cause of the recent rise of populist policies, it has had a hand in bringing them about – in both a direct and indirect manner. The indirect link between social media use and the rise in populist policies has mainly occurred through the highly successful use of social media by international terrorist organizations (chiefly ISIL) and its impact on sentiment toward immigration in several developed market economies. Chart II-9Terrorism And Immigration Likely Contributed To Brexit Terrorism And Immigration Likely Contributed To Brexit Terrorism And Immigration Likely Contributed To Brexit Chart II-9 highlights that public concerns about immigration and race in the UK began to rise sharply in 2012, in lockstep with both the rise in UK immigrants from EU accession countries and a series of events: the Syrian refugee crisis, the establishment and reign of the Islamic State, and three major terrorist attacks in European countries for which ISIL claimed responsibility. Given that the main argument for “Brexit” was for the UK to regain control over its immigration policies, these events almost certainly increased UK public support for withdrawing from the EU. In other words, it is not clear that Brexit would have occurred (at least at that moment in time) without these events given the narrow margin of victory for the “leave” campaign. The absence of social media would not have prevented the rise of ISIL, as that occurred in response to the US’s precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. The inevitable rise of ISIL would still have generated a backlash against immigration. Moreover, fiscal austerity in the UK and EU also fed other grievances that supported the Brexit movement. But social media accelerated and amplified the entire process.  Chart II-10Brexit Weakened UK Economic Performance Prior To The Pandemic Brexit Weakened UK Economic Performance Prior To The Pandemic Brexit Weakened UK Economic Performance Prior To The Pandemic Chart II-10 presents fairly strong evidence that Brexit weakened UK economic performance relative to the Euro Area prior to the pandemic, with the exception of the 2018-2019 period. In this period Euro Area manufacturing underperformed during the Trump administration’s trade war as a result of its comparatively higher exposure to automobile production and its stronger ties to China. Panel 2 highlights that GBP-EUR fell sharply in advance of the referendum, and remains comparatively weak today. Turning to the US, Donald Trump’s election as US President in 2016 was aided by both the direct and indirect effects of social media. In terms of indirect effects, Trump benefited from similar concerns over immigration and terrorism that caused the UK to leave the EU: Chart II-11 highlights that terrorism and foreign policy were second and third on the list of concerns of registered voters in mid-2016, and Chart II-12 highlights that voters regarded Trump as the better candidate to defend the US against future terrorist attacks. Chart II-11Terrorism Ranked Highly As An Issue In The 2016 US Election August 2021 August 2021 Chart II-12Voters Regarded Trump As Better Equipped To Defend Against Terrorism August 2021 August 2021 Trump’s election; and the enactment of populist policies under his administration, were directly aided by Trump’s active use of social media (mainly Twitter) to boost his candidacy. Chart II-13 highlights that there were an average of 15-20 tweets per day from Trump’s Twitter account from 2013-2015, and 80% of those tweets occurred before he announced his candidacy for president in June 2015. This strongly underscores that Trump mainly used Twitter to lay the groundwork for his candidacy as an unconventional political outsider rather than as a campaign tool itself, which distinguishes his use of social media from that of other politicians. In other words, new technology disrupted the “good old boys’ club” of traditional media and elite politics. Some policies of the Trump administration were positive for financial markets, and it is fair to say that Trump fired up animal spirits to some extent: Chart II-14 highlights that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act caused a significant rise in stock market earnings per share. But the Trump tax cuts were a conventional policy pushed mostly by the Congressional leadership of the Republican Party, and they did not meaningfully boost economic growth. Chart II-15 highlights that, while the US ISM manufacturing index rose sharply in the first year of Trump’s administration, an uptrend was already underway prior to the election as a result of a significant improvement in Chinese credit growth and a recovery in oil prices after the devastating collapse that took place in 2014-2015. Chart II-13Trump Used Twitter To Lay The Groundwork For His Candidacy Trump Used Twitter To Lay The Groundwork For His Candidacy Trump Used Twitter To Lay The Groundwork For His Candidacy Chart II-14The Trump Tax Cuts A Huge Rise In Corporate Earnings The Trump Tax Cuts A Huge Rise In Corporate Earnings The Trump Tax Cuts A Huge Rise In Corporate Earnings   Chart II-15But The Tax Cuts Did Not Do Much To Boost Growth But The Tax Cuts Did Not Do Much To Boost Growth But The Tax Cuts Did Not Do Much To Boost Growth Similarly, Chart II-15 highlights that the Trump trade war does not bear the full responsibility of the significant slowdown in growth in 2019, as China’s credit impulse decelerated significantly between the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the onset of the trade war because Chinese policymakers turned to address domestic concerns. Chart II-16The Trade War Caused An Explosion In Global Trade Uncertainty The Trade War Caused An Explosion In Global Trade