War/Conflict

Highlights North Korea is a geopolitical opportunity more than a risk to markets - the key regional risk comes from U.S.-China tensions; China's geopolitical rise, and the fear of a U.S. attack on North Korea, is driving the two Koreas together; The U.S. can accept something less than complete denuclearization - such as inspections and a missile freeze; The path of peace and eventual unification removes the risk of disruption to the global economy and is positive for South Korea's currency and certain assets. Feature We at BCA's Geopolitical Strategy have been optimists about the diplomatic tack in North Korea since September 2017.1 Our optimism stands in stark contrast to our pessimism about U.S.-China relations. U.S.-China trade tensions will create an ongoing headwind for assets linked to the status quo of Sino-American engagement (Chart 1). U.S. President Donald Trump's threat to move forward with tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese goods - and his decision to impose steel and aluminum tariffs on China and others - lends credence to our long-held view that globalization has peaked.2 The seal on protectionism has been broken by the country known as the guarantor of free trade (Chart 2). Chart 1Trade Tensions Far From Resolved Chart 2The U.S. Has Broken The Seal On Protectionism Trade tensions are also spilling out into strategic areas of disagreement, as we expected.3 This week, Defense Secretary James Mattis warned China that the U.S. will maintain a "steady drumbeat" of freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea (Diagram 1). The goal is to reject China's claims of sovereignty over the sea and the rocks and reefs within it.4 The potential for a geopolitical incident or "Black Swan" event to occur in the South China Sea - or even the Taiwan Strait - is high. Diagram 1The U.S. Is Pushing Back Against China's Maritime-Territorial Claims For investors, the secular decline in U.S.-China ties and the "apex of globalization" are much more relevant than what happens on the Korean peninsula - as long as the peninsula does not become the central battleground between the two great powers in a replay of the devastating 1950-53 war. In this report we argue that it will not. The current round of diplomacy between the U.S. and North Korea is likely to bear fruit in a diplomatic settlement of some kind, even a peace treaty, by 2020.5 Investors should see North Korea as a geopolitical opportunity rather than a geopolitical risk. While North Korea can still contribute to volatility, we recommend investors monitor U.S.-China trade tensions, the East and South China Seas, and Taiwan as the chief sources of market-relevant geopolitical risk in this region going forward. Elsewhere, U.S.-Iran tensions are the key understated geopolitical risk to markets. China: Hiding In Plain Sight The current diplomatic effort in the Koreas has a powerful tailwind behind it: the rise of China. China's re-emergence simply cannot be overstated. It is on track to reclaim its historic role as the world's largest economy (Chart 3A) and is developing naval, air, space and cyber-space capabilities that are rapidly eroding the U.S.'s military supremacy (Chart 3B). The rise of China vis-à-vis the U.S. is the single biggest difference between today's attempts to resolve the Korean issue and previous attempts in the 1990s and 2000s. China is reaching a critical mass that is changing the behavior of the states around it (Chart 4). Chart 3AChina's Economic Revival: ##br##The Long View Chart 3BChina's Comprehensive ##br##Geopolitical Power Rising Chart 4EM Economic ##br##Reliance On China As a result, a number of anomalies are occurring throughout the region: The United States is trying to revive its Pacific presence, yet cannot decide how: From 2010-16, the U.S. sought a historic deal with Iran that would enable it to wash its hands of the Middle East and "pivot to Asia." The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was envisioned as an advanced trade deal - excluding China - that would integrate the Pacific Rim economies under a new trade framework; China would have to reform its economy in order to join. Under President Trump, however, the U.S. canceled the TPP and revoked the Iranian deal,6 while maintaining the pivot to Asia through "hard power" tactics. The Washington establishment is unified in its desire to toughen policy on China, but it is divided about how to do so - a sign of the enormity of the challenge. Japan is taking drastic, 1930s-style measures to reflate its economy, which is necessary to revive its overall strategic capability. Military spending is on the rise (Chart 5). Symbolically, the pacifist Article Nine in the post-WWII constitution may be revised next year.7 Taiwan is distancing itself from China, with Beijing-skeptic candidates dominating every level of government since the 2014 and 2016 elections. The Taiwanese increasingly see themselves as exclusively Taiwanese, not also Chinese (Chart 6) - making Taiwan a potential source of "Black Swan" events.8 Chart 5Japan's 'Re-Militarization' Chart 6Majority Of Taiwanese Are Exclusively Taiwanese Southeast Asian states are vacillating. Filipinos and South Koreans recently voted against confrontation with China while Malaysians have voted against excessive Chinese influence; Thailand's junta has warmed up to Beijing while Myanmar's junta has sought some distance. The common thread is the desire to do something about China.9 India, long known for its independent foreign policy and "non-aligned" status in the Cold War, has begun courting deeper relationships with the U.S., Japan, and Australia, for fear of China. Even Russia, one of Beijing's closest partners, is engaged in talks with Japan that could result in a peace treaty, allowing these two to bury the hatchet and create economic and strategic options outside of China's control.10 Australia - the country with the most favorable view of China in the West (Chart 7) - is in the midst of an internal crisis over China that has recently broken out into a direct diplomatic spat resulting in Beijing imposing discrete economic sanctions. It goes without saying that China's rise is being felt with extreme sensitivity on the Korean peninsula. Korean kingdoms have historically struggled either to maintain their independence from China or to avoid becoming the battleground in China's conflicts with outside powers. North Korea has taken this dependency to the extreme. Trade data shows that its links to China have grown substantially since the Global Financial Crisis. China's stimulus-fueled economic boom increased commodity imports, while international sanctions cut off Pyongyang's access to most other foreign capital. The strategic vulnerability is revealed both before and after China's enforcement of sanctions in 2017 (Chart 8).11 Chart 7Australia And Russia Are China's Best Friends Chart 8North Korea's Over-Reliance On China Chinese President Xi Jinping's ascendancy - marked by his strict personal control of the ruling party and scrapping of term limits - has reinforced the North's vulnerability. Like his predecessor Jiang Zemin (1992-2004), Xi represents a faction in the Communist Party of China that sees Pyongyang as more of a liability than an asset. North Korea's anxiety can be marked by Kim Jong Un's attempts to reduce the "pro-China" faction within the North Korean state. For instance, he has ordered the execution of his uncle, Jang Song Taek, who was close to Beijing, and his half-brother, Kim Jong Nam, who lived in Macao and was China's "alternative" to Kim.12 In effect, the next few years offer what is probably North Korea's last chance to create some new strategic options with South Korea and the rest of the world if it is to avoid being a mere vassal state for the coming centuries. Pyongyang's chief security threat is the United States and it has pursued a nuclear deterrent for decades in order to be able to negotiate with the U.S. for regime survival. The deterrent gives the North some independence, but normalizing ties with South Korea and the U.S. would enable the North to diversify its economy and reduce its dependence on China. South Korea is also fearful that the coming decades will bring a Chinese empire that effectively swallows North Korea and surrounds Seoul. Eventually the North must liberalize and industrialize its economy: will South Korea have a part in this process, or will China take it all? South Korean President Moon Jae-in wishes to reduce the risk of war prompted by North Korea's conflict with the United States, but he also wishes to gain leverage over the North so that China does not absorb its economy. In short, the historic re-emergence of China is encouraging Korean integration, as the two Korean states begin to reconsider their relationship and national needs in the face of global "multipolarity" and great power competition.13 The strategic logic is thus pushing toward Korean unification, even if unification is in practice a long way away. A unified Korean peninsula would rise toward the level of Japan in comprehensive geopolitical power (see Chart 3B above). With a population of 75 million, South Korean technological prowess, and at least nuclear potential (if not outright capability), the Koreas would be better prepared to defend their interests against China and other neighbors than they are separately. In a multipolar world, strength in numbers has an appealing strategic logic. Unification, however, will be extremely costly for the ruling elites of both North and South Korea, possibly prohibitive. It is not within our five-year forecast horizon. Instead, economic engagement will be the main focus, a necessary but not sufficient step toward unification. Bottom Line: China's rise, as it pertains to Korea, is underestimated by investors. It is putting pressure on the two Koreas to cooperate, create some solidarity, and expand their economic and strategic options over the long run. It is also putting pressure on the U.S. to encourage this process and try to remove or reduce the nuclear threat through economic engagement rather than war. How Is "Moonshine" Different From "Sunshine"? South Korean President Moon Jae-in won a sweeping victory in the election of May 2017 on a promise to renew South Korea's engagement with the North. His agenda has been nicknamed "Moonshine policy."14 Will Moonshine actually work? In addition to China's rise, several of today's political trends are supportive of a diplomatic settlement: North Korean leadership change: Power succession and consolidation: Kim is not the rash and inexperienced youth that many feared upon his coming to power in 2011. Instead he has consolidated power within the regime and waged high-stakes international negotiations with the U.S. and China. He is also overseeing a generational change in the upper ranks of the party and state. Such a change is necessary if North Korea is ever to revamp its relations with the world.15 Economic reform: In March 2013, not long after coming to power, Kim signaled a shift in national policy. The North Korean governing philosophy under his father was called juche, or "self-reliance," and had a heavy emphasis on putting the military first. But Kim has promised to develop the economy alongside nuclear weapons, creating a governing philosophy known as byungjin, or "parallel development."16 There is substantial evidence of marketization in North Korea, which was formally allowed in 2003 but has been growing faster since the Global Financial Crisis and the country's failed currency reforms at that time. Official statistics, such as they are, do not capture this organic and informal market process (Chart 9). Farmers have been allowed to keep some of their profits; official and unofficial marketplaces have cropped up; informal banking is developing; mobile phones and televisions are more prevalent.17 Foreign policy and strategic deterrence: Kim has demonstrated to the world that his country's nuclear and missile capabilities are more advanced than previously thought (Diagram 2). The American defense and intelligence establishment have been forced, during Kim's rapid phase of tests in 2016-17, to revise upward their expectations of the North's ability to strike the U.S. homeland with a nuclear weapon. This creates a new environment in which the U.S. can no longer ignore North Korea. Yet Kim has also proven himself to be a rational actor by discontinuing missile tests when tensions approached a boil in late 2017 and offering an olive branch to the South Koreans and Americans in early 2018.18 Chart 9North Korea: Rising From A Very Low Level Diagram 2North Korea's Proven Missile Reach American leadership change: Pivot to Asia: The United States has attempted to "rebalance" its strategic posture by reducing its commitment to the Middle East and "pivoting" to East Asia. This is to confront the China challenge. President Trump's North Korea and China policies are aggressive, despite the fact that Trump is also ramping up pressure on Iran.19 International sanctions tightened: The U.S. has responded to North Korea's nuclear and missile advances by redoubling the international sanctions regime (Chart 10). A credible military threat: The Trump administration has also established a "credible threat" through its use of military drills, aircraft carrier deployments in the region, and Trump's hawkish speeches to the United Nations General Assembly and South Korean National Assembly. The demonstration that the military option is "on the table" is reminiscent of the Iranian nuclear negotiations from 2011-15 (and those to come) (Chart 11).20 Trump's maneuvering room: Few people doubt the current U.S. president's willingness to do something unpredictable, "out of the box," or even "crazy," such as preemptively attacking North Korea, or, on the other hand, withdrawing U.S. troops from South Korea (Trump has often expressed dissatisfaction with the cost of U.S. troop commitments). For better or worse, the U.S. has much greater room for maneuver than it used to in making a deal with North Korea. Chart 10U.S.-Led Sanctions Tightened The Noose Chart 11U.S. Demonstration Of Credible Military Threat Causes Market Jitters Chinese leadership change: Xi's irritation with Kim: President Xi Jinping wants to create a Chinese sphere of influence in the region, which includes depriving the U.S. of a reason to bulk up its Asia Pacific presence. However, North Korea's threats and provocations give the U.S. good reason to build up its military assets, including missile defense.21 Pyongyang as an obstacle to Chinese power projection: Xi also wants to focus China's military and strategic development toward new dimensions of defense (sea, air, space, cyber) and improve China's ability to project power globally. But the potential for a crisis in North Korea - whether regime collapse or American invasion - ties China down to a 1950s-style military posture with a heavy focus on its army in the northeast. China enforces sanctions on the North: The above factors, combined with President Trump's sanctions on Chinese companies for dealing with the North, have prompted China to change its policy toward North Korea. China has been enforcing stringent sanctions since mid-2017 (Chart 12). China benefits from North Korean economic opening: China also has an interest in North Korea's economic opening - it has pioneered this process and has also clearly benefited from the recent opening of formerly closed neighboring states like Myanmar and Cambodia (Chart 13). China wants to remain the biggest player in the North's economy as it opens further. China seeks leverage over South Korea: Direct trade and infrastructure links to South Korea will also increase China's leverage over the South. Already President Moon has given China assurances of stopping U.S. missile defense deployments in exchange for the removal of economic sanctions against South Korean companies.22 Xi Jinping is not going anywhere: Xi has consolidated power and removed limits on his term in office, so China's policy shift toward the Koreas cannot be assumed to be easily reversible. Chart 12Even China Enforces Sanctions This Time Chart 13China Gains When Neighbors Open Up South Korean leadership change: The fall of the right-wing: The right-of-center parties and politicians in South Korea have suffered a cyclical drop in support. First, their hawkish policies since 2008 failed to prevent North Korea's belligerence. Second, former President Park Geun-hye was impeached and removed from office in early 2017 due to scandals that marred the right wing's popular standing. The legislative elections of 2016 and the post-impeachment presidential election of 2017 show that the major center-left party (the Minjoo Party) has made a big comeback. Local elections to be held on June 13, 2018 - the day after the planned Trump-Kim summit in Singapore - are likely to reinforce this trend (Chart 14 A&B). Thus the Moon administration is benefiting from a popular tailwind that will support its dovish approach to the North and could last for several years (Chart 15). The next election, for the legislature, is not until April 15, 2020, giving Moon time to implement his policies. Fear of abandonment: President Trump's policies threaten South Korea with the risk of preemptive war or American abandonment, making engagement with the North all the more necessary. Chart 14ASouth Korea's Right-Wing Faltered In 2016... Chart 14B... And Left-Wing Will Likely Win In 2018 Chart 15Ruling Minjoo Party Has Plenty Of Momentum The only other significant players are Russia and Japan, neither of which is willing or able to derail a diplomatic process pursued by both Koreas and the U.S. and China.23 Critically, this peace process is being driven by constraints, not preferences. True, Xi Jinping may be irritated by Kim Jong Un and Donald Trump may yearn for a Nobel peace prize. But the underlying factors are the following constraints on these policymakers: North Korea's regime cannot allow foreign domination, whether through war or economics; The U.S. regime cannot allow its homeland to be attacked by North Korea or its regional presence to be eliminated; China's regime cannot allow a Syria-style influx of North Korean refugees into China's Rust-Belt northeast or an American occupation of North Korea; South Korea's regime cannot allow anyone to trigger a war in which Seoul will be the first to be decimated. In each case, these states are bumping up against their constraints, such that the "Moonshine" diplomatic initiative is supported from all angles. Not only are the current U.S. and North Korean leaders planning to meet for the first time in the history, to build on the Moon-Kim summits, but they have already overcome a moment of cold feet that nearly quashed the June 12 summit.24 If the summit falls through, another summit will be scheduled; such is the underlying pressure of the above constraints. South Korean opinion polls demonstrate the pent-up demand for diplomacy that brought Moon and the Minjoo Party to power. The number of South Koreans who "trust" North Korea to denuclearize and pursue peace has shot up from 15% to 65% in recent polls (Chart 16A). Chart 16ASouth Koreans More Trusting Toward North... Chart 16B... Yet Doubt Full Denuclearization Will Occur Chart 17South Koreans Want Unification... Eventually Of course, "denuclearization" is a slippery term - about 64% of South Koreans doubt that the North will really give up its nuclear program. And yet even that number has fallen from 90% at the beginning of this year (Chart 16B). These numbers are volatile but reveal a deeply held public preference for some kind of deal that removes the threat of armed conflict. Indeed, 78% of South Koreans say they ultimately want not only peace but unification with the North (Chart 17). Subjectively, we think the probability of some kind of diplomatic settlement is 95% and the probability of war 5%. The next question is what kind of a settlement will it be? Bottom Line: The current diplomatic track on the Korean peninsula has greater potential than the previous two diplomatic pushes in 2000 and 2007. The different powers remain constrained by the lack of palatable or tolerable options other than diplomacy, yet China's rise and North Korea's missile capabilities have made the status quo unacceptable. Therefore we expect some kind of settlement that reduces tensions and allows for economic engagement. The U.S. Can Accept Less Than Full Denuclearization What about the critical issue of North Korea's strategic standoff with the United States? Will North Korea give up its nuclear program? Can the U.S. accept a deal that does not include complete and verifiable denuclearization? Subjectively, we would put full denuclearization at a 15% probability. It is three times more likely than a war (5% chance), but five times less likely than a lesser settlement (80% chance). The question boils down to whether the United States is capable of a preemptive military strike on North Korea that denies it the ability to inflict devastating casualties on South Korea. Such a strike would require the U.S. to use numerous tactical nuclear weapons on North Korean nuclear and chemical sites as well as artillery units deeply embedded in the hills overlooking Seoul.25 If the U.S. is believed capable of such an attack, then the North will need to retain some of its nuclear deterrent so that it can deter the U.S. from such an attack directly, by threatening U.S. cities. If the U.S. is not believed capable, then the North can afford to trade away its nuclear program and rely on its conventional deterrent of decimating Seoul as its chief security guarantee. Our assessment is that the U.S. is broadly capable of executing such an attack, however little it intends to do so. The U.S. would need to be politically willing to accept the devastation of Seoul, nuclear fallout over Japan, and potentially a second war with China (which might intervene more readily this time than in 1950). This is extremely unlikely to say the least. But given President Trump's hawkishness and the drastic vacillations of today's polarized U.S. public opinion and foreign policy, North Korea cannot gamble that the U.S. would under no circumstances, ever, adopt such a course of action. In other words, North Korea has developed a nuclear deterrent not to trade it away for concessions but to maintain it at some level. National Security Adviser John Bolton said it all in one word: Libya. Libyan President Mohammar Qaddafi unilaterally abandoned his country's nuclear program in 2003, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, to improve relations with the West. This worked until the Arab Spring, when Qaddafi was brutalized and executed after his regime collapsed under pressure of popular rebellion and a NATO bombing campaign. NATO struck his personal convoy, leaving him exposed to rebel militias. In other words, North Korea could be fully compliant and yet the U.S. could betray it. Regime change would be more likely for the U.S. to pursue if the North did not have a nuclear deterrent. In the negotiations, even an offer of total U.S. troop withdrawal from South Korea for denuclearization - which is extremely unlikely - probably cannot convince Kim Jong Un of his personal safety and his regime's security in an era of Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, Syria 2011, Ukraine 2014, and "Zero Dark Thirty."26 Finally, if it is true that North Korea also fears Chinese domination over the long run, then maintaining a nuclear deterrent is all the more important to secure the regime's independence, as it also constrains China. Thus we highly doubt that Pyongyang will fully, verifiably, and irreversibly denuclearize. We reserve a 15% chance simply because its ability to strike Seoul with artillery does give it greater leverage than Libya or other states that faced U.S.