Uncertainty The Trade War Caused An Explosion In Global Trade Uncertainty But Chart II-16 highlights that the aggressive imposition of tariffs, especially between the US and China, caused an explosion in trade uncertainty even when measured on an equally-weighted basis (i.e., when overweighting trade uncertainty, in countries other than the US and China), which undoubtedly weighed on the global economy and contributed to a very significant slowdown in US jobs growth in 2019 (panel 2). Moreover, Chinese policymakers responded to the trade onslaught by deleveraging, which weighed on the global economy; and consolidating their grip on power at home. In essence, Trump was a political outsider who utilized social media to bypass the traditional media and make his case to the American people. Other factors contributed to his surprising victory, not the least of which was the austerity-induced, slow-growth recovery in key swing states. While US policy was already shifting to be more confrontational toward China, the Trump administration was more belligerent in its use of tariffs than previous administrations. The trade war thus qualifies as another policy shock that was facilitated by the existence of social media. Viewing Social Media As A Negative Productivity-Innovation A rise in fiscal conservatism leading to misguided austerity, the UK’s decision to leave the European Union, and the Trump administration’s trade war have represented significant non-monetary shocks to both the US and global economies over the past 12 years. These shocks strongly contributed to the subpar growth profile of the last economic expansion, as demonstrated above. Chart II-17Policy Mistakes, Partially Enabled By Social Media, Reduced Productivity During The Last Expansion Policy Mistakes, Partially Enabled By Social Media, Reduced Productivity During The Last Expansion Policy Mistakes, Partially Enabled By Social Media, Reduced Productivity During The Last Expansion Given the above, it is reasonable for investors to view social media as a technological innovation with negative productivity growth, given that it has facilitated policy mistakes during the last economic expansion. Chart II-17 underscores this point, by highlighting that multi-factor productivity growth has been extremely weak in the post-GFC environment. While productivity is usually driven by supply-side factors over the longer term, it has a cyclical component to it – and in the case of the last economic expansion, the cyclical component was long lasting in nature. Any forces negatively impacting economic growth that do not change the factors of production necessarily reduce measured productivity; it is for this reason that measured productivity declines during recessions; and policy mistakes negatively impact productivity growth. The Risk Of Aggressive Austerity Seems Low Today… Chart II-18State & Local Government Finances Are In Much Better Shape Today State & Local Government Finances Are In Much Better Shape Today State & Local Government Finances Are In Much Better Shape Today Fiscal austerity in the early phase of the last economic cycle was the first social media-linked shock that we identified, but the risk of aggressive austerity appears low today. Much of the fiscal drag that occurred in the aftermath of the global financial crisis happened because of insufficient financial support to state and local governments – and the subsequent refusal by Congress to authorize more aid. But Chart II-18 highlights that state and local government finances have already meaningfully recovered, on the back of bipartisan stimulus in 2020, while the American Rescue Plan provides significant additional funding. While it is true that US fiscal policy is set to detract from growth over the coming 6-12 months, this will merely reflect the unwinding of fiscal aid that had aimed to support household income temporarily lost, as a result of a drastic reduction in services spending. As we noted in last month’s report,2 goods spending will likely slow as fiscal thrust turns to fiscal drag, but services spending will improve meaningfully – aided not just by a post-pandemic normalization in economic activity, but also by the deployment of some of the sizable excess savings that US households have accumulated over the past year. Fiscal drag will also occur outside of the US next year. For example, the IMF is forecasting a two percentage point increase in the Euro Area’s cyclically-adjusted primary budget balance, which would represent the largest annual increase over the past two decades. But here too the reduction in government spending will reflect the end of pandemic-related income support, and is likely to occur alongside a positive private-sector services impulse. During the worst of the Euro Area sovereign debt crisis, the impact of austerity was especially acute because it was persistent, and it occurred while the output gap was still large in several Euro Area economies. Chart II-19 highlights that Euro Area fiscal consolidation from 2010-2013 was negatively correlated with economic activity during that period, and Chart II-20 highlights that, with the potential exception of Spain, this austerity does not appear to have led to subsequently stronger rates of growth. Chart II-19Euro Area Austerity Lowered Growth During The Consolidation Phase… August 2021 August 2021 Chart II-20…And Did Not Seem To Subsequently Raise Growth August 2021 August 2021   This experiment in austerity led the IMF to conclude that fiscal multipliers are indeed large during periods of substantial economic slack, constrained monetary policy, and synchronized fiscal adjustment across numerous economies.3 Similarly, attitudes about austerity have shifted among policymakers globally in the wake of the populist backlash. Given this, despite the significant increase in government debt levels that has occurred as a result of the pandemic, we strongly doubt that advanced economies will attempt to engage in additional austerity prematurely, i.e., before unemployment rates have returned close-to steady-state levels. …But The Risk Of Protectionism And Other Populist Measures Looms Large The role that social media has played at magnifying populist policies should be concerning for investors, especially given that there has been a rising trend towards populism over the past 20 years. In a recent paper, Funke, Schularick, and Trebesch have compiled a cross-country database on populism dating back to 1900, defining populist leaders as those who employ a political strategy focusing on the conflict between “the people” and “the elites.” Chart II-21 highlights that the number of populist governments worldwide has risen significantly since the 1980s and 1990s, and Chart II-22 highlights that the economic performance of countries with populist leaders is clearly negative. Chart II-21Populism Has Been On The Rise For The Past 30 Years August 2021 August 2021 The authors found that countries’ real GDP growth underperformed by approximately one percentage point per year after a populist leader comes to power, relative to both the country’s own long-term growth rate and relative to the prevailing level of global growth. To control for the potential causal link between economic growth and the rise of populist leaders, Chart II-23 highlights the results of a synthetic control method employed by the authors that generates a similar conclusion to the unconditional averages shown in Chart II-22: populist economic policies are significantly negative for real economic growth. Chart II-22Populist Leaders Are Clearly Growth Killers Even After… August 2021 August 2021 Chart II-23… Controlling For The Odds That Weak Growth Leads To Populism August 2021 August 2021 Chart II-24Inequality: The Most Important Structural Cause Of Populism And Polarization Inequality: The Most Important Structural Cause Of Populism And Polarization Inequality: The Most Important Structural Cause Of Populism And Polarization This is especially concerning given that wealth and income inequality, perhaps the single most important structural cause of rising populism and political polarization, is nearly as elevated as it was in the 1920s and 1930s (Chart II-24). This trend, at least in the US, has been exacerbated by a decline in public trust of mainstream media among independents and Republicans that began in the early 2000s and helped to fuel the public’s adoption of alternative news and social media. The decline in trust clearly accelerated as a result of erroneous reporting on what turned out to be nonexistent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and other controversies of the Bush administration. Chart II-21 showed that the rise in populism has also yet to abate, suggesting that social media has the potential to continue to amplify policy mistakes for the foreseeable future. It is not yet clear what economic mistakes will occur under the Biden administration, but investors should not rule out the possibility of policies that are harmful for growth. The likely passage of a bipartisan infrastructure bill or a partisan reconciliation bill in the second half of this year will most likely be the final word on fiscal policy until at least 2025,4 underscoring that active fiscal austerity is not likely a major risk to investors. Spending levels will probably freeze after 2022: Republicans will not be able to slash spending, and Democrats will not be able to hike spending or taxes, if Republicans win at least one chamber of Congress in the midterms (as is likely). Biden has preserved the most significant of Trump’s protectionist policies by maintaining US import tariffs against China, and the lesson from the Tea Party’s surge following the global financial crisis is that major political shifts, magnified by social media, can manifest themselves as policy with the potential to impact economic activity within a two-year window. Attitudes toward China have shifted negatively around the world because of deindustrialization and now the pandemic.5 White collar workers in DM countries have clearly fared better during lockdowns than those of lower-income households. This has created extremely fertile ground for a revival in populist sentiment, which could force the Biden administration or Congressional Democrats toward protectionist or otherwise populist actions over the coming year, in the lead up to the 2022 mid-term elections. Investment Conclusions In this report, we have documented the historical link between social media, populism, and policy mistakes during the last economic expansion. It is clear that neither social media nor even populism is solely responsible for all mistakes – the UK’s and EU’s ill-judged foray into austerity was driven by elites. Furthermore, we have not addressed in this report the impact of populism on actions of emerging markets, such as China and Russia, whose own behavior has dealt disinflationary blows to the global economy. Nevertheless, populism is a potent force that clearly has the power to harness new technology and deliver shocks to the global economy and financial markets. The risks of additional mistakes from populism are still present, and that is even before considering other risks to society from social media: a reduction in mental health among young social media users, and the role that social media has played in spreading misinformation – contributing to the vaccine hesitancy in some DM countries that we discussed in Section 1 of