-imposed regime change. This fact combined with the possibility of an irresistible package of economic and political benefits from the Americans could conceivably cause the North to change course dramatically. But this is not our baseline case. More likely, Pyongyang can offer, and Washington can accept, mothballing reactors, holding nuclear inspections, freezing the ballistic missile program, and committing to a non-belligerent foreign policy, along with gradual normalization of diplomatic and economic relations. Washington can accept a sub-optimal deal because such a deal preserves the raison d'être for U.S. forces in Korea, yet reduces the threat to the homeland and helps dilute China's influence on the peninsula. As for the 5% chance of war, even if Pyongyang eschews any and all denuclearization, the U.S. may still opt for containment rather than war.27 Bottom Line: The U.S. can settle for "containment" against North Korea, whereas North Korea probably cannot give up its rudimentary nuclear deterrent given its twin fears of American invasion or Chinese domination. The U.S. gains from normalizing relations with the North, given that it enables North Korea to diversify its foreign policy away from China and yet Washington retains its overwhelming nuclear preemptive strike capability in the event that an attack is deemed imminent. North Korea Is The Most Promising Pariah State It is useful to remember how badly communism has served North Koreans relative to their capitalist neighbors. Chart 18 explains the unsustainability of the North's system and the impetus to change. At the same time, South Korea's development path suggests that North Korea has economic potential. There is considerable room to increase basic capital stock - roads, buildings, and basic equipment, etc. - even assuming that North Korea's pace of liberalization prevents the same kind of economic boom that fully capitalist South Korea witnessed in the second half of the twentieth century (Chart 19). Won't liberalizing the economy fatally undermine Kim's totalitarian regime? History teaches otherwise. The reform of communist East Asian regimes like China (1978) and Vietnam (1986) shows that partial liberalization can be pursued without fatally undermining the regime, as long as the regime is willing to do whatever it takes to stay in power, i.e. use domestic security and intelligence forces to suppress opposition and dissent. Communist states in other parts of the world - such as Cuba - also attest to this fact. This is not to say that liberalization poses no threat to Pyongyang. First, liberalization itself can lead to economic consequences, like inflation, that trigger instability, as China experienced in the 1980s. Second, successful liberalization increases household wealth, which can result in growing demand for civil rights and political participation, as occurred under South Korea's right-wing military dictatorship in the 1970s-80s, and as will eventually occur even in China.28 Still, North Korea today is faced with the same predicament that Iran, Myanmar, Cambodia, Cuba, and Zimbabwe face. All of them are trying gingerly to open up their economies, as their sclerotic regimes face a greater threat of social instability from economic opportunity costs than from popular political opposition. They are changing not a moment too soon. Global labor force, trade, and productivity have all slowed in recent decades, marking a contrast to the exuberant external environment that the emerging and frontier markets faced when opening their economies in the late twentieth century (Chart 20). They may still have a cheap labor advantage but they will struggle to develop as rapidly with global potential growth falling. Chart 18A Reason To Reform And Open Up Chart 19North Korea Could Follow This Path Chart 20North Korea Joins Global Market As Potential Growth Slows North Korea is better situated than any of these late-bloomers. Its immediate neighbors, South Korea, China, and Japan, each sport current account surpluses and positive international investment positions (Chart 21), giving the North a ready pool of capital to tap as it opens its doors. The global search for yield persists more or less (Chart 22), motivating investors to explore the riskiest and worst-governed countries, and yet North Korea sits in a prosperous corner of the world. South Korean investors can envision high returns from basic productivity-enhancing investments in the North, while accepting that unification and its immense fiscal costs are still a long way away. Chart 21Ample Sources Of Investment For North Korea Chart 22North Korea: Don't Miss The Search For Yield This means that North Korea - if it calms its quarrels with the West - will have alternatives to China's outward investment push (Chart 23), albeit with China remaining the biggest player. North Korea is not a large enough economy to have a major global impact when it opens up, but it is big enough to affect South Korea. It will make available a pool of cheap labor for a country that is otherwise suffering from the worst of low fertility and a shrinking workforce (Chart 24). The North's reserves of thermal coal, which are comparable to Indonesia's (Chart 25), and other commodities, are also likely to be exploited given that South Korea and its neighbors are already scouring the globe for resource plays. Chart 23China's Belt And Road Initiative Chart 24Reunification Would Increase Labor Force Chart 25North Korea Has Sizable Coal Reserves In reality, of course, it is the North's overexposure to commodities that is putting pressure on the regime to reform (in addition to international sanctions). China's economy is transitioning to a less resource-intensive model, putting the North's coal and metals exports in long-term jeopardy. The North lacks capital to industrialize and develop a manufacturing sector, and it risks missing out on the new wave of industrialization that is rewarding neighbors like Vietnam, Cambodia, and Myanmar. The slowdown in global trade and globalization threatens to close the window of opportunity for the North. Bottom Line: Oppressive communist regimes have proved capable of selectively opening up to outside trade and investment while maintaining the regime. North Korea is attempting to create a favorable foreign policy environment to take its nascent economic reforms further. The global search for yield, especially by Northeast Asian states, may still offer an opportunity to attract capital. China's economic transition adds a sense of urgency, given North Korea's need to diversify. Investment Conclusions North Korea is small, but independent, and it is pivoting to South Korea and the United States to increase its strategic and economic options. China has an interest in letting this happen, but will try to remain the dominant power. Almost every peace treaty or major diplomatic settlement in human history has involved a series of dramatic ups and downs in the lead-up to the agreement. Diplomatic volatility should increase the closer the different parties get to an agreement, due to the fears and hesitations of losing out in the final compromise. Investors should stay focused on the structural factors. North Korea is more of a geopolitical opportunity than a geopolitical risk for markets today. War is especially unlikely over 2018-19. Hence the North Korean issue is unlikely to disrupt the global economy or threaten a bullish global equity view over this time period. That would be up to other factors. Only if the new round of diplomacy completely and utterly collapses will the tail-risk of war reemerge. U.S.-China tensions, North Korea's nuclear program, and Trump's re-election bid could conceivably lead to a breakdown of diplomacy by 2020. The Trump administration would then return to its "maximum pressure" campaign and the probability of military strikes would rise. However, we put a low probability on such a breakdown occurring and would argue that the grave implications should be seen as a strong constraint driving the different parties to cut a deal. Assuming diplomacy succeeds, it should provide a small tailwind for South Korea's currency and risk assets, which at the moment face a negative environment due to slowing global growth, Chinese reforms, and a strengthening U.S. dollar. First, the end-game itself - Korean unification - is implicitly a positive for removing the risk and uncertainty of conflict and increasing Korea's potential GDP. Germany's unification remains the best analogy, for better or worse. German unification led to a brief decline in total factor productivity, but also a multi-year rally in equities, the deutschmark, and a bullish curve-steepening relative to world markets (Chart 26A). Chart 26AGermany Benefited From Reunification... Chart 26B...South Korea Is Not There Yet South Korea is not yet at the cusp of unification, so the analogy with German assets is premature, but it is not a foregone conclusion that South Korea will suffer as it embarks on the path toward unification. Of course, this year's diplomatic progress has coincided with renewed EM financial turmoil that has clouded any benefits from improved North-South relations (Chart 26 B). Moreover, the burden of unification will be immense given that North Korea is much larger and poorer relative to the South than East Germany was to West Germany, and markets will have to price in this burden by expecting larger South Korean budget deficits in future. Still, we would expect KRW/USD to benefit on the margin, especially given Korea's simultaneous promise to the Trump administration not to engage in competitive devaluation. Second, certain Korean sectors are poised to benefit from integration with the North. Looking at how the different sectors have performed before and after the April 27 inter-Korean summit, relative to their EM counterparts, reveals that industrials, energy, consumer staples, and telecoms are the relative winners (Chart 27).29 Chart 27Winners And Losers Of Inter-Korean Engagement Chart 28AReal Estate Near The DMZ... Chart 28B...Is Optimistic Once Again Third, the signal from real estate along the DMZ is loud and clear. Paju is known as the best proxy for improved Korean relations and transaction volumes have spiked since Moon and Kim met on April 27 and declared an end to the Korean War. The move is particularly notable when contrasted with the rest of Gyeonggi province, which is not inherently a "unification" play (Chart 28A & 28B). Similar moves happened in Paju real estate around the time of the first and second inter-Korean summits in 2000 and 2007, but as this report has shown, there is more reason to be optimistic today. This example speaks to the many opportunities for specialized funds to generate returns as development projects get underway. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Special Report, "The South China Sea: Smooth Sailing?" dated March 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Mattis criticized China's militarization of the South China Sea rocks at the annual Shangri-La Dialogue, accusing Chinese President Xi Jinping of violating his word on this matter. He also criticized China's Belt and Road Initiative. The same week, Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Kenneth McKenzie told a reporter that "the United States military has had a lot of experience in the Western Pacific, taking down small islands," in a thinly veiled hint to China's South China Sea activity. Finally, a report surfaced suggesting that the U.S. is considering sending a warship through the Taiwan Strait. Please see Ben Westcott, "US plans 'steady drumbeat' of exercises in South China Sea: Mattis," CNN, May 31, 2018, available at www.cnn.com; Laignee Barron, "Pentagon Official Says U.S. Can 'Take Down' Man-Made Islands Like Those in the South China Sea," Time, June 1, 2018, available at time.com; "Exclusive: At delicate moment, U.S. weighs warship passage through Taiwan Strait," Reuters, June 4, 2018, available at www.reuters.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize," dated May 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Northeast Asia: Moonshine, Militarism, And Markets," dated May 24, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taiwan Is A Potential Black Swan," dated March 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How To Play The Proxy Battles In Asia," dated March 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Vladimir Putin, Act IV," dated March 7, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Satellite imagery reveals that international sanctions have hindered manufacturing development and increased reliance on trade with China. Please see Yong Suk Lee, "International Isolation and Regional Inequality: Evidence from Sanctions on North Korea," Stanford University, Center on Global Poverty and Development, Working Paper 575 (October 2016), available at globalpoverty.stanford.edu. 12 North Korea's disagreements with China have given rise to a host of academic articles and studies in recent years. For an overview please see Philip Wen and Christian Shepherd, " 'Lips and teeth' no more as China's ties with North Korea fray," Reuters, September 8, 2017, available at www.reuters.com. See also Sebastian Harnisch, "The life and near-death of an alliance: China, North Korea and autocratic military cooperation," Heidelberg University, WISC Conference, Taipei, April 2017; and Weiqi Zhang, "Neither friend nor big brother: China's role in North Korean foreign policy strategy," Palgrave Communications 4:16 (2018), available at www.nature.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 The term is a pun on the original "Sunshine" engagement policy of Moon's predecessors Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun. President Kim's engagement attempt culminated in the first Inter-Korean summit in 2000, but was ultimately derailed by a hawkish turn in U.S. and North Korean policies and the inclusion of North Korea among the "Axis of Evil" following the 9/11 attacks. "Sunshine policy" revived again under President Roh Moo-hyun, leading to the second Inter-Korean summit in 2007. Roh's protégé, Moon, is now reviving the policy. Unfortunately, "moonshine" is saddled with the connotation of fraud and/or poison! 15 The major challenge to his rule came in late 2013 but he nipped it in the bud by executing his uncle Jang Song Taek and purging Jang's faction. He had his half-brother Kim Jong Nam assassinated in Malaysia in 2017. He promoted his sister, Kim Yeo-jong, to deputy chief of the Propaganda Department in the Korean Worker's Party. Kim has taken steps to empower the State Affairs Commission (cabinet), the Korean Worker's Party, and the legislature, the Supreme People's Assembly, vis-à-vis the long-dominant military. He has also reshuffled the military extensively, prior to a significant reshuffle this week that signaled a willingness to compromise with the Americans. See Thomas Fingar et al, "Analyzing The Structure And Performance Of Kim Jong-un's Regime," Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, Stanford University, June 2017, available at fsi.stanford.edu; and Hyonhee Shin, "North Korea's Three New Military Leaders Are Loyal To Kim, Not Policies," Reuters, June 4, 2018, available at reuters.com. 16 William Brown, "Is 'Byungjin' Working? A Look at North Korea's Money," The Peninsula, Korea Economic Institute of America, September 7, 2016, available at keia.org. 17 Please see Andrei Lankov, "The Resurgence of a Market Economy in North Korea," Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, January 2016, available at carnegieendowment.org; Sunchul Choi and Mark A. Myers, "Marketization in North Korea," United States Department of Agriculture, Global Agricultural Information Network Report KS1545, December 9, 2015, available at www.fas.usda.gov. 18 This diplomacy also reinforces Kim's reformist bent. In April 2017 he appointed Ri Su-yong, a close ally, to oversee foreign relations, and resurrected the Foreign Relations Committee within the country's legislature, the Supreme People's Assembly. See Fingar in footnote 15. 19 Please see footnote 6 above. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Trump Re-Establishes America's 'Credible Threat'," dated April 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Does It Pay To Pivot To China?" dated July 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 22 Presidents Moon and Xi agreed to improve bilateral relations, with China removing economic sanctions, on the basis of South Korea promising the "Three No's" - no additional THAAD deployments, no expansion of U.S. missile defense, and no trilateral military alliance with Japan and the U.S. Please see Park Byong-su, "South Korea's "three no's" announcement key to restoring relations with China," Hankyoreh, dated November 2, 2017, available at english.hani.co.kr. 23 Indeed, Russia shares China's desire to prevent North Korea from provoking the U.S. into a greater Pacific military presence, while Japan shares the American desire to reduce the North Korean nuclear and military threat to its homeland. 24 North Korea publicly aired misgivings about the upcoming Trump-Kim summit after the new National Security Adviser, John Bolton, implied that the administration would seek "the Libya model" (unilateral and total nuclear disarmament and dismantlement by North Korea) in its negotiations. North Korea criticized Bolton, a war-hawk who has a negative history with North Korea going back to the George W. Bush administration, putting the summit in jeopardy. The North was also angry about the U.S. and South Korean decision to proceed with annual military exercises ahead of the summit. Further, Chinese President Xi Jinping may have urged Kim Jong Un to tread more carefully, or cancel the summit, during a second meeting between these two presidents in early May. The White House rebuked Bolton's comments, saying the negotiations would follow "the Trump model." 