our report. Two investment conclusions emerge from our analysis. First, we noted in our April report that there is a chance that investor expectations for the natural rate of interest (“R-star”) will rise once the economy normalizes post-pandemic, but that this will likely not occur as long as investors continue to believe in the narrative of secular stagnation. Despite the fact that the past decade’s shocks occurred against the backdrop of persistent household deleveraging (which has ended in the US), these shocks reinforced that narrative, and any additional policy shocks following a return to economic normality will again be seen by both investors and the Fed as strong justification for low interest rates. Thus, while the rapid closure of output gaps in advanced economies over the coming year argues for both cyclically and structurally higher bond yields, a revival in protectionist sentiment is a risk to this view that we will be closely monitoring over the coming 12-24 months. Chart II-25The Underperformance Of Social Media Would Not Excessively Weigh On The Broad Market The Underperformance Of Social Media Would Not Excessively Weigh On The Broad Market The Underperformance Of Social Media Would Not Excessively Weigh On The Broad Market Second, for tech investors, the bipartisan shift in public sentiment to become more critical of social media companies is gradually becoming a real risk, potentially affecting user growth. Based solely on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, and Snapchat, social media companies do not account for a very significant share of the overall equity market (Chart II-25), suggesting that the impact of a negative shift in sentiment toward social media companies would not be an overly significant event for equity investors in general. Chart II-25 highlights that the share of social media companies as a percent of the broad tech sector rises if Google is included; YouTube accounts for less than 15% of Google’s total advertising revenue, however, suggesting modest additional exposure beyond the solid line in Chart II-25. Still, investors with concentrated positions in social media stocks should be aware of the potential idiosyncratic risks facing social media companies as a result of the public’s impression of the impact of social media on society. If social media companies come to be widely associated with political gridlock, the polarization of society, and failed economic policies (as already appears to be the case), then the fundamental performance of these stocks is likely to be quite poor regardless of whether or not tech companies ultimately enjoy a relatively friendly regulatory environment under the Biden administration. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 Grassroots Organizing in the Digital Age: Considering Values and Technology in Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street by Agarwal, Barthel, Rost, Borning, Bennett, and Johnson, Information, Communication & Society, 2014. 2 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst “July 2021,” dated June 24, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3 “Are We Underestimating Short-Term Fiscal Multipliers?” IMF World Economic Outlook, October 2012 4 Please see US Political Strategy Outlook "Third Quarter Outlook 2021: Game Time," dated June 30, 2021, available at usps.bcaresearch.com 5 “Unfavorable Views of China Reach Historic Highs in Many Countries,” PEW Research Center, October 2020.

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

Dear Client, I am visiting clients in Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, and India this week, and as such there will be no regular Weekly Report. Instead, we are sending you a Special Report written by my colleague Marko Papic, Senior Vice President, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service. Marko argues that the Middle East has reached a stable equilibrium, as much as is possible, and will not drive the news or markets in 2017. I hope you will find this report both interesting and informative. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy Highlights The Middle East is not a major geopolitical risk in 2017. Saudi-Iranian and Russo-Turkish tensions will de-escalate, for now. The OPEC production cut will go through; oil prices will average $55/bbl in 2017. Geopolitical risk continues to rotate to the Asia Pacific region. Trump, Iranian elections, and Iraqi instability pose risks to the view. Feature The Middle East has dominated the news flow for the past five years, for good reason. The carnage in Syria and Iraq is tragic and reprehensible. However, the investment relevance of the various regional conflicts is dubious. For all the attention paid to the rise of the Islamic State, we would remind clients that the group's conquest of Iraq's second-largest city Mosul in June 2014 did not cause a spike in oil prices but rather marked the end of the bull market (Chart 1)! From an investment perspective, the only dynamic worth watching in the Middle East is the "Great Game" between regional actors, which have been looking to fill the vacuum left by America's dramatic geopolitical deleveraging (Chart 2). The U.S. strategy is permanent and driven by global interests, namely the rise of China and the need to shift resources towards East Asia. Given the incoming Trump administration's laser focus on China, we expect that the U.S. will remain aloof from the Middle East. Chart 1Ironically, Worry About The Fall Of ISIS Ironically, Worry About The Fall Of ISIS Ironically, Worry About The Fall Of ISIS Chart 2While The U.S. Military Deleverages... While The U.S. Military Deleverages... While The U.S. Military Deleverages... Does the recent détente