25 Please see Christopher Woolf, "The only effective arms against North Korea's missile bunkers are nuclear weapons, says a top war planner," Public Radio International, August 10, 2017, available at www.pri.org; and Uri Friedman, "North Korea: The Military Options," The Atlantic, dated May 17, 2017, available at www.theatlantic.om. 26 Iraq set a precedent for U.S. preemptive invasion; Syria was a fellow nuclear aspirant and member of the Axis of Evil that suffered both Israeli strikes against its nuclear facilities and economic and political collapse due to mismanagement and international isolation; Ukraine gave up its Soviet nuclear weapons in 1994 with the Budapest Memorandum as a guarantee of its security only to suffer Russian invasion in 2014; and "Zero Dark Thirty" refers to the U.S. Seal Team Six covert raid into the heart of Pakistan to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden. 27 Our own analysis of the "bloody nose" military strike option, which is more likely than a full-blown war but very difficult to prevent from escalating, can be found in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Insights From The Road - The Rest Of The World," dated September 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 28 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "A Long View Of China," dated December 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 29 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "South Korea: A Comeback For Consumer Stocks?" June 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Investors are underestimating the risks of U.S.-Iran tensions; The Obama administration's 2015 deal resulted in Iran curbing aggressive regional behavior that threatened global oil supply; The U.S. negotiating position vis-à-vis Iran has not improved; Unlike North Korea, Iran can retaliate against the Trump administration's "Maximum Pressure" doctrine - particularly in Iraq; U.S.-Iran conflicts will negatively affect global oil supply, critical geographies, and sectarian tensions - hence a geopolitical risk premium is warranted. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy (CES) desk is using a new ensemble forecast, which takes its 2H18 Brent forecast to $76/bbl from an average $78/bbl, and WTI to $70/bbl from $72/bbl. For next year, CES's Brent forecast goes to $73/bbl from $80/bbl, and WTI goes to $67/bbl from $72/bbl. CES expects higher volatility, as well. Feature Following the roll-out of our oil-price ensemble model last week, we are publishing a Special Report written by our colleague Marko Papic, who runs BCA's Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) service. This report explores the more nuanced aspects of the U.S. - Iran sanctions conflict, and why the contest for Iraq is important for investors. We also summarize our latest forecast. We trust you will find this analysis informative, Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy Tensions between the U.S. and Iran snuck up on the markets (Chart 1), even though President Trump's policy agenda was well telegraphed via rhetoric, action, and White House personnel moves.1 Still, investors doubt the market relevance of the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the international agreement between Iran and the P5+1.2 Chart 1Iran: Nobody Was Paying Attention! Several reasons to fade the risks - and hence to fade any implications for global oil supply - have become conventional wisdom. These include the alleged ability of OPEC and Russia to boost production and Washington's supposed ineffectiveness without an internationally binding sanction regime. Chart 2BCA's Updated Ensemble Forecast:##BR##Brent Averages /bbl in 2H18 Our view is that investors and markets are underestimating the geopolitical, economic, and financial relevance of the U.S.-Iran tensions. First, the ideological rhetoric surrounding the original U.S.-Iran détente tends to be devoid of strategic analysis. Second, Iran's hard power capabilities are underestimated. Third, OPEC 2.0's ability to tap into its spare capacity is overestimated.3 CES's updated ensemble forecast takes its 2H18 Brent forecast to $76/bbl from an average $78/bbl previously, and its WTI forecast to $70/bbl from $72/bbl (Chart 2). For next year, CES's Brent forecast goes to $73/bbl from $80/bbl, and its WTI expectation goes to $67/bbl from $72/bbl. CES expects higher volatility, as well, as markets continue to process sometimes-conflicting news flows. This means spike to and through $80/bbl for Brent are more likely than markets currently anticipate. Why Did The U.S.-Iran Détente Emerge In 2015? Both detractors and defenders of the 2015 nuclear deal often misunderstand the logic of the deal. First, the defenders are wrong when they claim that the deal creates a robust mechanism that ensures that Iran will never produce a nuclear device. Given that the most critical components of the deal expire in 10 or 15 years, it is simply false to assert that the deal is a permanent solution. More importantly, Iran already reached "breakout capacity" in mid-2013, which means that it had already achieved the necessary know-how to become a nuclear power.4 We know because we wrote about it at the time, using the data of Iran's cumulative production of enriched uranium provided to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).5 In August 2013, Iran's stockpile of 20% enriched uranium, produced at the impregnable Fordow facility, reached 200kg (Chart 3). Chart 3Iran's Negotiating Leverage At that point, Israeli threats of attacking Iran became vacuous, as the Israeli air force lacked the necessary bunker-busting technology to penetrate Fordow.6 As we wrote in 2013, this critical moment gave Tehran the confidence to give up "some material/physical components of its nuclear program as it has developed the human capital necessary to achieve nuclear status."7 The JCPOA forced Iran to stop enriching uranium at the Fordow facility altogether and to give up its stockpile of uranium enriched at 20%. However, Iran only agreed to the deal because it had reached a level of technological know-how that has not been eliminated by mothballing centrifuges and "converting" facilities to civilian nuclear research. Iran is a nuclear power in all but name. Second, the detractors of the JCPOA are incorrect when they claim that Iran did not give up any regional hegemony when it signed the deal. This criticism focuses on Iran's expanded role in the Syrian Civil War since 2011, as well as its traditional patronage networks with the Lebanese Shia militants Hezbollah and with Yemen's Houthis. However, critics ignore several other, far more critical, fronts of Iranian influence: Strait of Hormuz: In 2012, Iran's nearly daily threats to close the Strait of Hormuz were very much a clear and present danger for global investors (Map 1). Although we argued in 2012 that Iran's capability was limited to a 10-day closure, followed by another month during which they could threaten the safe passage of vessels through the Strait, even such a short crisis would add a considerable risk premium to oil markets given that it would remove about 17-18 million bbl/day from global oil supply (Chart 4).8 Since 2012, Iran's capabilities to threaten the Strait have grown, while the West's anti-mine capabilities have largely stayed the same.9 Map 1Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province Is A Crucial Piece Of Real Estate Chart 4Geopolitical Crises And Global Peak Supply Losses Iraq: The key geographic buffer between Saudi Arabia and Iran is Iraq (Map 2). Iran filled the power vacuum created by the U.S. invasion almost immediately after Saddam Hussein's overthrow. It deployed members of the infamous Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) into Iraq to support the initial anti-American insurgency. Iran's support for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was critical following the American withdrawal in 2011, particularly as his government became increasingly focused on anti-Sunni insurgency. Map 2Iraq: A Buffer Between Saudi Arabia And Iran Bahrain: Home of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, Bahrain experienced social unrest in 2011. The majority of Bahrain's population are Shia, while the country is ruled by the Saudi-aligned, Sunni, Al Khalifa monarchy. The majority of Shia protests were at least rhetorically, and some reports suggest materially, supported by Iran. To quell the protests, and preempt any potential Iranian interference, Saudi Arabia intervened militarily with a Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Peninsula Shield Force. Eastern Province: Similar to the unrest in Bahrain, Shia protests engulfed Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province in 2011. The province is highly strategic, as it is where nearly all of Saudi oil production, processing, and transportation facilities are located (Map 1). Like Bahrain, it has a large Shia population. Saudi security forces cracked down on the uprising and have continued to do so, with paramilitary operations lasting into 2017. While Iranian involvement in the protests is unproven, it has been suspected. Anti-Israel Rhetoric: Under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran threatened Israel with destruction on a regular basis. While these were mostly rhetorical attacks, the implication of the threat was that any attack against Iran and its nuclear facilities would result in retaliation against U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf and Iraq and direct military action against Israel. Both defenders and detractors of the JCPOA are therefore mistaken. The JCPOA does not impact Iran's ability to achieve "breakout capacity" given that it already reached it in mid-2013. And Iran's regional influence has not expanded since the deal was signed in 2015. In fact, since the détente in 2015, and in some cases since negotiations between the Obama administration and Tehran began in 2013, Iran has been a factor of stability in the Middle East. Specifically, Iran has willingly: Stopped threatening the Strait of Hormuz (the last overt threats to close the Strait of Hormuz were made in 2012); Acquiesced to Nouri al-Maliki's ousting as Prime Minister of Iraq in 2014 and his replacement by the far more moderate and less sectarian Haider al-Abadi; Stopped meddling in Bahraini and Saudi internal affairs; Stopped threatening Israel's existence (although its material support for Hezbollah clearly continues and presents a threat to Israel's security); Participated in joint military operations with the U.S. military against the Islamic State, cooperation without which Baghdad would have most likely fallen to the Sunni radicals in late 2014. The final point is worth expanding on. After the fall of Mosul - Iraq's second largest city - to the Islamic State in May 2014, Iranian troops and military advisors on the ground in Iraq cooperated with the U.S. air force to arrest and ultimately reverse the gains by the radical Sunni terrorist group. Without direct Iranian military cooperation - and without Tehran's material and logistical support for the Iraqi Shia militias - the Islamic State could not have been eradicated from Iraq (Map 3). Map 3The Collapse Of A Would-Be Caliphate How did such a dramatic change in Tehran's foreign policy emerge between 2012 and 2015? Iranian leadership realized in 2012 that the U.S. military and economic threats against it were real. Internationally coordinated sanctions had a damaging effect on the economy, threatening to destabilize a regime that had experienced social upheaval in the 2009 Green Revolution (Chart 5). It therefore began negotiations almost immediately after the imposition of stringent economic sanctions in early and mid-2012.10 Chart 5Iran's Sanctions Had A Hard Bite To facilitate the negotiations, the Guardian Council of Iran disqualified President Ahmadinejad's preferred candidate for the 2013 Iranian presidential elections, while allowing Hassan Rouhani's candidacy.11 Rouhani, a moderate, won the June 2013 election in a landslide win, giving him a strong political mandate to continue the negotiations and, relatedly, to pursue economic development. Many commentators forget, however, that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Hosseini Khamenei allowed Rouhani to run in the first place, knowing full well that he would likely win. In other words, Rouhani's victory revealed the preferences of the Iranian regime to negotiate and adjust its foreign policy. Bottom Line: The 2015 U.S.-Iran détente traded American acquiescence in Iranian nuclear development - frozen at the point of "breakout capacity" - in exchange for Iran's cooperation on a number of strategically vital regional issues. As such, focusing on just the JCPOA, without considering the totality of Iranian behavior before and since the deal, is a mistake. Iran curbed its influence in several regional hot spots - almost all of which are critical to global oil supply. The Obama administration essentially agreed to Iran becoming a de facto nuclear power in exchange for Iran backing away from aggressive regional behavior. This included Iran's jeopardizing the safe passage of oil through the Strait of Hormuz either by directly threatening to close the channel or through covert actions in Bahrain and the Eastern Province. The U.S. also drove Iran to accept a far less sectarian Iraq, by forcing out the ardently pro-Tehran al-Maliki and replacing him with a prime minister far more acceptable to Saudi Arabia and Iraqi Sunnis. Why Did The U.S. Chose Diplomacy In 2011? The alternative to the above deal was some sort of military action against Iranian nuclear facilities. The U.S. contemplated such action in late 2011. Two options existed, either striking Iran's facilities with its own military or allowing Israel to do it themselves. One reason to choose diplomacy and economic sanctions over war was the limited capability of Israel to attack Iran alone.13 Israel does not possess strategic bombing capability. As such, it would have required a massive air flotilla of bomber-fighters to get to the Iranian nuclear facilities. While the Israeli air force has the capability to reach Iranian facilities and bomb them, their effectiveness is dubious and the ability to counter Iranian retaliatory capacity with follow-up strikes is non-existent. Chart 6Great Power Competition The second was the fact that a U.S. strike against Iran would be exceedingly complex. Compared to previous Israeli strikes against nuclear facilities in Iraq (Operation Opera 1981) and Syria (Operation Outside The Box 2007), Iran presented a much more challenging target. Its superior surface-to-air missile capability would necessitate a prolonged, and dangerous, suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD) mission. In parallel, the U.S. would have to preemptively strike Iran's ballistic missile launching pads as well as its entire navy, so as to obviate Iran's ability to retaliate against international shipping or the U.S. and its allies in the region. The U.S. also had a strategic reason to avoid entangling itself in yet another military campaign in the Middle East. The public was war-weary and the Obama administration gauged that in a world where global adversaries like China and Russia were growing in geopolitical power, avoiding another major military confrontation in a region of decreasing value to U.S. interests (thanks partly to growing U.S. shale oil production) was of paramount importance (Chart 6). Notable in 2011 was growing Chinese assertiveness throughout East Asia (please see the Appendix on page 24). Particularly alarming was the willingness of Beijing to assert dubious claims to atolls and isles in the South China Sea, a globally vital piece of real estate (Diagram 1). There was a belief - which has at best only partially materialized - that if the United States divested itself of the Middle East, then it could focus more intently on countering China's challenge to traditional U.S. dominance in East Asia and the Pacific. Diagram 1South China Sea As Traffic Roundabout Bottom Line: The Obama administration therefore chose a policy of military posturing toward Iran to establish a credible threat. The military option was signaled in order to get the international community - both allies and adversaries - on board with tough economic sanctions. The ultimate deal, the JCPOA, did not give the U.S. and its allies everything they wanted precisely because they did not enter the negotiations from a position of preponderance of power. Critics of the JCPOA ignore this reality and assume that going back to the status quo ante bellum will somehow improve the U.S. negotiating position. It won't. What Happens If The U.S.-Iran Détente Ends? The Trump administration is serious about applying its Maximum Pressure tactics on Iran. Buoyed by the successful application of this strategy in North Korea, the White House believes that it can get a better deal with Tehran. We do not necessarily disagree. It is indeed true that the U.S. is a far more powerful country than Iran, with a far more powerful military. On a long enough timeline, with enough pressure, it ought to be able to force Tehran to concede, assuming that credible threats are used.14 Unlike the Obama administration, the Trump administration will presumably rely on Israel far less, and on its own military capability a lot more, to deliver those threats, which should be more effective. The problem is that the timeline on which such a strategy would work is likely to be a lot longer with Iran than with North Korea. This is because Iran's retaliatory capabilities are far greater than the one-trick-pony Pyongyang, which could effectively only launch ballistic missiles and threaten all-out war with U.S. and its regional allies.15 While those threats are indeed worrisome, they are also vacuous as they would lead to a total war in which the North Korean regime would meet its demise. Iran has a far more effective array of potential retaliation that can serve a strategic purpose without leading to total war. As we listed above, it could rhetorically threaten the Strait of Hormuz or attempt to incite further unrest in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province. The key retaliation could be to take the war to Iraq. The just-concluded election in Iraq appears to have favored Shia political forces not allied to Iran, including the Alliance Towards Reform (Saairun) led by the infamous cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr (Chart 7). Surrounding this election, various Iranian policymakers and military leaders have said that they would not allow Iraq to drift outside of Iran's sphere of influence, a warning to the nationalist Sadr who has fought against both the American and Iranian military presence in his country. Iraq is not only a strategic buffer between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the two regional rivals, but also a critical source of global oil supply, having brought online about half as much new supply as U.S. shale since 2011 (Chart 8). If Iranian-allied Shia factions engage in an armed confrontation with nationalist Shias allied with Muqtada al-Sadr, such a conflict will not play out in irrelevant desert governorates, as the fight against the Islamic State did. Chart 7Iraqi Elections Favored Shiites But Not Iran Chart 8Iraq Critical To Global Oil Supply Instead, a Shia-on-Shia conflict would play out precisely in regions with oil production and transportation facilities. In 2008, for example, Iranian-allied Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki fought a brief civil war against Sadr's Mahdi Army in what came to be known as the "Battle of Basra." While Iran had originally supported Sadr in his insurgency against the U.S., it came to Maliki's support in that brief but deadly six-day conflict. Basra is Iraq's chief port through which much of the country's oil exports flow. Iraq may therefore become a critical battleground as Iran retaliates against U.S. Maximum Pressure. From Iran's perspective, holding onto influence in Iraq is critical. It is the transit route through which Iran has established an over-land connection with its allies in Syria and Lebanon (Map 4). Threatening Iraqi oil exports, or even causing some of the supply to come off-line, would also be a convenient way to reduce the financial costs of the sanctions. A 500,000 b/d loss of exports - at an average price of $70 per barrel (as Brent has averaged in 2018) - could roughly be compensated by an increase in oil prices by $10 per barrel, given Iran's total exports. As such, Iran, faced with lost supply due to sanctions, will have an incentive to make sure that prices go up (i.e., that rivals do not simply replace Iranian supply, keeping prices more or less level). The easiest way to accomplish this, to add a geopolitical risk premium to oil prices, is through the meddling in Iraqi affairs. Map 4Iran Needs Iraq To Project Power Through The Levant It is too early to forecast with a high degree of confidence precisely how the U.S.