between Russia and Turkey in Syria, and between Iran and Saudi Arabia over OPEC production cuts, signal that the Middle East has finally found geopolitical equilibrium? We tentatively think the answer is yes. This will reduce the importance of the region as the primary source of geopolitical risk premia, which BCA's geopolitical strategists have expected to shift to Asia for some time.1 Saudi-Iranian Tensions Are On Ice Chart 3...The Saudi Arabian Military Leverages Up ...The Saudi Arabian Military Leverages Up ...The Saudi Arabian Military Leverages Up Since the U.S. decision to deleverage from the region in 2011, Saudi Arabia has leveraged up, becoming one of the world's largest arms purchasers and involving itself overtly and covertly in several regional conflicts in the process (Chart 3). Saudi insecurity deepened following President Barack Obama's decision to leave no troops in Iraq. The last U.S. soldier of the main occupation force left Iraq on December 18, 2011. The very next day, on December 19, Iraq's Shia Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, a close ally of Iran, issued an order for the arrest of the Sunni Vice-President Tariq al-Hashimi. The move by al-Maliki set off what essentially became a civil war in the country, with the Sunni minority eventually turning to ever-more radicalized militant groups for protection. From the Saudi perspective, Iraq is a vital piece of real estate as it is a natural buffer between itself and its Shia rival Iran. While the Fifth Fleet of the U.S. Navy, based in Bahrain, continues to guard against any Iranian incursion via the Persian Gulf, there is very little space between the Saudi oil fields and Iran if Iraq falls into Iran's orbit. The subsequent five years saw Iran and Saudi Arabia fight several proxy wars in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. These included direct military action by Iran in Iraq and Syria against Saudi-backed militants and by Saudi Arabia in Yemen against Iranian-backed militants. It also included oil politics, with Saudi Arabia announcing in November 2014 that it was ending years of its price-setting strategy. These strategies ultimately proved to be unsustainable and BCA's Geopolitical Strategy called the peak in Saudi-Iranian tensions in February 2016.2 Why? First, because oil prices collapsed! Geopolitical adventurism is a luxury afforded to those with the means to pursue adventures. The combination of low oil prices, domestic social outlays, and an expensive war in Yemen forced Saudi Arabia to burn through $220 billion of its foreign reserves between July 2014 and December 2016, equivalent to 30% of its central-bank holdings!3 There is a relationship between high oil prices and aggressive foreign policy in oil-producing states (Chart 4). Political science research shows that the relationship is not spurious. As Chart 5 illustrates, petrol states led by revolutionary leaders are much more likely to engage in militarized international disputes.4 This relationship is particularly pronounced when oil sells at above $70 per barrel. At that price, oil producing states become more prone to disputes than non-oil states, regardless of leadership qualities. Chart 4 Chart 5 Second, Saudi Arabia's military campaign in Yemen proved to be a disaster. The kingdom intervened in March 2015 to reinstate the democratically elected President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi, who had been removed from power by Iranian-linked Houthi rebels. The real reason for the intervention was for the Saudis to gauge their war-making capabilities, test their recently purchased military equipment, and put a check on Iranian influence in the region. A quick, successful war in Yemen would have been a template for future interventions in Iraq and Syria on behalf of Sunni allies, and would have cemented Saudi Arabia's position as a regional power in the wake of the U.S. withdrawal. As BCA's Geopolitical Strategy warned, however, defeating the experienced Houthis would not be easy and Saudi Arabia would ultimately hesitate to commit to a land war.5 The intervention has resulted in disaster for Saudi Arabia on several levels: Houthis remain in control of the capital Sana'a and largely the same territory that encompassed the former Yemen Arab Republic (North Yemen); The Saudis, desperate for a ground-force presence, have turned a blind eye to Al Qaeda's and ISIS's control of almost a third of the country in the south and coastal regions; Saudi forces have taken considerable losses, including some high-tech and high-priced items; The conflict has exposed severe military deficiencies, from the low level of strategic and tactical planning of senior staff, to the poor communication of units at the middle level, to the pervasive low morale and training of the rank-and-file. The biggest loss for Saudi Arabia has been that of leadership. What began as a pan-Sunni intervention led by Riyadh, with considerable involvement by the UAE and Egypt, has seen the Saudis lose almost all their allies. The UAE removed its troops in mid-2016 (in somewhat of a diplomatic spat with Riyadh) and Egypt has subsequently held military exercises with Russia, a Saudi rival in the region, and decided in December to provide military advisors to the Syrian Arab Army. All the talk about a "Sunni NATO" is over. Saudi Arabia's experience in Yemen, combined with the decline in its currency reserves, forced it to come to terms with reality, and eventually agree to an oil production cut with Russia and Iran. Thus it took Saudi Arabia exactly five years, from the U.S. withdrawal in Iraq in 2011, to realize the limits of its regional power. Bob Ryan, Senior Vice President of BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy, correctly forecast the OPEC cut and expects the deal to be successfully implemented in 2017.6 One reason Bob is confident is that both Saudi Arabia and Russia are looking to privatize their energy sector significantly by 2018. Russia has sold 19.5% of Rosneft and the Saudis want to conduct an IPO of 5% of their state-owned oil company Aramco. It makes no sense to do this IPO in an environment of low oil prices. Furthermore, sovereign debt issuance to cover budget deficits will become cheaper when oil prices are higher. Geopolitics are aligning with Bob's view as well. Saudi Arabia's attempt to counter Iranian influence in the region has failed both militarily and via oil politics. Riyadh is focusing inwards, on its "Vision 2030" reforms, which will entail considerable domestic upheaval as a result of its comprehensive effort to remove the ultra-conservative religious establishment from power.7 This is now coming to light, with Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman recently announcing harsh punitive measures for any cleric who incites or resorts to violence against the reform agenda. Bottom Line: Saudi Arabia's bid for regional hegemony is over, at least for now. The country is focusing inwards, on long-term political and social reforms and economic diversification. Its efforts to bring Iran to heel with low oil prices and with direct military confrontation in Yemen have failed. The oil production-cut deal between Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Russia should hold as a result of the de-escalation of Saudi-Iranian tensions and the socio-economic priorities of all three states. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy service is overweight energy relative to other commodities as a result.8 Is The Russia-Turkey Détente Sustainable? Turkey and Russia have concluded a political and military détente in Syria with surprising speed. This has made one of our major geopolitical risks for 2017 - a Turkish-Russian confrontation over Syria - already obsolete. Much as with Saudi Arabia, Turkey has had a bite of regional hegemony, did not like the bitter taste, and has decided to make a deal with its rivals instead. For Turkey, the real concern over the past five years has been American inaction in Syria. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has spent a lot of political capital opposing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. He had hoped that a successful revolution would create a new client state for Turkey, yielding Turkey overland access to Persian Gulf energy sources. Erdogan was therefore beyond dismayed when President Barack Obama failed to intervene in Syria in 2013 following Assad's use of chemical weapons. The chronology of what happened next is important: Russia intervened two years later, in September 2015, to stem the progress of anti-Assad rebels and save the regime from collapse. Two months later, a Russian Sukhoi Su-24 was shot down by Turkish F-16s in the Turkey-Syria border area. Turkey and Russia broke relations for a while, but tensions did not escalate. Ankara faced a coup attempt in mid-July 2016, which the ruling party linked to the U.S.-based Islamist preacher Fethullah Gülen. The Obama administration refused to extradite Gülen without concrete evidence of his involvement. By late July, Turkish officials were calling Russia a "friendly neighbor" and a "strategic partner." In early August, Erdogan met Russian President Vladimir Putin in St. Petersburg, after issuing a letter with an apology to the family of the shot-down pilot. Then, on August 24, Turkey invaded Syria. The military intervention, dubbed "Operation Euphrates Shield," was officially launched to fight the Islamic State, a common pretext these past three years. Erdogan officially stated that he also aimed to fight Assad's regime, but this appeared to put Ankara and Moscow back on collision course, and statements from the Turkish side have since been "corrected." The real reason for the intervention was not to fight ISIS or Assad, but rather to curb the gains made by the various Kurdish militias on the ground in Iraq and Syria. In particular, Ankara intervened to prevent the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) - the armed wing of the Syrian Democratic Union Party, which is affiliated with the Turkey-based Kurdistan Workers' Party - from linking up with its now vast territory held in the north of Syria (Map 1). Chart The territory, which our map shows has expanded considerably as the YPG has claimed mostly Islamic State-held areas, is split between Rojava, the main territory east of the Euphrates river, and the Afrin enclave near the Mediterranean Sea. For Turkey, the proximity of such a vast Kurdish-held territory so close to its own Kurdish southeastern region presents a national-security nightmare. The operation's strategic goal was to capture Al-Bab, the stronghold of the Islamic State in northern Syria and a strategic point between the two YPG-held swaths of territory. However, it has taught the Turks that they have no experience fighting a prolonged battle, especially against local insurgents and militants who know the region. Since the first attack on Al-Bab's western part, the Turkish army has suffered three defeats and retreated to initial positions. With Turkey stuck in Al-Bab, the Russian air force has now begun to bomb Islamic State positions to help their tentative new ally. This level of operational coordination is notable and important. It suggests that Turkey, a NATO member state, is now reliant on Russian air strikes for ground support rather than on American sorties flying out of NATO's air base in Incirlik, Turkey. Turkey even claims that U.S. presence in