-Iran confrontation will develop. However, Diagram 2 offers our take on the path towards retaliation. Diagram 2Iran-U.S. Tensions Decision Tree The critical U.S. sanctions against Iran will become effective on November 4 (Box 1). We believe that the Trump administration is serious and that it will force European allies, as well as South Korea and Japan, to cease imports of oil from Iran. China will be much harder to cajole. Box 1: Iranian Sanction Timeline President Trump issued a National Security Presidential Memorandum to re-impose all U.S. sanctions lifted or waived in connection with the JCPOA. The Office of Foreign Assets Control expects all sanctions lifted under the JCPOA to be re-imposed and in full effect after November 4, 2018. However, there are two schedules by which sanctions will be re-imposed, a 90-day and 180-day wind-down periods.1 Sanctions Re-Imposed After August 6, 2018 The first batch of sanctions that will be re-imposed will come into effect 90 days after the announced withdrawal from the JCPOA. These include: Sanctions on direct or indirect sale, supply, or transfer to or from Iran of several commodities (including gold), semi-finished metals, and industrial process software; Sanctions on the purchase or acquisition of U.S. dollar banknotes by the government of Iran; Sanctions on trade in Iranian currency and facilitation of the issuance of Iranian sovereign debt; Sanctions on Iran's automotive sector; Sanctions on export or re-export to Iran of commercial passenger aircraft and related parts. Sanctions Re-Imposed After November 4, 2018 The second batch of sanctions will come into effect 180 days after the announced Trump administration JCPOA withdrawal decision. These include: Sanctions on Iranian port operators, shipping, and shipbuilding activities; Sanctions against petroleum-related transactions with the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), Naftiran Intertrade Company (NICO), and National Iranian Tanker Company (NITC); Sanctions against the purchase of petroleum, petroleum products, or petrochemical products from Iran; Sanctions on transactions and provision of financial messaging services by foreign financial institutions with the Central Bank of Iran; Sanctions on Iran's energy sector; Sanctions on the provision of insurance, reinsurance, and underwriting services. 1a Please see the U.S. Treasury Department, "Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Re-Imposition of Sanctions Pursuant to the May 8, 2018, National Security Presidential Memorandum Relating to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)," dated May 8, 2018, available at www.treasury.gov. By Q1 2019, the impact on Iranian oil exports will be clear. We suspect that Iran will, at that point, have the choice of either relenting to Trump's Maximum Pressure, or escalating tensions through retaliation. We give the latter a much higher degree of confidence and suspect that a cycle of retaliation and Maximum Pressure would lead to a conditional probability of war between Iran and the U.S. of around 20%. This is a significant number, and it is critical if President Trump wants to apply credible threats of war to Iran. Bottom Line: Unlike North Korea, Iran has several levers it can use to retaliate against U.S. Maximum Pressure. Iran agreed to set these levers aside as negotiations with the Obama administration progressed, and it has kept them aside since the conclusion of the JCPOA. It is therefore easy for Tehran to resurrect them against the Trump administration. Critical among these levers is meddling in Iraq's internal affairs. Not only is Iraq critical to Iran's regional influence; it is also key to global oil supply. We suspect that a cycle of Iranian retaliation and American Maximum Pressure raises the probability of U.S.-Iran military confrontation to 20%. We will be looking at several key factors in assessing whether the U.S. and Iran are heading towards a confrontation. To that end, we have compiled a U.S.-Iran confrontation checklist (Table 1). Table 1Will The U.S. Attack Iran? Investment Implications Over the past several years, there have been many geopolitical crises in the Middle East. We have tended to fade most of them, from a perspective of a geopolitical risk premium applied to oil prices. This is because we always seek the second derivative of any geopolitical event. In the context of the Middle East, by "second derivative" we mean that we are interested in whether the market impact of a new piece of information - of a new geopolitical event - will amount to more than just a random perturbation with ephemeral, decaying, market implications. To determine the potential of new information to catalyze a persistent market risk premium or discount, we investigate whether it changes the way things change in a given region or context. In 2015, we identified three factors that we believe are critical for a geopolitical event in the Middle East to have such second derivative implications, and thus global market implications.16 These are: Oil supply: The event should impact current global oil supply either directly or through a clear channel of contagion. Renewed sanctions against Iran do so directly. So would Iranian retaliation in Iraq or the Persian Gulf. Geography: The event should occur in a geography that is of existential significance to one of the regional or global players. Re-imposed sanctions obviously directly impact Iran as they could increase domestic political crisis. A potential Iranian proxy-war in Iraq would be highly relevant to Saudi Arabia, which considers Iraq as a vital buffer with Iran. Sectarian contagion: The event should exacerbate sectarian conflict - Sunni vs. Shia - which is more likely to lead contagion than tribal conflict such as the Libyan Civil War. A renewed U.S.-Iran tensions check all of our factors. The risk is therefore real and should be priced by the market through a geopolitical risk premium. In addition, Iranian sanctions could tighten up the outlook for oil markets in 2019 by 400,000-600,000 b/d, reversing most of the production gains that Iran has made since 2016 (Chart 9). This is a problem given that the enormous oversupply of crude oil and oil products held in inventories has already been significantly cut. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy and Energy Sector Strategy teams believe that global petroleum inventories will be further reduced in 2019 (Chart 10). Chart 9Current And Future Iran##BR##Production Is At Risk Chart 10Tighter Markets And Lower Inventories,##BR##Keep Forward Curves Backwardated What about the hints from the OPEC 2.0 alliance that they would surge production in light of supply loss from Iran? Oil prices fell on the belief OPEC 2.0 could easily restore 1.8 MMb/d of production that they agreed to hold off the market since early 2017. Our commodity strategists have always considered the full number to be an illusion that consists of 1.2 MMb/d of voluntary cuts and around 500,000 b/d of natural production declines that were counted as "cuts" so that the cartel could project an image of greater collaboration than it actually achieved (Chart 11). In fact, some of the lesser "contributors" to the OPEC cut pledged to lower 2017 production by ~400,000 b/d, but are facing 2018 production levels that are projected to be ~700,000 b/d below their 2016 reference levels, and 2019 production levels are estimated to decline by another 200,000 b/d (Chart 12). Furthermore, renewed Iran-U.S. tensions may only be the second-most investment-relevant geopolitical risk for oil markets. Our commodity team expects Venezuelan production to fall to 1.2 MMb/d by the end of 2018 and to 1 MMb/d by the end of 2019, but these production levels could turn out to be optimistic (Chart 13). Chart 11Primary OPEC 2.0 Members Are Producing##BR##1.0 MMb/d Below Pre-Cut Levels Chart 12Secondary##BR##OPEC 2.0 Chart 13Venezuela Is##BR##A Bigger Risk 2H18, 2019 Oil Forecasts BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy updated its forecast last week, after the leaders of OPEC 2.0 indicated member states would be considering putting as much as 1mm b/d back on the market, following the price run-up accurately called from the beginning of this year. KSA and Russian are not being explicit about what they intend to do. In the background are the U.S.'s renewed Iran sanctions discussed above, which could remove ~ 500k b/d from the export markets by the end of 1H19, and the increasingly likely collapse of Venezuela's exports, which could remove ~ 1mm b/d. Against this, we have production in the U.S. shales increasing this year and next by ~ 1.3 - 1.4mm b/d to offset these potential losses, but even there we're seeing problems getting the shale oil out of the U.S.17 That's why CES went to an ensemble forecast, and will keep it in place as the market continues to process these conflicting signals (Chart 14). While some production will be restored to the market this year, it will be a drawn-out process, given CES's view OPEC 2.0 does not want to undo the hard work it took to drain OECD oil inventories (Chart 15). CES's Brent forecast was lowered $2/bbl in 2H18 and $7/bbl in 2019 to $76/bbl and to $73/bbl, respectively. CES's WTI forecast for 2H18 also was lowered $2/bbl to $70/bbl, while our 2019 forecast is now at $67/bbl, down $5/bbl vs. our previous forecast. Chart 14Factors In BCA's Ensemble Forecast Chart 15Balances Will Loosen If Supply Increases CES continues to expect continued strength on the demand side, with global oil consumption growing 1.7mm b/d. This will be driven by steady income growth in EM economies. One of the principal gauges CES uses to assess EM demand - import volumes - continues to move higher on a year-on-year basis, signaling incomes continue to expand (Chart 16). EM growth accounts for 1.3 of the 1.7mm b/d of growth we're expecting in 2018 and 2019. In forthcoming research, CES will be looking more deeply into the evolution of demand and the threat - if any - higher prices pose for EM growth. As was noted in last week's CES publication,17 consumers in many states no longer are shielded from high oil prices, as they were in the past: Governments around the world used the collapse in prices beginning in 2014 to remove/reduce fuel subsidies. This changes the dynamics of EM oil demand considerably, even if governments feel compelled to step into markets and order suppliers to not pass through the entire price increase. OPEC 2.0's leaders - KSA and Russia - appear united in their view of what is required to keep oil markets balanced over the long haul, so as not to disincentivize consumers from purchasing cars and trucks and the motor fuel required to run them. But over the short term, their goals differ. KSA is looking to IPO Saudi Aramco - next year, according to the latest reports - and this sale would most definitely benefit from higher prices. Indeed, KSA's oil minister Khalid al-Falih appeared to be comfortable with prices pushing toward $80/bbl recently. Russia's energy minister, Alexander Novak, has said in the past he favors an oil price somewhere between $50 and $60/bbl. CES continues to believe the dominant price risks remain on the upside - at 28.31% and 12.12%, markets continue to underestimate the probability Brent prices will trade above $80 and $90/bbl this year and next (Chart 17). Chart 16Strong EM Commodity Demand Expected,##BR##As Incomes And Imports Continue To Grow Chart 17Oil Markets Continue To Underestimate##BR##Upside Price Risks In 2H18 And 2019 Bottom Line: A renewal of U.S. - Iran tensions throws up real risks that are not being fully priced by the oil markets at present. They raise the probability global oil supplies out of the Middle East will be directly threatened, and that tensions in Iran and Iraq will flare into proxy wars. Such an outcome would be highly relevant to Saudi Arabia, which considers Iraq as a vital buffer with Iran. Lastly, rising tensions could exacerbate sectarian conflict in the Middle East as a whole, particularly along the Sunni - Shia divide, which is more likely to lead contagion than tribal conflict such as the Libyan Civil War. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 The JCPOA was concluded in Vienna on July 14, 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States), plus Germany (the "+1" of the P5+1). 3 BCA's Senior Commodity & Energy Strategist Robert P. Ryan has given the name "OPEC 2.0" to the Saudi-Russian alliance that is focused on regaining a modicum of control over the rate at which U.S. shale-oil resources are developed. Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "KSA's, Russia's End Game: Contain U.S. Shale Oil," dated March 30, 2017; and "The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One?" dated April 6, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 "Breakout" nuclear capacity is defined here as having enough uranium enriched at lower levels, such as at 20%, to produce sufficient quantities of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) required for a nuclear device. The often-reported amount of 20% enriched uranium required for breakout capacity is 200kg. However, the actual amount of uranium required depends on the number of centrifuges being employed and their efficiency. In our 2013 report, we gauged that Iran could produce enough HEU within 4-5 weeks at the Fordow facility to develop a weapon, which means that it had effectively reached "breakout capacity." 5 Please see International Atomic Energy Agency, "Implementation Of The NPT Safeguards Agreement And Relevant Provisions Of Security Council Resolutions In The Islamic Republic Of Iran," IAEA Board Report, dated August 28, 2013, available at www.iaea.org. 6 Although, in a move designed to increase pressure on Iran and its main trade partners, the Obama administration sold Israel the GBU-28 bunker-busting ordinance. That specific ordinance is very powerful, but still not capable enough to penetrate Fordow. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: Paradigm Shift," dated November 13, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Special Report, "Crisis In The Persian Gulf: Investment Implications," dated March 1, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 There are four U.S. Navy Avenger-class minesweepers based in Bahrain as part of the joint U.S.-U.K. TF-52. This number has been the same since 2012, when they were deployed to the region. 10 Particularly crippling for Iran's economy was the EU oil embargo imposed in January 2012, effective from July of that year, and the banning of Iranian financial institutions from participating in the SWIFT system in March 2012. 11 The Guardian Council of the Constitution is a 12-member, unelected body wielding considerable power in Iran. It has consistently disqualified reformist candidates from running in elections, which makes its approval of Rouhani's candidacy all the more significant. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Reality Check: Israel Will Not Bomb Iran (Ever)," dated August 14, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 The NATO war with Yugoslavia in 1999 reveals how challenging SEAD missions can be if the adversary refuses to engage its air defense systems. The U.S. and its NATO allies bombed Serbia and its forces for nearly three months with limited effectiveness against the country's surface-to-air capabilities. The Serbian military simply refused to turn on its radar installations, making U.S. AGM-88 HARM air-to-surface anti-radiation missiles, designed to home in on electronic transmissions coming from radar systems, ineffective. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Trump Re-Establishes America's 'Credible Threats,'" dated April 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Insights From The Road - The Rest Of The World," dated September 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: A Tale Of Red Herrings And Black Swans," dated October 14, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "OPEC 2.0 Guiding To Higher Output; Volatility Set To Rise ... Again," published May 31, 2018.It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017

Highlights Investors are underestimating the risks of U.S.-Iran tensions; The Obama administration's 2015 deal resulted in Iran curbing aggressive regional behavior that threatened global oil supply; The U.S. negotiating position vis-à-vis Iran has not improved; Unlike North Korea, Iran can retaliate against the Trump administration's "Maximum Pressure" doctrine - particularly in Iraq; U.S.-Iran conflicts will negatively affect global oil supply, critical geographies, and sectarian tensions - hence a geopolitical risk premium is warranted. Average Brent and WTI oil prices should rise to $80/bbl and $72/bbl in 2019 even without adding the full range of events that will drive up the geopolitical risk premium. Risks lie to the upside. Feature Tensions between the U.S. and Iran snuck up on the markets (Chart 1), even though President Trump's policy agenda was well telegraphed via rhetoric, action, and White House personnel moves.1 Still, investors doubt the market relevance of the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the international agreement between Iran and the P5+1.2 Chart 1Iran: Nobody Was Paying Attention! Several reasons to fade the risks - and hence to fade any implications for global oil supply - have become conventional wisdom. These include the alleged ability of OPEC and Russia to boost production and Washington's supposed ineffectiveness without an internationally binding sanction regime. Our view is that investors and markets are underestimating the geopolitical, economic, and financial relevance of the U.S.-Iran tensions. First, the ideological rhetoric surrounding the original U.S.-Iran détente tends to be devoid of strategic analysis. Second, Iran's hard power capabilities are underestimated. Third, OPEC 2.0's ability to tap into its spare capacity is overestimated.3 To put some numbers on the difference between our view and the market's view, we rely on the implied option volatilities for crude oil futures.4 As Chart 2 illustrates, the oil markets are currently pricing in just under 30% probability that oil prices will exceed $80/bbl by year-end, and merely 14% that they will touch $90/bbl in the same timeframe. We believe these odds are too low and will take the other side of that bet. Chart 2The Market Continues To Underestimate High Oil Prices Why Did The U.S.-Iran Détente Emerge In 2015? Both detractors and defenders of the 2015 nuclear deal often misunderstand the logic of the deal. First, the defenders are wrong when they claim that the deal creates a robust mechanism that ensures that Iran will never produce a nuclear device. Given that the most critical components of the deal expire in 10 or 15 years, it is simply false to assert that the deal is a permanent solution. More importantly, Iran already reached "breakout capacity" in mid-2013, which means that it had already achieved the necessary know-how to become a nuclear power.5 We know because we wrote about it at the time, using the data of Iran's cumulative production of enriched uranium provided to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).6 In August 2013, Iran's stockpile of 20% enriched uranium, produced at the impregnable Fordow facility, reached 200kg (Chart 3). Chart 3Iran's Negotiating Leverage At that point, Israeli threats of attacking Iran became vacuous, as the Israeli air force lacked the necessary bunker-busting technology to penetrate Fordow.7 As we wrote in 2013, this critical moment gave Tehran the confidence to give up "some material/physical components of its nuclear program as it has developed the human capital necessary to achieve nuclear status."8 The JCPOA forced Iran to stop enriching uranium at the Fordow facility altogether and to give up its stockpile of uranium enriched at 20%. However, Iran only agreed to the deal because it had reached a level of technological know-how that has not been eliminated by mothballing centrifuges and "converting" facilities to civilian nuclear research. Iran is a nuclear power in all but name. Second, the detractors of the JCPOA are incorrect when they claim that Iran did not give up any regional hegemony when it signed the deal. This criticism focuses on Iran's expanded role in the Syrian Civil War since 2011, as well as its traditional patronage networks with the Lebanese Shia militants Hezbollah and with Yemen's Houthis. However, critics ignore several other, far more critical, fronts of Iranian influence: Strait of Hormuz: In 2012, Iran's nearly daily threats to close the Strait of Hormuz were very much a clear and present danger for global investors (Map 1). Although we argued in 2012 that Iran's capability was limited to a 10-day closure, followed by another month during which they could threaten the safe passage of vessels through the Strait, even such a short crisis would add a considerable risk premium to oil markets given that it would remove about 17-18 million bbl/day from global oil supply (Chart 4).9 Since 2012, Iran's capabilities to threaten the Strait have grown, while the West's anti-mine capabilities have largely stayed the same.10 Map 1Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province Is A Crucial Piece Of Real Estate Chart 4Geopolitical Crises And Global Peak Supply Losses Iraq: The key geographic buffer between Saudi Arabia and Iran is Iraq (Map 2). Iran filled the power vacuum created by the U.S. invasion almost immediately after Saddam Hussein's overthrow. It deployed members of the infamous Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) into Iraq to support the initial anti-American insurgency. Iran's support for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was critical following the American withdrawal in 2011, particularly as his government became increasingly focused on anti-Sunni insurgency. Map 2Iraq: A Buffer Between Saudi Arabia And Iran Bahrain: Home of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, Bahrain experienced social unrest in 2011. The majority of Bahrain's population are Shia, while the country is ruled by the Saudi-aligned, Sunni, Al Khalifa monarchy. The majority of Shia protests were at least rhetorically, and some reports suggest materially, supported by Iran. To quell the protests, and preempt any potential Iranian interference, Saudi Arabia intervened militarily with a Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Peninsula Shield Force. Eastern Province: Similar to the unrest in Bahrain, Shia protests engulfed Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province in 2011. The province is highly strategic, as it is where nearly all of Saudi oil production, processing, and transportation facilities are located (Map 1). Like Bahrain, it has a large Shia population. Saudi security forces cracked down on the uprising and have continued to do so, with paramilitary operations lasting into 2017. While Iranian involvement in the protests is unproven, it has been suspected. Anti-Israel Rhetoric: Under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran threatened Israel with destruction on a regular basis. While these were mostly rhetorical attacks, the implication of the threat was that any attack against Iran and its nuclear facilities would result in retaliation against U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf and Iraq and direct military action against Israel. Both defenders and detractors of the JCPOA are therefore mistaken. The JCPOA does not impact Iran's ability to achieve "breakout capacity" given that it already reached it in mid-2013. And Iran's regional influence has not expanded since the deal was signed in 2015. In fact, since the détente in 2015, and in some cases since negotiations between the Obama administration and Tehran began in 2013, Iran has been a factor of stability in the Middle East. Specifically, Iran has willingly: Stopped threatening the Strait of Hormuz (the last overt threats to close the Strait of Hormuz were made in 2012); Acquiesced to Nouri al-Maliki's ousting as Prime Minister of Iraq in 2014 and his replacement by the far more moderate and less sectarian Haider al-Abadi; Stopped meddling in Bahraini and Saudi internal affairs; Stopped threatening Israel's existence (although its material support for Hezbollah clearly continues and presents a threat to Israel's security); Participated in joint military operations with the U.S. military against the Islamic State, cooperation without which Baghdad would have most likely fallen to the Sunni radicals in late 2014. The final point is worth expanding on. After the fall of Mosul - Iraq's second largest city - to the Islamic State in May 2014, Iranian troops and military advisors on the ground in Iraq cooperated with the U.S. air force to arrest and ultimately reverse the gains by the radical Sunni terrorist group. Without direct Iranian military cooperation - and without Tehran's material and logistical support for the Iraqi Shia militias - the Islamic State could not have been eradicated from Iraq (Map 3). How did such a dramatic change in Tehran's foreign policy emerge between 2012 and 2015? Iranian leadership realized in 2012 that the U.S. military and economic threats against it were real. Internationally coordinated sanctions had a damaging effect on the economy, threatening to destabilize a regime that had experienced social upheaval in the 2009 Green Revolution (Chart 5). It therefore began negotiations almost immediately after the imposition of stringent economic sanctions in early and mid-2012.11 Map 3The Collapse Of A Would-Be Caliphate Chart 5Iran's Sanctions Had A Hard Bite To facilitate the negotiations, the Guardian Council of Iran disqualified President Ahmadinejad's preferred candidate for the 2013 Iranian presidential elections, while allowing Hassan Rouhani's candidacy.12 Rouhani, a moderate, won the June 2013 election in a landslide win, giving him a strong political mandate to continue the negotiations and, relatedly, to pursue economic development. Many commentators forget, however, that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Hosseini Khamenei allowed Rouhani to run in the first place, knowing full well that he would likely win. In other words, Rouhani's victory revealed the preferences of the Iranian regime to negotiate and adjust its foreign policy. Bottom Line: The 2015 U.S.-Iran détente traded American acquiescence in Iranian nuclear development - frozen at the point of "breakout capacity" - in exchange for Iran's cooperation on a number of strategically vital regional issues. As such, focusing on just the JCPOA, without considering the totality of Iranian behavior before and since the deal, is a mistake. Iran curbed its influence in several regional hot spots - almost all of which are critical to global oil supply. The Obama administration essentially agreed to Iran becoming a de facto nuclear power in exchange for Iran backing away from aggressive regional behavior. This included Iran's jeopardizing the safe passage of oil through the Strait of Hormuz either by directly threatening to close the channel or through covert actions in Bahrain and the Eastern Province. The U.S. also drove Iran to accept a far less sectarian Iraq, by forcing out the ardently pro-Tehran al-Maliki and replacing him with a prime minister far more acceptable to Saudi Arabia and Iraqi Sunnis. Why Did The U.S. Chose Diplomacy In 2011? The alternative to the above deal was some sort of military action against Iranian nuclear facilities. The U.S. contemplated such action in late 2011. Two options existed, either striking Iran's facilities with its own military or allowing Israel to do it themselves. One reason to choose diplomacy and economic sanctions over war was the limited capability of Israel to attack Iran alone.13 Israel does not possess strategic bombing capability. As such, it would have required a massive air flotilla of bomber-fighters to get to the Iranian nuclear facilities. While the Israeli air force has the capability to reach Iranian facilities and bomb them, their effectiveness is dubious and the ability to counter Iranian retaliatory capacity with follow-up strikes is non-existent. The second was the fact that a U.S. strike against Iran would be exceedingly complex. Compared to previous Israeli strikes against nuclear facilities in Iraq (Operation Opera 1981) and Syria (Operation Outside The Box 2007), Iran presented a much more challenging target. Its superior surface-to-air missile capability would necessitate a prolonged, and dangerous, suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD) mission.14 In parallel, the U.S. would have to preemptively strike Iran's ballistic missile launching pads as well as its entire navy, so as to obviate Iran's ability to retaliate against international shipping or the U.S. and its allies in the region. The U.S. also had a strategic reason to avoid entangling itself in yet another military campaign in the Middle East. The public was war-weary and the Obama administration gauged that in a world where global adversaries like China and Russia were growing in geopolitical power, avoiding another major military confrontation in a region of decreasing value to U.S. interests (thanks partly to growing U.S. shale oil production) was of paramount importance (Chart 6). Notable in 2011 was growing Chinese assertiveness throughout East Asia (please see the Appendix). Particularly alarming was the willingness of Beijing to assert dubious claims to atolls and isles in the South China Sea, a globally vital piece of real estate (Diagram 1). There was a belief - which has at best only partially materialized - that if the United States divested itself of the Middle East, then it could focus more intently on countering China's challenge to traditional U.S. dominance in East Asia and the Pacific. Chart 6Great Power Competition Diagram 1South China Sea As Traffic Roundabout Bottom Line: The Obama administration therefore chose a policy of military posturing toward Iran to establish a credible threat. The military option was signaled in order to get the international community - both allies and adversaries - on board with tough economic sanctions. The ultimate deal, the JCPOA, did not give the U.S. and its allies everything they wanted precisely because they did not enter the negotiations from a position of preponderance of power. Critics of the JCPOA ignore this reality and assume that going back to the status quo ante bellum will somehow improve the U.S. negotiating position. It won't. What Happens If The U.S.-Iran Détente Ends? The Trump administration is serious about applying its Maximum Pressure tactics on Iran. Buoyed by the successful application of this strategy in North Korea, the White House believes that it can get a better deal with Tehran. We do not necessarily disagree. It is indeed true that the U.S. is a far more powerful country than Iran, with a far more powerful military. On a long enough timeline, with enough pressure, it ought to be able to force Tehran to concede, assuming that credible threats are used.15 Unlike the Obama administration, the Trump administration will presumably rely on Israel far less, and on its own military capability a lot more, to deliver those threats, which should be more effective. The problem is that the timeline on which such a strategy would work is likely to be a lot longer with Iran than with North Korea. This is because Iran's retaliatory capabilities are far greater than the one-trick-pony Pyongyang, which could effectively only launch ballistic missiles and threaten all-out war with U.S. and its regional allies.16 While those threats are indeed worrisome, they are also vacuous as they would lead to a total war in which the North Korean regime would meet its demise. Iran has a far more effective array of potential retaliation that can serve a strategic purpose without leading to total war. As we listed above, it could rhetorically threaten the Strait of Hormuz or attempt to incite further unrest in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province. The key retaliation could be to take the war to Iraq. The just-concluded election in Iraq appears to have favored Shia political forces not allied to Iran, including the Alliance Towards Reform (Saairun) led by the infamous cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr (Chart 7). Surrounding this election, various Iranian policymakers and military leaders have said that they would not allow Iraq to drift outside of Iran's sphere of influence, a warning to the nationalist Sadr who has fought against both the American and Iranian military presence in his country. Iraq is not only a strategic buffer between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the two regional rivals, but also a critical source of global oil supply, having brought online about half as much new supply as U.S. shale since 2011 (Chart 8). If Iranian-allied Shia factions engage in an armed confrontation with nationalist Shias allied with Muqtada al-Sadr, such a conflict will not play out in irrelevant desert governorates, as the fight against the Islamic State did. Chart 7Iraqi Elections Favored Shiites But Not Iran Chart 8Iraq Critical To Global Oil Supply Instead, a Shia-on-Shia conflict would play out precisely in regions with oil production and transportation facilities. In 2008, for example, Iranian-allied Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki fought a brief civil war against Sadr's Mahdi Army in what came to be known as the "Battle of Basra." While Iran had originally supported Sadr in his insurgency against the U.S., it came to Maliki's support in that brief but deadly six-day conflict. Basra is Iraq's chief port through which much of the country's oil exports flow. Iraq may therefore become a critical battleground as Iran retaliates against U.S. Maximum Pressure. From Iran's perspective, holding onto influence in Iraq is critical. It is the transit route through which Iran has established an over-land connection with its allies in Syria and Lebanon (Map 4). Threatening Iraqi oil exports, or even causing some of the supply to come off-line, would also be a convenient way to reduce the financial costs of the sanctions. A 500,000 b/d loss of exports - at an average price of $70 per barrel (as Brent has averaged in 2018) - could roughly be compensated by an increase in oil prices by $10 per barrel, given Iran's total exports. As such, Iran, faced with lost supply due to sanctions, will have an incentive to make sure that prices go up (i.e., that rivals do not simply replace Iranian supply, keeping prices more or less level). The easiest way to accomplish this, to add a geopolitical risk premium to oil prices, is through the meddling in Iraqi affairs. Map 4Iran Needs Iraq To Project Power Through The Levant It is too early to forecast with a high degree of confidence precisely how the U.S.-Iran confrontation will develop. However, Diagram 2 offers our take on the path towards retaliation. Diagram 2Iran-U.S. Tensions Decision Tree The critical U.S. sanctions against Iran will become effective on November 4 (Box 1). We believe that the Trump administration is serious and that it will force European allies, as well as South Korea and Japan, to cease imports of oil from Iran. China will be much harder to cajole. BOX 1 Iranian Sanction Timeline President Trump issued a National Security Presidential Memorandum to re-impose all U.S. sanctions lifted or waived in connection with the JCPOA. The Office of Foreign Assets Control expects all sanctions lifted under the JCPOA to be re-imposed and in full effect after November 4, 2018. However, there are two schedules by which sanctions will be re-imposed, a 90-day and 180-day wind-down periods.1 Sanctions Re-Imposed After August 6, 2018 The first batch of sanctions that will be re-imposed will come into effect 90 days after the announced withdrawal from the JCPOA. These include: Sanctions on direct or indirect sale, supply, or transfer to or from Iran of several commodities (including gold), semi-finished metals, and industrial process software; Sanctions on the purchase or acquisition of U.S. dollar banknotes by the government of Iran; Sanctions on trade in Iranian currency and facilitation of the issuance of Iranian sovereign debt; Sanctions on Iran's automotive sector; Sanctions on export or re-export to Iran of commercial passenger aircraft and related parts. Sanctions Re-Imposed After November 4, 2018 The second batch of sanctions will come into effect 180 days after the announced Trump administration JCPOA withdrawal decision. These include: Sanctions on Iranian port operators, shipping, and shipbuilding activities; Sanctions against petroleum-related transactions with the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), Naftiran Intertrade Company (NICO), and National Iranian Tanker Company (NITC); Sanctions against the purchase of petroleum, petroleum products, or petrochemical products from Iran; Sanctions on transactions and provision of financial messaging services by foreign financial institutions with the Central Bank of Iran; Sanctions on Iran's energy sector; Sanctions on the provision of insurance, reinsurance, and underwriting services. 1 Please see the U.S. Treasury Department, "Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Re-Imposition of Sanctions Pursuant to the May 8, 2018, National Security Presidential Memorandum Relating to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)," dated May 8, 2018, available at www.treasury.gov. By Q1 2019, the impact on Iranian oil exports will be clear. We suspect that Iran will, at that point, have the choice of either relenting to Trump's Maximum Pressure, or escalating tensions through retaliation. We give the latter a much higher degree of confidence and suspect that a cycle of retaliation and Maximum Pressure would lead to a conditional probability of war between Iran and the U.S. of around 20%. This is a significant number, and it is critical if President Trump wants to apply credible threats of war to Iran. Bottom Line: Unlike North Korea, Iran has several levers it can use to retaliate against U.S. Maximum Pressure. Iran agreed to set these levers aside as negotiations with the Obama administration progressed, and it has kept them aside since the conclusion of the JCPOA. It is therefore easy for Tehran to resurrect them against the Trump administration. Critical among these levers is meddling in Iraq's internal affairs. Not only is Iraq critical to Iran's regional influence; it is also key to global oil supply. We suspect that a cycle of Iranian retaliation and American Maximum Pressure raises the probability of U.S.-Iran military confrontation to 20%. We will be looking at several key factors in assessing whether the U.S. and Iran are heading towards a confrontation. To that end, we have compiled a U.S.-Iran confrontation checklist (Table 1). Table 1Will The U.S. Attack Iran? Investment Implications Over the past several years, there have been many geopolitical crises in the Middle East. We have tended to fade most of them, from a perspective of a geopolitical risk premium applied to oil prices. This is because we always seek the second derivative of any geopolitical event. In the context of the Middle East, by "second derivative" we mean that we are interested in whether the market impact of a new piece of information - of a new geopolitical event - will amount to more than just a random perturbation with ephemeral, decaying, market implications. To determine the potential of new information to catalyze a persistent market risk premium or discount, we investigate whether it changes the way things change in a given region or context. In 2015, we identified three factors that we believe are critical for a geopolitical event in the Middle East to have such second derivative implications, and thus global market implications.17 These are: Oil supply: The event should impact current global oil supply either directly or through a clear channel of contagion. Renewed sanctions against Iran do so directly. So would Iranian retaliation in Iraq or the Persian Gulf. Geography: The event should occur in a geography that is of existential significance to one of the regional or global players. Re-imposed sanctions obviously directly impact Iran as they could increase domestic political crisis. A potential Iranian proxy-war in Iraq would be highly relevant to Saudi Arabia, which considers Iraq as a vital buffer with Iran. Sectarian contagion: The event should exacerbate sectarian conflict - Sunni vs. Shia - which is more likely to lead contagion than tribal conflict such as the Libyan Civil War. A renewed U.S.-Iran tensions check all of our factors. The risk is therefore real and should be priced by the market through a geopolitical risk premium. In addition, Iranian sanctions could tighten up the outlook for oil markets in 2019 by 400,000-600,000 b/d, reversing most of the production gains that Iran has made since 2016 (Chart 9). This is a problem given that the enormous oversupply of crude oil and oil products held in inventories has already been significantly cut. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy and Energy Sector Strategy teams believe that global petroleum inventories will be further reduced in 2019 (Chart 10). Chart 9Current And Future Iran##br## Production Is At Risk Chart 10Tighter Markets And Lower Inventories,##br## Keep Forward Curves Backwardated What about the hints from the OPEC 2.0 alliance that they would surge production in light of supply loss from Iran? Oil prices fell on the belief OPEC 2.0 could easily restore 1.8 MMb/d of production that they agreed to hold off the market since early 2017. Our commodity strategists have always considered the full number to be an illusion that consists of 1.2 MMb/d of voluntary cuts and around 500,000 b/d of natural production declines that were counted as "cuts" so that the cartel could project an image of greater collaboration than it actually achieved (Chart 11). In fact, some of the lesser "contributors" to the OPEC cut pledged to lower 2017 production by ~400,000 b/d, but are facing 2018 production levels that are projected to be ~700,000 b/d below their 2016 reference levels, and 2019 production levels are estimated to decline by another 200,000 b/d (Chart 12). Chart 11Primary OPEC 2.0 Members Are Producing##br## 1.0 MMb/d Below Pre-Cut Levels Chart 12Secondary OPEC 2.0 "Contributors" ##br##Can't Even Reach Their Quotas Furthermore, renewed Iran-U.S. tensions may only be the second-most investment-relevant geopolitical risk for oil markets. Our commodity team expects Venezuelan production to fall to 1.2 MMb/d by the end of 2018 and to 1 MMb/d by the end of 2019, but these production levels could turn out to be optimistic (Chart 13). BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy therefore projects that the combination of stable global demand, steady declines in Venezuela's crude oil output, and the loss of Iranian exports to U.S. sanctions in 2019 will lift the average Brent and WTI prices to $80 and $72/bbl respectively (Chart 14).18 This forecast, however, represents our baseline based on fundamentals of global oil supply and demand (Chart 15) and does not include our potential scenarios outlined in Diagram 2, which would obviously add additional geopolitical risk premium. Chart 13Venezuela Is A Bigger Risk Chart 14Brent Will Average $80/bbl In 2019 Chart 15Balances Tighter As Supply Falls For investors looking for equity-market exposure in this scenario, BCA's Energy Sector Strategy recommends overweighing U.S. shale producers and shale-focused service companies for investors looking for equity-market exposure to oil prices. Our colleague Matt Conlan, of the BCA Energy Sector Strategy, has broken down this recommendation into specific equity calls, which we encourage our clients to peruse.19 Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 The JCPOA was concluded in Vienna on July 14, 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States), plus Germany (the "+1" of the P5+1). 