Incirlik is obsolete if it receives no help from the U.S. Air Force around Al-Bab. How sustainable is the Turkey-Russia détente? We suspect it will be quite sustainable, at least in the short term. Ankara has moved away from demands for Assad to step down, with the Deputy Prime Minister, Numan Kurtulmus, recently stating that Turkey would not "impose any decision" on the Syrian people regarding future leadership. The assassination of the Russian ambassador in Turkey also failed to derail Russo-Turkish cooperation. Beyond the short term, however, the question remains what Turkey intends to do about Kurdish gains, which are considerable in both Syria and Iraq. The town of Manbij, for instance, is strategically located west of the Euphrates and was supposed to be ceded to Turkey by the Kurds. The situation could grow even more complicated for Turkey as the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in Iraq may proclaim independence after the Islamic State stronghold of Mosul is liberated in early 2017.9 The YPG in Syria could then ask to join their fellow Kurds in Iraq in forming a unitary state. Although unlikely, this scenario is probably on Turkey's mind, as it would mean that the Kurds inside Turkey may intensify their anti-government insurgency. Note, however, that this scenario does not bother Russia. As far as Moscow is concerned, it has succeeded in keeping Assad in power, its Syrian naval base in Tartus is secure, and it has proven its ability to project power outside of its immediate sphere of influence (Ukraine, Crimea, Georgia, and the Caucasus), thus advertising its "Great Power" status. Bottom Line: For the time being, the Russian-Turkish détente will hold. The real risk is not a Turkish-Russian confrontation, but rather a wider Turkish engagement in both Syria and Iraq against the Kurds sometime in the future. We suspect that the Turkish military experience in Syria may make the Turks think twice about engaging in a large-scale war against the Kurds across three states. But given the erratic policymaking out of Ankara in recent years, it is difficult to say this with any confidence. The geopolitical risk of Turkish imperial overreach will continue to weigh on Turkish assets in 2017. Risks To The Sanguine View There are many reasons why investors should stay up at night in 2017, but the Middle East is not one of them. The process of U.S. deleveraging from the region has been painful and costly (from a human perspective especially), but it has ultimately forced regional powers to figure out how to carve out the leftover space between them. There are a few questions left to answer, starting with the Kurdish question. But, for the most part, we do not expect to see the major players - Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Russia, Egypt, or Israel - come to blows with each other. There are three major risks to this sanguine view. The U.S. Is Back! The current semi-stable equilibrium will definitely be thrown off track if the Trump administration decides to sink its teeth fully into the Middle East. We expect President-elect Donald Trump to authorize greater military action against the Islamic State, including more intense air strikes. However, this is not a qualitative reversal of Obama's deleveraging policy. A real reversal would be if Trump decided to follow the advice of Iran hawks in his government - of whom there are several - and increase tensions with Tehran. This is unlikely, given Trump's focus on China and his willingness to improve ties with Russia, a nominal ally of Iran. In fact, there has been almost no talk of Iran from either President-elect Trump or any of his advisors since the election. Furthermore, while U.S. oil imports from OPEC are no longer declining, they are still massively down since their peak in the mid-2000s (Chart 6). It is unlikely that Trump will commit resources to a region of diminishing importance to U.S. interests. Change Of Guard In Tehran. While the risk of Washington saber-rattling with Iran is overstated, what happens if the moderate President Hassan Rouhani is defeated in the upcoming May election? Hardliners are arguing that the nuclear deal with the West has done nothing for the economy, the main pillar of Rouhani's 2013 platform. This is not true. Headline inflation ticked up in late 2016, but remains well off the 40% levels in 2013, while GDP growth has been in the black throughout Rouhani's term, and net exports have bottomed (Chart 7). However, the flow of FDI into the country has been tepid, probably due to ongoing uncertainty with the government transition in the U.S. Both European and Asian businesses are waiting to see if the incoming Trump administration wants to revive sanctions. Meanwhile, skirmishes between U.S. and Iranian vessels - purportedly controlled by the hardline Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps - have increased in the Persian Gulf. Perhaps the hardliners in Tehran are hoping that they can bait the hardliners in D.C. into a pre-election confrontation that sinks Rouhani. Iraqi Instability. Although the Iraqi government is set to take over Mosul from the Islamic State some time in Q1 2017, the fact remains that the country is bitterly divided between Sunnis and Shia amidst sluggish oil revenues. While the production cut deal will raise revenues marginally, revenues will still be well below their highs (Chart 8). Defeating the Islamic State militarily is one thing, but the real challenge is for Baghdad to reintegrate the Sunni population, which largely lives in territory devoid of oil production. A renewal of civil strife and terrorism targeting Iraqi civilians, which could happen as the Islamic State militants blend back into the wider population, may