3 BCA's Senior Commodity & Energy Strategist Robert P. Ryan has given the name "OPEC 2.0" to the Saudi-Russian alliance that is focused on regaining a modicum of control over the rate at which U.S. shale-oil resources are developed. Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "KSA's, Russia's End Game: Contain U.S. Shale Oil," dated March 30, 2017; and "The Game's Afoot In Oil, But Which One?" dated April 6, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 We use Brent implied volatility - of at-the-money options of the selected futures contract - as an input to construct the cumulative normal density of future prices. Thus, the probability obtained is one where the terminal futures price, at the selected months, exceeds the strike price quoted. In order to derive this probability, we need the current market price of the selected future contract, the number of days to expiration, the strike price, and a measure of the volatility of this contract. 5 "Breakout" nuclear capacity is defined here as having enough uranium enriched at lower levels, such as at 20%, to produce sufficient quantities of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) required for a nuclear device. The often-reported amount of 20% enriched uranium required for breakout capacity is 200kg. However, the actual amount of uranium required depends on the number of centrifuges being employed and their efficiency. In our 2013 report, we gauged that Iran could produce enough HEU within 4-5 weeks at the Fordow facility to develop a weapon, which means that it had effectively reached "breakout capacity." 6 Please see International Atomic Energy Agency, "Implementation Of The NPT Safeguards Agreement And Relevant Provisions Of Security Council Resolutions In The Islamic Republic Of Iran," IAEA Board Report, dated August 28, 2013, available at www.iaea.org. 7 Although, in a move designed to increase pressure on Iran and its main trade partners, the Obama administration sold Israel the GBU-28 bunker-busting ordinance. That specific ordinance is very powerful, but still not capable enough to penetrate Fordow. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: Paradigm Shift," dated November 13, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Special Report, "Crisis In The Persian Gulf: Investment Implications," dated March 1, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 There are four U.S. Navy Avenger-class minesweepers based in Bahrain as part of the joint U.S.-U.K. TF-52. This number has been the same since 2012, when they were deployed to the region. 11 Particularly crippling for Iran's economy was the EU oil embargo imposed in January 2012, effective from July of that year, and the banning of Iranian financial institutions from participating in the SWIFT system in March 2012. 12 The Guardian Council of the Constitution is a 12-member, unelected body wielding considerable power in Iran. It has consistently disqualified reformist candidates from running in elections, which makes its approval of Rouhani's candidacy all the more significant. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Reality Check: Israel Will Not Bomb Iran (Ever)," dated August 14, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 The NATO war with Yugoslavia in 1999 reveals how challenging SEAD missions can be if the adversary refuses to engage its air defense systems. The U.S. and its NATO allies bombed Serbia and its forces for nearly three months with limited effectiveness against the country's surface-to-air capabilities. The Serbian military simply refused to turn on its radar installations, making U.S. AGM-88 HARM air-to-surface anti-radiation missiles, designed to home in on electronic transmissions coming from radar systems, ineffective. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Trump Re-Establishes America's 'Credible Threats,'" dated April 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Insights From The Road - The Rest Of The World," dated September 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: A Tale Of Red Herrings And Black Swans," dated October 14, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Brent, WTI Average $80, $72 Next Year; Upside Risk Dominates, $100/bbl Possible In 2019," dated May 24, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Geopolitical Certainty: OPEC Production Risks Are Playing To Shale Producers' Advantage," dated May 9, 2018, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) (Continued) Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) (Continued)

Highlights Divergence between U.S. and global economic outcomes is bullish for the U.S. dollar and bad for EM assets; Maximum Pressure worked with North Korea, but it may not with Iran, putting upside pressure on oil; An election is the only way to resolve split over Brexit and the new anti-establishment coalition in Italy is not market positive; Historic election outcome in Malaysia and the prospect of a weakened Erdogan favors Malaysian over Turkish assets; Reinitiate long Russian vs EM equities in light of higher oil price and reopen French versus German industrials as reforms continue unimpeded in France. Feature "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far." - Theodore Roosevelt, in a letter to Henry L. Sprague, January 26, 1900. May started with a geopolitical bang. On May 4, a high-profile U.S. trade delegation to Beijing returned home after two days of failed negotiations. Instead of bridging the gap between the two superpowers, the delegation doubled it.1 On May 8, President Trump put his Maximum Pressure doctrine - honed against Pyongyang - into action against Iran, announcing that the U.S. would withdraw from the Obama administration's Iran nuclear deal - also referred to as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). These geopolitical headlines were good for the U.S. dollar, bad for Treasuries, and generally miserable for emerging market (EM) assets (Chart 1).2 We have expected these very market moves since the beginning of the year, recommending that clients go long the DXY on January 31 and go short EM equities vs. DM on March 6.3 Chart 1EM Breakdown? Chart 2U.S. Dollar Rallies When Global Trade Slows Geopolitical risks, however, are merely the accelerant of an ongoing process of global growth redistribution. A key theme for BCA's Geopolitical Strategy this year has been the divergent ramifications of populist stimulus in the U.S. and structural reforms in China. This political divergence in economic outcomes has reduced growth in the latter and accelerated it in the former, a bullish environment for the U.S. dollar (Chart 2).4 Data is starting to support this narrative: Chart 3Global Growth On A Knife Edge Chart 4German Data... The BCA OECD LEI has stalled, but the diffusion index shows a clear deterioration (Chart 3); German trade is showing signs of weakness, as is industrial production and IFO business confidence (Chart 4); Another bellwether of global trade, South Korea, is showing a rapid deterioration in exports (Chart 5); Global economic surprise index is now in negative territory (Chart 6). Chart 5...And South Korean, Foreshadows Risks Chart 6Unexpected Slowdown In Global Growth Meanwhile, on the U.S. side of the ledger, wage pressures are rising as the number of unemployed workers and job openings converge (Chart 7). Given the additional tailwinds of fiscal stimulus, which we see no real chance of being reversed either before or after the midterm election, the U.S. economy is likely to continue to surprise to the upside relative to the rest of the world, a bullish outcome for the U.S. dollar (Chart 8). In this environment of U.S. outperformance and global growth underperformance, EM assets are likely to suffer. Chart 7U.S. Labor Market Is Tightening Chart 8U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD Additionally, it does not help that geopolitical risks will weigh on confidence and will buoy demand for safe haven assets, such as the U.S. dollar. First, U.S.-China trade relations will continue to dominate the news flow this summer. President Trump's positive tweets on the smartphone giant ZTE aside, the U.S. and China have not reached a substantive agreement and upcoming deadlines on trade-related matters remain a risk (Table 1). Table 1Protectionism: Upcoming Dates To Watch Second, President Trump's application of Maximum Pressure on Iran will cause further volatility and upside pressure on the oil markets. The media was caught by surprise by the president's announcement that he is withdrawing the U.S. from the JCPOA, which is puzzling given that the May 12 expiration of the sanctions waiver was well-telegraphed (Chart 9). It is also surprising given that President Trump signaled his pivot towards an aggressive foreign policy by appointing John Bolton and Mike Pompeo - two adherents of a hawkish foreign policy - to replace more middle-of-the-road policymakers. It was these personnel changes, combined with the U.S. president's lack of constraints on foreign policy, that inspired us to include Iran as the premier geopolitical risk for 2018.5 Chart 9Iran: Nobody Was Paying Attention! Iran-U.S. Tensions: Maximum Pressure Is Real Last year, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy correctly forecast that President Trump's Maximum Pressure doctrine would work against North Korea. First, we noted that President Trump reestablished America's "credible threat," a crucial factor in any negotiation.6 Without credible threats, it is impossible to cajole one's rival into shifting away from the status quo. The trick with North Korea, for each administration that preceded President Trump, was that it was difficult to establish such a credible threat given Pyongyang's ability to retaliate through conventional artillery against South Korean population centers. President Trump swept this concern aside by appearing unconcerned with what were to befall South Korean civilians or the Korean-U.S. alliance. Second, we noted in a detailed military analysis that North Korean retaliation - apart from the aforementioned conventional capacity - was paltry.7 President Trump called Kim Jong-un's bluff about targeting Guam with ballistic missiles and kept up Maximum Pressure throughout a summer full of rhetorical bluster. As tensions rose, China blinked first, enforcing President Trump's demand for tighter sanctions. China did not want the U.S. to attack North Korea or to use the North Korean threat as a reason to build up its military assets in the region. The collapse of North Korean exports to China ultimately starved the regime of hard cash and, in conjunction with U.S. military and rhetorical pressure, forced Kim Jong-un to back off (Chart 10). In essence, President Trump's doctrine is a modification of President Theodore Roosevelt's maxim. Instead of "talking softly," President Trump recommends "tweeting aggressively".8 It is important to recount the North Korean experience for several reasons: Maximum Pressure worked with North Korea: It is an objective fact that President Trump was correct in using Maximum Pressure on North Korea. Our analysis last year carefully detailed why it would be a success. However, we also specifically outlined why it would work with North Korea. Particularly relevant was Pyongyang's inability to counter American economic pressure and rhetoric with material leverage. Kim Jong-un's only objective capability is to launch a massive artillery attack against civilians in Seoul. Given his preference not to engage in a full-out war against South Korea and the U.S., he balked and folded. Trump is tripling-down on what works: President Trump, as all presidents before him, is learning on the job. The North Korean experience has convinced him that his Maximum Pressure tactic works. In particular, it works because it forces third parties to enforce economic sanctions on the target nation. If China were to abandon its traditional ally North Korea and enforced painful sanctions, the logic goes, then Europeans would ditch Iran much faster. Iran is not North Korea: The danger with applying a Maximum Pressure tactic against Iran is that Tehran has multiple levers around the Middle East that it could deploy to counter U.S. pressure. President Obama did not sign the JCPOA merely because he was a dove.9 He did so because the deal resolved several regional security challenges and allowed the U.S. to pivot to Asia (Chart 11). Chart 10Maximum Pressure Worked On Pyongyang Chart 11Iran Nuclear Deal Had A Strategic Imperative To understand why Iran is not North Korea, and how the application of Maximum Pressure could induce greater uncertainty in this case, investors first have to comprehend why the U.S.-Iran nuclear deal was concluded in the first place. Maximum Pressure Applied To Iran The 2015 U.S.-Iran deal resolved a crucial security dilemma in the Middle East: what to do about Iran's growing power in the region. Ever since the U.S. toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003, the fulcrum of the region's disequilibrium has been the status of Iraq. Iraq is a natural geographic buffer between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the two regional rivals. Hussein, a Sunni, ruled Iraq - 65% of which is Shia - either as an overt client of the U.S. and Saudi Arabia (1980-1988), or as a free agent largely opposed to everyone in the region (from 1990s onwards). Both options were largely acceptable to Saudi Arabia, although the former was preferable. Iran quickly seized the initiative in Iraq following the U.S. overthrow of Hussein, which created a vast vacuum of power in the country. Elite members of the country's Revolutionary Guards (IRGC), the so-called Quds Force, infiltrated Iraq and supplied various Shia militias with weapons and training that fueled the anti-U.S. insurgency. An overt Iranian ally, Nouri al-Maliki, assumed power in 2006. Soon the anti-U.S. insurgency evolved into sectarian violence as the Sunni population revolted and various Sunni militias, supported by Saudi Arabia, rose up against Shia-dominated Baghdad. The U.S. troops stationed in Iraq quickly became either incapable of controlling the sectarian violence or direct targets of the violence themselves. This rebellion eventually mutated into the Islamic State, which spread from Iraq to Syria in 2012 and then back to Iraq two years later. The Obama administration quickly realized that a U.S. military presence in Iraq would have to be permanent if Iranian influence in the country was to be curbed in the long term. This position was untenable, however, given U.S. military casualties in Iraq, American public opinion about the war, and lack of clarity on U.S. long-term interests in Iraq in the first place. President Obama therefore simultaneously withdrew American troops from Iraq in 2011 and began pressuring Iran on its nuclear program between 2011 and 2015.10 In addition, the U.S. demanded that Iran curb its influence in Iraq, that its anti-American/Israel rhetoric cease, and that it help defend Iraq against the attacks by the Islamic State in 2014. Tehran obliged on all three fronts, joining forces with the U.S. Air Force and Special Forces in the defense of Baghdad in the fall 2014.11 In 2014, Iran acquiesced in seeing its ally al-Maliki replaced by the far less sectarian Haider al-Abadi. These moves helped ease tensions between the U.S. and Iran and led to the signing of the JCPOA in 2015. From Tehran's perspective, it has abided by all the demands made by Washington during the 2012-2015 negotiations, both those covered by the JCPOA overtly and those never explicitly put down on paper. Yes, Iran's influence in the Middle East has expanded well beyond Iraq and into Syria, where Iranian troops are overtly supporting President Bashar al-Assad. But from Iran's perspective, the U.S. abandoned Syria in 2012 - when President Obama failed to enforce his "red line" on chemical weapons use. In fact, without Iranian and Russian intervention, it is likely that the Islamic State would have gained a greater foothold in Syria. The point that its critics miss is that the 2015 nuclear deal always envisioned giving Iran a sphere of influence in the Middle East. Otherwise, Tehran would not have agreed to curb its nuclear program! To force Iran to negotiate, President Obama did threaten Tehran with military force. As we have detailed in the past, President Obama established a credible threat by outsourcing it to Israel in 2011. It was this threat of a unilateral Israeli attack, which Obama did little to limit or prevent, that ultimately forced Europeans to accept the hawkish American position and impose crippling economic sanctions against Iran in early 2012. As such, it is highly unlikely that a rerun of the same strategy by the U.S., this time with Trump in charge and with potentially less global cooperation on sanctions, will produce a different, or better, deal. The recent history is important to recount because the Trump administration is convinced that it can get a better deal from Iran than the Obama administration did. This may be true, but it will require considerable amounts of pressure on Iran to achieve it. At some point, we expect that this pressure will look very much like a preparation for war against Iran, either by U.S. allies Israel and Saudi Arabia, or by the U.S. itself. First, President Trump will have to create a credible threat of force, as President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did in 2011-2012. Second, President Trump will have to be willing to sanction companies in Europe and Asia for doing business with Iran in order to curb Iran's oil exports. According to National Security Advisor John Bolton, European companies will have by the end of 2018 to curb their activities with Iran or face sanctions. The one difference this time around is Iraqi politics. Elections held on May 13 appear to have resulted in a surge of support for anti-Iranian Shia candidates, starting with the ardently anti-American and anti-Iranian Shia Ayatollah Muqtada al-Sadr. Sadr is a Shia, but also an Iraqi nationalist who campaigned on an anti-Tehran, anti-poverty, anti-corruption line. If the election signals a clear shift in Baghdad against Iran, then Iran may have one less important lever to play against the U.S. and its allies. However, we are only cautiously optimistic about Iraq. Pro-Iranian Shia forces, while in a clear minority, still maintain the support of roughly half of Iraqi Shias. And al-Sadr may not be able to govern effectively, given that his track record thus far mainly consists of waging insurgent warfare (against Americans) and whipping up populist fervor (against Iran). Any move in Baghdad, with U.S. and Saudi backing, to limit Iranian-allied Shia groups from government could lead to renewed sectarian conflict. Therein lies the key difference between North Korea and Iran. Iran has military, intelligence, and operational capabilities that North Korea does not. This is precisely why the U.S. concluded the 2015 deal in the first place, so that Iran would curb those capabilities regionally and limit its operations to the Iranian "sphere of influence." In addition, Iran is constrained against reopening negotiations with the U.S. domestically by the ongoing political contest between the moderates - such as President Hassan Rouhani - and the hawks - represented by the military and intelligence nexus. Supreme Leader Khamenei sits somewhere in the middle, but will side with the hawks if it looks like Rouhani's promise of economic benefits from the détente with the West will fall short of reality. The combination of domestic pressure and capabilities therefore makes it likely that Iran retaliates against American pressure at some point. While such retaliation could be largely investment-irrelevant - say by supporting Hezbollah rocket attacks into Israel or ramping up military operations in Syria - it could also affect oil prices if it includes activities in and around the Persian Gulf. Bottom Line: We caution