be a risk in 2017. Chart 6U.S. Imports From OPEC Remain Low U.S. Imports From OPEC Remain Low U.S. Imports From OPEC Remain Low Chart 7Iranian Economy Improves Under Reformist Rule Iranian Economy Improves Under Reformist Rule Iranian Economy Improves Under Reformist Rule Chart 8Iraqi Oil Revenues Still Down From Highs Iraqi Oil Revenues Still Down From Highs Iraqi Oil Revenues Still Down From Highs A word on Israel may also be in order. Israel has not played a major geopolitical role in the region for the past five years and we suspect it will not in the next five. It is secure from its neighbours, who cannot match it in terms of military capability, and remains preoccupied with domestic politics and internal security. Meanwhile, the days when the region unified against Israel are over. Sectarian and ethnic conflicts have gutted Israel's traditional enemies. And former foes, particularly Egypt and Saudi Arabia, are now close allies. The one geopolitical threat that remains is Iran. However, that threat remains dormant as long as Israel maintains nuclear supremacy over Iran and as long as the U.S. remains a security guarantor for Israel. We do not see either changing any time soon. Investment Implications The main investment implication of our thesis that the Middle East has found a new equilibrium is that the region will not dominate the news flow in 2017. Short of a major Turkish blunder in Syria and Iraq, we see the current status quo largely frozen in place. Saudi Arabia appears to have conceded, for now at least, its inferior place in the geopolitical pecking order. Investors have plenty of things to worry about in 2017, such as general de-globalization, a potential Sino-American trade war, geopolitical tensions in East Asia, and elections in four of the five largest euro-area economies. Our geopolitical team's long-standing thesis that geopolitical risk is rotating out of the Middle East and into East Asia is therefore fully playing out.10 Chart 9KSA-Russia Production ##br##Pact Aims at Lowering Inventories KSA-Russia Production Pact Aims at Lowering Inventories KSA-Russia Production Pact Aims at Lowering Inventories In the near term, the geopolitical equilibrium should allow Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Russia to maintain their six-month agreement to cut production by up to 1.8 million b/d. The stated volumes to be cut are comprised of 1.2 million b/d from OPEC, 300,000 b/d from Russia, and another 300,000 b/d from other non-OPEC producers. The goal of this agreement is to reduce global oil inventories to more normal levels, which our commodity strategists believe will happen by the end of 2017 (Chart 9). Bob Ryan, of the Commodity & Energy Strategy, forecasts U.S. benchmark WTI crude prices to average $55/bbl in 2017. The incoming Trump administration will focus its Middle East policy on cooperating with regional actors against the Islamic State. Investors should expect to see more American "muscle" dedicated to the fight, perhaps at the risk of causing civilian casualties (which the Obama White House was careful to avoid). The downside of this strategy is that as the Islamic State loses its territory and ceases to be a caliphate, it will revert to being a more conventional terrorist organization. Its foreign fighters may return home to Europe, Russia, and elsewhere, while home-grown militants will seek to sow further Sunni-Shia discord, especially in Iraq. Unfortunately, this trend will keep our thesis of "A Bull Market For Terror" intact, which lends support to U.S. defense stocks.11 Marko Papic, Senior Vice President marko@bcaresearch.com Oleg Babanov, Editor/Strategist obabanov@bcaresearch.co.uk 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see "Middle East: Saudi-Iran Tensions Have Peaked," in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Mercantilism Is Back," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 According to the estimates of BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy, "Tactical Focus Again Required In 2017," dated January 5, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Cullen S. Hendrix, "Oil Prices and Interstate Conflict Behavior," Peterson Institute for International Economics, dated July 2014, available at iie.com. According to Hendrix, revolutionary leaders are "leaders who come to power by force and attempt to transform preexisting political and economic relationships, both domestically and abroad." The definition is broad and includes leaders who used force in order to gain prominence. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "Does Yemen Matter?" dated March 26, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "2017 Commodity Outlook: Energy," December 8, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Saudi Arabia's Choice: Modernity Or Bust," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. See also Emerging Market Equity Sector Strategy, "MENA: Rise Early, Work Hard, Strike Oil," dated October 4, 2016, available at emes.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy, "Tactical Focus Again Required In 2017," dated January 5, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see P. Ronzheimer, C. Weinmann, and K. Mössbauer, "Kurden Brauchen Mehr Deutsche Abwehrraketen," Bild, dated October 28, 2016, available at http://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/mossul/kurden-brauchen-dringend-milan-systeme-48495330.bild.html. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Great Risk Rotation," dated December 11, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "A Bull Market For Terror," dated August 5, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

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