clients not to believe the narrative that "Trump is all talk." As the example in North Korea suggests, Trump's rhetoric drove China to enforce sanctions in order to avert war on the Korean Peninsula. We therefore expect the U.S. administration to continue to threaten European and Asian partners and allies with sanctions, causing an eventual drop in Iranian oil exports. In addition, we expect Iran to play hardball, using its various proxies in the region to remind the Trump administration why Obama signed the 2015 deal in the first place. Could Trump ultimately be right on Iran as he was on North Korea? Absolutely. It is simply naïve to assume that Iran will negotiate without Maximum Pressure, which by definition will be market-relevant. Impact On Energy Markets BCA Energy Sector Strategy believes that the re-imposition of sanctions could result in a loss of 300,000-500,000 b/d of production by early 2019.12 This would take 2019 production back down to 3.3-3.5 MMB/d instead of growing to nearly 4.0 MMb/d as our commodity strategists have modeled in their supply-demand forecasts. In total, Iranian sanctions could tighten up the outlook for 2019 oil markets by 400,000-600,000 b/d, reversing the production that Iran has brought online since 2016 (Chart 12). Is the global energy market able to withstand this type of loss of production? First, Chart 13 shows that the enormous oversupply of crude oil and oil products held in inventories has already been cut from 450 million barrels at its peak to less than 100 million barrels today. Surplus inventories are destined to shrink to nothing by the end of the year even without geopolitical risks. In short, there is no excess inventory cushion. Chart 12Current And Future Iran Production Is At Risk Chart 13Excess Petroleum Inventories Are All But Gone Second, spare capacity within the OPEC 2.0 alliance - Saudi Arabia and Russia - is controversial. Many clients believe that OPEC 2.0 could easily restore the 1.8 MMb/d of production that they agreed to hold off the market since early 2017. However, our commodity team has always considered the full number to be an illusion that consists of 1.2 MMb/d of voluntary cuts and around 500,000 b/d of natural production declines that were counted as "cuts" so that the cartel could project an image of greater collaboration than it actually has achieved (Chart 14). In fact, some of the lesser "contributors" to the OPEC cut pledged to lower 2017 production by ~400,000 b/d, but are facing 2018 production levels that are projected to be ~700,000 b/d below their 2016 reference levels, and 2019 production levels are estimated to decline by another 200,000 b/d (Chart 15). Chart 14Primary OPEC 2.0 Members Are ##br##Producing 1.0 MMb/d Below Pre-Cut Levels Chart 15Secondary OPEC 2.0 "Contributors"##br## Can't Even Reach Their Quotas Third, renewed Iran-U.S. tensions may only be the second-most investment-relevant geopolitical risk for oil markets. Our commodity team expects Venezuelan production to fall to 1.23 MMb/d by the end of 2018 and to 1 MMb/d by the end of 2019, but these production levels could turn out to be optimistic (Chart 16). Venezuelan production declined by 450,000 b/d over the course of 21 months (December 2015 to September 2017), followed by another 450,000 b/d plunge over the past six months (September 2017 to March 2018), as the country's failing economy goes through the death spiral of its 20-year socialist experiment. The oil production supply chain is now suffering from shortages of everything, including capital. It is difficult to predict what broken link in the supply chain is most likely to impact production next, when it will happen, and what the size of the production impact will be. The combination of President Trump's Maximum Pressure doctrine applied to Iran, continued deterioration in Venezuelan production, and the inability of OPEC 2.0 to surge production as fast as the market thinks is unambiguously bullish for oil prices. Oil markets are currently pricing in a just under 35% probability that oil prices will exceed $80/bbl by year-end (Chart 17).13 We believe these odds are too low and will take the other side of that bet. Indeed, we think that the odds of Brent prices ending above $90/bbl this year are much higher than the 16% chance being priced in the markets presently, even though this is up from just under 4% at the beginning of the year. Chart 16Venezuela Is A Bigger Risk Chart 17Market Continues To Underestimate High Oil Prices Bottom Line: Our colleague Bob Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist, also expects higher volatility, as news flows become noisier. The recommendation by BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy is to go long Feb/19 $80/bbl Brent calls expiring in Dec/18 vs. short Feb/19 $85/bbl calls, given our assessment that the odds of ending the year above $90/bbl are higher than the market's expectations. A key variable to watch in the ongoing saga will be President Trump's willingness to impose secondary sanctions against European and Asian companies doing business with Iran. We do not think that the White House is bluffing. The mounting probability of sanctions will create "stroke of pen" risk and raise compliance costs to doing business with Iran, leading to lower Iranian exports by the end of the year. Europe Update: Political Risks Returning Risks in Europe are rising on multiple fronts. First, we continue to believe that the domestic political situation in the U.K. regarding Brexit is untenable. Second, the coalition of populists in Italy - combining the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S) and the Euroskeptic Lega - appears poised to become a reality. Brexit: Start Pricing In Prime Minister Corbyn Since our Brexit update in February, the pound has taken a wild ride, but our view has remained the same.14 PM May has an untenable negotiating position. The soft-Brexit majority in Westminster is growing confident while the hard-Brexit majority in her own Tory party is growing louder. We do not know who will win, but odds of an unclear outcome are growing. The first problem is the status of Northern Ireland. The 1998 Good Friday agreement, which ended decades of paramilitary conflict on the island, established an invisible border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Membership in the EU by both made the removal of a physical border a simple affair. But if the U.K. exits the bloc, and takes Northern Ireland with it, presumably a physical barrier would have to be reestablished, either in Ireland or between Northern Ireland and the rest of the U.K. The former would jeopardize the Good Friday agreement, the latter would jeopardize the U.K.'s integrity as a state. The EU, led on by Dublin's interests, has proposed that Northern Ireland maintain some elements of the EU acquis communautaire - the accumulated body of EU's laws and obligations - in order to facilitate the effectiveness of the 1998 Good Friday agreement. For many Tories in the U.K., particularly those who consider themselves "Unionists," the arrangement smacks of a Trojan Horse by the EU to slowly but surely untie the strings that bind the U.K. together. If Northern Ireland gets an exception, then pro-EU Scotland is sure to ask for one too. The second problem is that the Tories are divided on whether to remain part of the EU customs union. PM May is in favor of a "customs partnership" with the EU, which would see unified tariffs and duties on goods and services across the EU bloc and the U.K. However, her own cabinet voted against her on the issue, mainly because a customs union with the EU would eliminate the main supposed benefit of Brexit: negotiating free trade deals independent of the EU. It is unclear how PM May intends to resolve the multiple disagreements on these issues within her party. Thus far, her strategy was to simply put the eventual deal with the EU up for a vote in Westminster. She agreed to hold such a vote, but with the caveat that a vote against the deal would break off negotiations with the EU and lead to a total Brexit. The threat of such a hard Brexit would force soft Brexiters among the Tories to accept whatever compromise she got from Brussels. Unfortunately for May's tactic, the House of Lords voted on April 30 to amend the flagship EU Withdrawal Bill to empower Westminster to send the government back to the negotiating table in case of a rejection of the final deal with the EU. The amendment will be accepted if the House of Commons agrees to it, which it may, given that a number of soft Brexit Tories are receptive. A defeat of the final negotiated settlement could prolong negotiations with the EU. Brussels is on record stating that it would prolong the transition period and give the U.K. a different Brexit date, moving the current date of March 2019. However, it is unclear why May would continue negotiating at that point, given that her own parliament would send her back to Brussels, hat in hand. The fundamental problem for May is the same that has plagued the last three Tory Prime Ministers: the U.K. Conservative Party is intractably split with itself on Brexit. The only way to resolve the split may be for PM May to call an election and give herself a mandate to negotiate with the EU once she is politically recapitalized. This realization, that the probability of a new election is non-negligible, will likely weigh on the pound going forward. Investors would likely balk at the possibility that Jeremy Corbyn will become the prime minister, although polling data suggests that his surge in popularity is over (Chart 18). Local elections in early May also ended inconclusively for Labour's chances, with no big outpouring for left-leaning candidates. Even if Labour is forced to form a coalition with the Scottish National Party (SNP), it is unlikely that the left-leaning SNP would be much of a check on Corbyn's Labour. Chart 18Corbyn's Popularity Is In Decline Bottom Line: Theresa May will either have to call a new election between now and March of next year or she will use the threat of a new election to get hard-Brexit Tories in line. Either way, markets will have to reprice the probability of a Labour-led government between now and a resolution to the Brexit crisis. Italy: Start Pricing In A Populist Government Leaders of Italy's populist parties - M5S and Lega - have come to an agreement on a coalition that will put the two anti-establishment parties in charge of the EU's third-largest economy. Markets are taking the news in stride because M5S has taken a 180-degree turn on Euroskepticism. Although Lega remains overtly Euroskeptic, its leader Matteo Salvini has said that he does not want a chaotic exit from the currency bloc. Is the market right to ignore the risks? On one hand, it is a positive development that the anti-establishment forces take over the reins in Italy. Establishment parties have failed to reform the country, while time spent in government will de-radicalize both anti-establishment parties. Furthermore, the one item on the political agenda that both parties agree on is to radically curb illegal migration into Italy, a process that is already underway (Chart 19). On the other hand, the economic pact signed by both parties is completely and utterly incompatible with reality. It combines a flat tax and a guaranteed basic income with a lowering of the retirement age. This would blow a hole in Italy's budget, barring a miraculous positive impact on GDP growth. The market is likely ignoring the coalition's economic policies as it assumes they cannot be put into action. This is not because Rome is afraid to flout Brussels' rules, but because the bond market is not going to finance Italian expenditures. Long-dated Italian bonds are already cheap relative to the country's credit rating (Chart 20), evidence that the market is asking for a premium to finance Italian expenditures. This is despite the ongoing ECB bond buying efforts. Once the ECB ends the program later this year, or in early 2019, the pressure on Rome from the bond market will grow. Chart 19European Migration Crisis Is Over Chart 20Italian Bonds Still Require A Risk Premium We suspect that both M5S and Lega are aware of their constraints. After all, neither M5S leader Luigi Di Maio nor Lega's Salvini are going to take the prime minister spot. This is extraordinary! We cannot remember the last time a leader of the winning party refused to take the top political spot following an election. Both Di Maio and Salvini are trying to pass the buck for the failure of the coalition. In one way, this is market-positive, as it suggests that the anti-establishment coalition will do nothing of note during its mandate. But it also suggests that markets will have to deal with a new Italian election relatively quickly. As such, we would warn investors to steer clear of Italian assets. Their performance in 2017, and early 2018, suggests that the market has already priced in the most market-positive outcome. Yes, Italy will not leave the Euro Area. But no, there is no "Macron of Italy" to resolve its long-term growth problems. Bottom Line: The Italian government formation is not market-positive. Italian bonds are cheap for a reason. While it is unlikely that the populist coalition will have the room to maneuver its profligate coalition deal into action, the bond market may have to discipline Italian policymakers from time to time. In the long term, none of the structural problems that Italy faces - many of which we have identified in a number of reports - will be tackled by the incoming coalition.15 This will expose Italy to an eventual resurgence in Euroskepticism at the first sight of the next recession. Emerging Markets: Elections In Malaysia And Turkey Offer Divergent Outcomes As we pointed out at the beginning of this report, an environment of rising U.S. yields, a surging dollar, and moderating global growth is negative for emerging markets. In this context, politics is unlikely to make much of a difference. The recently announced early election in Turkey is a case in point. Markets briefly cheered the announced election (Chart 21), before investors realized that there is unlikely to be a consolidation of power behind President Erdogan (Chart 22). Even if Erdogan were to somehow massively outperform expectations and consolidate political capital, it is not clear why investors would cheer such an outcome given his track record, particularly on the economy, over the past decade. Chart 21Investors Briefly Cheered Ankara's Snap Election Chart 22Is Erdogan In Trouble? Malaysia, on the other hand, could be the one EM economy that defies the negative macro context due to political events. Our most bullish long-term scenario for Malaysia - a historic victory for the opposition Pakatan Harapan coalition - came to pass with the election on May 9 (Chart 23).16 Significantly, outgoing Prime Minister Najib Razak accepted the election results as the will of the people. He did not incite violence or refuse to cede power. Rather, he congratulated incoming Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and promised to help ensure a smooth transition. This marks the first transfer of power since Malaysian independence in 1957. It was democratic and peaceful, which establishes a hugely consequential and market-friendly precedent. How did the opposition pull off this historic upset? Ethnic-majority Malays swung to the opposition; Mahathir's "charismatic authority" had an outsized effect; Barisan Nasional "safety deposits" in Sabah and Sarawak failed; Voters rejected fundamentalist Islamism. What are the implications? Better Governance - Governance has been deteriorating, especially under Najib's rule, but now voters have demanded improvements that could include term-limits for prime ministers and legislative protections for officials investigating wrongdoing by top leaders (Chart 24). Economic Stimulus - Pakatan Harapan campaigned against some of the painful pro-market structural reforms that Najib put in place. They have promised to repeal the new Goods and Services Tax (GST) and reinstate fuel subsidies. They have also proposed raising the minimum wage and harmonizing it across the country. While these pledges will be watered down,17 they are positive for nominal growth in the short term but negative for fiscal sustainability in the long term. Chart 23Comfortable Majority For Pakatan Harapan Coalition Chart 24Voters Want Governance Improvements The one understated risk comes from China. Najib's weakness had led him to court China and rely increasingly on Chinese investment as an economic strategy. Mahathir and Pakatan Harapan will seek to revise all Chinese investment (including under the Belt and Road Initiative). This review is not necessarily to cancel projects but to haggle about prices and ensure that domestic labor is employed. Mahathir will also try to assert Malaysian rights in the South China Sea. None of this means that a crisis is impending, but China has increasingly used economic sanctions to punish and reward its neighbors according to whether their electoral outcomes are favorable to China,18 and we expect tensions to increase. Investment Conclusion On the one hand, in the short run, the picture for Malaysia is mixed. Pakatan Harapan will likely pursue some stimulative economic policies, but these come amidst fundamental macro weaknesses that we have highlighted in the past - and may even exacerbate them. On the other hand, a key external factor is working in the new government's favor: oil. With oil prices likely to move higher, the Malaysian ringgit is likely to benefit (Chart 25), helping Malaysian companies make payments on their large pile of dollar-denominated debt and improving household purchasing power, a key election grievance. Higher oil prices are also correlated with higher equity prices. Over the long run, we have a high-conviction view that this election is bullish for Malaysia. It sends a historic signal that the populace wants better governance. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy has found that improvements in governance are crucial for long-term productivity, growth, and asset performance.19 Hence, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy recommends clients go long Malaysian equities relative to EM. Now is a good entry point despite short-term volatility (Chart 26). We also think that going long MYR/TRY will articulate both our bullish oil story as well as our divergent views on political risks in Malaysia and Turkey (Chart 27). Chart 25Oil Outlook Favors Malaysian Assets Chart 26Long Malaysian Equities Versus EM Chart 27Higher Oil Prices Favor MYR Than TRY We are re-initiating two trades this week. First, the recently stopped out long Russian / short EM equities recommendation. We still believe that the view is on strong fundamentals, at least in the tactical and cyclical sense.20 Russian President Vladimir Putin has won another mandate and appears to be focusing on domestic economy and the constraints to Russian geopolitical adventurism have grown. The Trump administration has apparently also grown wary of further sanctions against Russia. However, our initial timing was massively off, as tensions between Russia and West did not peak in early March as we thought. We are giving this high-risk, high-reward trade another go, particularly in light of our oil price outlook. Second, we booked 10.26% gains on our recommendation to go long French industrials versus their German counterparts. We are reopening this view again as structural reforms continue in France unimpeded. Meanwhile, risk of global trade wars and a global growth slowdown should impact the high-beta German industrials more than the French. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Senior Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com 1 Washington's demand that China cut its annual trade surplus has grown from $100 billion, announced previously by President Trump, to at least $200 billion. 2 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EM: A Correction Or Bear Market?" dated May 10, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "'America Is Roaring Back!' (But Why Is King Dollar Whispering?),"dated January 31, 2018, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War," dated March 6, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China," dated February 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "Trump Re-Establishes America's 'Credible Threat,'" dated April 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Insights From The Road - The Rest Of The World," dated September 6, 2017, and "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Instead of a "big stick," President Trump would likely also recommend a "big nuclear button." 9 This is an important though obvious point. We find that many liberally-oriented clients are unwilling to give President Trump credit for correctly handling the North Korean negotiations. Similarly, conservative-oriented clients refuse to accept that President Obama's dealings with Iran had a strategic logic, even though they clearly did. President Obama would not have been able to conclude the JCPOA without the full support of U.S. intelligence and military establishment. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Out Of The Vault: Explaining The U.S.-Iran Détente," dated July 15, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 While there was no confirmed collaboration between Iranian ground forces in Iraq and the U.S. Air Force, we assume that it happened in 2014 in the defense of Baghdad. The U.S. A-10 Warthog was extensively used against Islamic State ground forces in that battle. The plane is most effective when it has communication from ground forces engaging enemy units. Given that Iranian troops and Iranian backed Shia militias did the majority of the fighting in the defense of Baghdad, we assume that there was tactical communication between U.S. and the Iranian military in 2014, a whole year before the U.S.-Iran nuclear détente was concluded. 12 Please see BCA Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Geopolitical Certainty: OPEC Production Risks Are Playing To Shale Producers' Advantage," dated May 9, 2018, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Feedback Loop: Spec Positioning & Oil Price Volatility," dated May 10, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Bear Hunting And A Brexit Update," dated February 14, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 14, 2016, and "Europe's Divine Comedy Party II: Italy In Purgatorio," dated June 21, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "How To Play Malaysia's Elections (And Thailand's Lack Thereof)," dated March 21, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 For instance, the proposed Sales and Services Tax (SST) is more like a rebranding of the GST than a true abolition. And while fuel subsidies will be reinstated - weighing on the fiscal deficit - they will have a quota and only certain vehicles will be eligible. It will not be a return to the old pricing regime where subsidies were unlimited and were for everyone. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Does It Pay To Pivot To China?" dated July 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Ranking EM Countries Based on Structural Variables," dated August 2, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Vladimir Putin, Act IV," dated March 7, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Financial market volatility in general and FX market volatility in particular is set to increase because of the following three factors: Rising U.S. inflation will make the Federal Reserve increasingly hawkish, and the European Central Bank is moving away from maximum accommodation; The Chinese economy is not accelerating; And geopolitical tensions are growing. While EM and commodity currencies will suffer, safe havens like the yen and Swiss franc will benefit. The euro may correct at first, but it remains on an upward trajectory. Feature Chart I-1Low And High Growth Sentiment##br## Are Linked A defining feature of global financial markets over the past two years has been the outright collapse of volatility. However, in late January the VIX rebounded, recording readings not seen since 2015. Currency volatility also hit three-year lows before the same wake-up call, causing a sharp but temporary increase in FX volatility. It is important to understand whether this recent rebound in volatility was just a blip or a symptom of something more profound - a sign that volatility is back on an uptrend and will continue to rise as it did from 1996 to 2002, or again from 2007 to 2009. This matters because volatility is an important determinant of FX returns. High-yielding carry currencies perform well when volatility is low. While low-yielding funding currencies like the Swiss franc or the yen suffer in periods of calm, their returns improve once volatility rises. Moreover, low-volatility environments are often associated with buoyant expectations about global growth among international investors (Chart I-1). Thus, a return of volatility could fray the edges of global growth sentiment, which is currently ebullient. This would hurt EM and commodity currencies. Our view is that volatility is making a comeback as global monetary policy is becoming less accommodative, China's path is becoming rockier and global geopolitical risks are rising. These dynamics will hurt EM and commodity currencies, while at the margin, help safe-haven currencies like the yen and Swiss franc. Monetary Policy In DM Economies Monetary policy in the advanced economies is not yet tight, but is moving away from the large accommodation implemented in the wake of the Great Financial Crisis. Historically, a removal of accommodative policy tends to be associated with rising volatility, especially in the FX space. The link is not that clear-cut though. Policy tightening tends to lead to higher volatility. However, it only does so once we enter the latter innings of the business cycle. Only when inflation begins to gain enough momentum to force the Fed to increase rates fast enough to raise the specter that policy will soon begin to hurt growth, does volatility start rising durably. We are getting closer to this moment in the U.S. The U.S. is increasingly showing signs of late-stage business expansion. For one, the yield curve has flattened to 53 basis points. This level of slope has historically been associated with full employment and rising wage pressures. Surveys corroborate this picture. The NFIB survey of U.S. small businesses shows that the gap between the difficulties of finding qualified labor versus demand problems is close to record highs. This normally marks rising wage pressures, the hallmark of full employment (Chart I-2). Moreover, the ISM manufacturing survey shows that companies are paying more for the price of their inputs and experiencing delays with suppliers. Normally, this also describes a late-cycle environment marked with rising inflationary pressures (Chart I-3). Chart I-2Late Cycle Dynamics##br## In The U.S. Chart I-3Firms Are Facing Budding##br## Inflationary Pressures Other variables are generally pointing toward an acceleration of U.S. inflation. Because aggregate U.S. capacity utilization - which incorporates both labor market conditions and the Fed's own capacity utilization measure - highlights a notable absence of slack, and because the change in the velocity of money in the U.S. is accelerating, our models forecast a sustained uptick in U.S. core inflation to 2% and above (Chart I-4). U.S. CPI excluding food and energy data for February is also pointing toward budding inflationary pressures. While the annual core inflation rate was flat compared to January, the annualized three-month rate of change has surged to 3%. The muted year-on-year comparison is being depressed by some base effect. In 2017, inflation started to weaken significantly in March. Therefore, beginning in March 2018, consumer price inflation in the U.S. will likely accelerate more noticeably than it has until now. Shelter inflation too is moving from a headwind to a tailwind. Shelter inflation represents 42% of the core CPI basket, and it has been on a decelerating trend for 14 months. However, the model developed by our U.S. Bond Strategy colleagues shows that U.S. shelter inflation is now set to start bottoming (Chart I-5, top panel). Chart I-4Core Inflation Will Rise Chart I-5Other Inflationary Pressures Core goods prices are also regaining some vigor. This is not much of a surprise. The strength of the global economy along with the weakness of the U.S. dollar have filtered through to higher import prices. Historically, import prices tend to lead core goods prices in the U.S. (Chart I-5, bottom panel). We could see rising inflationary pressures on the services front as well. The employment cost index - the cost component used to compute unit labor costs - is still displaying a tight positive correlation with the employment-to-population ratio for prime-age workers (Chart I-6). BCA estimates that employment gains above 123,000 new jobs a month will push this ratio up, and consequently labor costs. But as Chart I-7 illustrates, the strength in the Conference Board Leading Credit Index highlights that employment growth in the U.S. is likely to remain robust. This suggests the key driver of service inflation - wages - will continue to improve. Chart I-6Wages Will Keep Rising... Chart I-7...As Employment Growth Will Stay Strong Thus, it seems the stars are already aligning to foment a rise in U.S. core CPI. The Trump administration throwing in some large-scale fiscal stimulus into the mix is only akin to throwing fuel on a fire. Accordingly, we expect the Fed to upgrade its interest rate forecasts for 2019. Markets are not yet ready for this scenario, anticipating only five rate hikes between now and the end of 2019. Thus, the most important central bank for setting the global cost of capital will likely surprise in a hawkish fashion over the coming 21 months. But what about the other big DM central bank, the ECB? The ECB too has begun to remove monetary accommodation, as it has started to taper its purchases of securities. It aims to be done this in September. Moreover, the narrowing gap between the unemployment rate and NAIRU in the euro area points to budding inflationary pressures (Chart I-8). This would argue that the ECB will begin lifting interest rates toward the summer of 2019. In fact, the shadow policy rate for the euro area has already begun to turn higher (Chart I-9), suggesting European policy is already starting to move away from its accommodative extremes. This combination is very important for volatility. As Chart I-10 illustrates, the average shadow policy rate for the U.S., the euro area, the U.K., and Japan leads financial markets and FX volatility. While Japanese rates may remain at low levels, the path for Europe and the U.S. is clearly up, suggesting volatility will rise. Chart I-8Growing Wage Pressures In Europe Chart I-9ECB Policy Is Already Less Accommod Chart I-10Tighter Global Policy Leads To Higher Volatility Bottom Line: The U.S. is increasingly displaying symptoms that its business cycle expansion is at an advanced stage. With inflationary pressures growing more intense, the Fed will need to ratchet up its tightening path. The ECB too has begun removing accommodation. This means that two of the three most important price setters for the cost of money are either fully tightening policy or beginning to remove accommodation. This has historically marked the point when global financial market volatility begins to rise. China Uncertainty China is another factor pointing toward a rise in global financial volatility. China has exerted a benign influence on global growth from the second half of 2016 and through most of 2017. In response to a large easing in monetary conditions and a hefty dose of fiscal stimulus, Chinese growth had until recently regained vigor, with the Li Keqiang index - our preferred measure of Chinese industrial activity - swinging from -2.6 sigma to 0.5 sigma in 15 months. A key gauge of Chinese activity - the average of the new orders and backlog of order subcomponents of the PMIs surveys - captured these dynamics very well. This indicator also explains the gyrations in various measures of asset markets volatility well (Chart I-11). Currently, it points to a rise in global financial market volatility. Going forward, the key question for investors is whether or not Chinese orders continue to deteriorate, flagging a further rise in volatility. We are inclined to say yes. Chinese monetary conditions have continued to deteriorate, and administrative measures to slow down the growth of total social financing are starting to bite. Chart I-12 shows that the issuance of bonds by small financial intermediaries has slowed significantly. Based on this message, the early slowdown in total debt growth should continue over the coming months. Optimists about China often highlight that this should have a limited impact on economic activity. After all, 62% of fixed asset investments in China are financed by internally generated funds. However, the biggest problem for China is the misallocation of capital. As Chart I-13 shows, construction as a percentage of total capex has been linked to population growth. However, after 2008, these two series decoupled: population growth has been stagnating while construction activity has been skyrocketing, despite a slowdown in the rate of migration from rural to urban areas. This suggests that post-2008, China has been building too many structures. Chart I-11China To Affect ##br##Volatility Chart I-12Administrative Tightening Will ##br##Weigh On Chinese Credit Chart I-13After The GFC, Chinese ##br##Construction Took Off When capital is misallocated, even if the share of debt financing is low, tight monetary conditions and administrative measures to limit excesses in the economy can bite sharply. This raises the risk that Chinese growth will not pick up much going forward, and that in fact, capex and industrial activity will struggle. Jonathan LaBerge, who writes BCA's Chinese Investment Strategy, has built a list of some of the key indicators he follows to track the evolution of the Chinese economy. Table I-1 shows that all but the Caixin/Markit manufacturing PMI index are in a downtrend, and that 11 out of the 14 variables have been deteriorating in recent months.1 Moreover, as Chart I-14 illustrates, the strength in the Caixin PMI is likely to be an aberration. When the spread between the Caixin and the official measure is as wide as it currently is, the following quarters tend to be followed by a fall in the average of the two series. Table I-1No Convincing Signs Of An Impending##br## Upturn In China's Economy Chart I-14The Caixin PMI Is Probably##br## The Noise, Not The Signal We would therefore expect Chinese economic momentum to slow further. Since Chinese policymakers still want to engineer some deleveraging, the Chinese industrial sector will decelerate. This will contribute to the rise in financial market volatility for the remainder of the business cycle, especially as global monetary policy in the G-10 is becoming less accommodative. Bottom Line: The Chinese economy contributed to low levels of volatility in financial markets from 2016 to late 2017. However, China still suffers from a large misallocation of capital, which is making its economy vulnerable to both monetary and administrative tightening. With most key gauges of Chinese economic activity still pointing south, industrial activity could deteriorate further. This will contribute to a rise in global financial market volatility, especially as DM central banks are removing monetary accommodation. Rising Geopolitical Tensions The last factor pointing toward rising financial market volatility are growing global geopolitical tensions. As Marko Papic has highlighted in BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service, the world's unipolar moment under the umbrella of U.S. dominance is over. The world is increasingly becoming a multi-polar environment, where multiple powers vie for local dominance. As the early 20th century and the 1930s showed, when the world becomes multi-polar, geopolitical risks rise (Chart I-15). Chart I-15Geopolitical Risk Is The Outcome Of Global Multipolarity Today's increasingly multi-polar world may not be headed for an imminent global war, but tensions are likely to increase. This means policies could become more erratic. Additionally, domestic politics are under stain as well. Rising inequality and social stagnation in the U.S. are fomenting public discontent (Chart I-16). Moreover, U.S. citizens are not champions of free trade; in fact, they view unfettered trade with a rather suspicious eye, as do the citizens of Italy, Japan or France (Chart I-17). Chart I-16The U.S. Is Unequal And Ossified Chart I-17America Belongs To The Anti-Globalization Bloc Practically, this means tensions such as those experienced two weeks ago around the imposition of tariffs on steel and aluminum imports into the U.S. are likely to continue. The White House is already discussing the possibility of imposing a 15% tariff on Chinese imports to the U.S. totaling US$60 billion. As we highlighted last week, alleged intellectual property theft by China will likely remain a hot-button topic that could result in painful sanctions, prompting swift retaliation by Beijing. Additionally, NAFTA negotiations are not over, pointing to continued headline risk in the space. Moreover, relations with Russia are tense, and the Iran deal looks increasingly fraught with uncertainty. These two spots could easily morph into yet another source of risk. Bottom Line: The global geopolitical environment has become a multi-polar system - an environment historically prone to serious tensions. The rise of populism in the U.S. only makes this risk more salient, especially with respect to global trade. As a result, the threat of a trade war, especially between the U.S. and China, is increasing. This means shocks to global trade and global growth could become more frequent. This will likely create another source of financial market volatility, compounding the impact of economic fundamentals like global monetary policy and China's economic risks. Investment Implications Carry trades should fare especially poorly in this environment, as they abhor rising volatility.2 Hence, the performance of EM high-yielders like the BRL, TRY, and ZAR could progressively deteriorate. Moreover, because rising volatility often hurts economic sentiment, this increase in volatility could weigh on growth-sensitive currencies like the KRW in the EM space or the AUD and the NZD in the DM space. The SEK would normally suffer when global growth sentiment deteriorates. Yet this time may play out differently. Swedish short rates are -0.5%, making the SEK a funding currency. If carry trades do suffer, the need to buy back funding currencies could put a bid under the SEK. In this context, the JPY and the CHF could be the great winners. Both currencies have been used as funding vehicles. Moreover, both Switzerland and Japan sport outsized net international investment positions equal to 126% and 65% of their respective GDPs. If volatility does rise, some Swiss and Japanese investors will likely repatriate funds from abroad, generating purchases of yen and Swiss francs in the process. Moreover, from an empirical perspective, both these currencies continue to react well when global volatility spikes. Chart I-18The Euro Is Vulnerable To Higher Vol However, both Japan and Switzerland are still experiencing weak inflation. The BoJ and the SNB will therefore try to lean against currency strength caused by exogenous volatility shocks. The JPY and the CHF could be caught between these forces. The currency depreciation these central banks try to engineer will be occasionally interrupted by sharp rallies when financial market volatility spikes. This means that monetary policy in these two countries will have to stay extremely accommodative. For now, it is still too early to bet against the yen's current strength. Finally, the impact of rising volatility on the euro's outlook is more nebulous. The euro is neither a carry currency nor a funding currency, but it generally appreciates when global growth sentiment improves. Thus, since long positioning in the euro is very stretched, a renewed spike in volatility would likely hurt the euro, especially as European economic surprises are plummeting relative to the U.S. (Chart I-18). Nonetheless, this pain will be a temporary phenomenon. The euro is still cheap, and one of the factors driving global volatility higher is the ECB abandoning its accommodative monetary policy stance. Moreover, as terminal interest rate expectations in Europe are still well below their historical average relative to the U.S., there is still ample room for investors to upgrade their assessment of where the European policy rate will end up vis-à-vis the U.S. at the end of the cycle. Bottom Line: Any negative impact of rising global financial markets volatility will be felt most acutely by carry and growth-sensitive currencies like the BRL, TRY, ZAR, AUD, and KRW. Contrastingly, funding currencies underpinned with large positive net international investment positions such as the JPY and the CHF will be beneficiaries. The impact on the euro may be negative at first, as speculators are massively long the euro despite a collapse in euro area economic surprises. However, the long-term impact should prove to be more muted as the euro's fundamentals are still improving. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China And The Risk Of Escalation", dated March 7,2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled "Carry Trades: More than Pennies And Steamrollers", dated May 6, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 U.S. data was generally positive for the dollar: Headline and core CPI came in line with expectations, growing at 2.2% and 1.8% annually, respectively; NFIB Business Optimism Index was hit 107.6, beating expectations of 107.1; Continuing jobless claims came in at 1.879 million, beating the expected 1.9 million; Initial jobless claims came in line with expectations at 226,000; However, retail sales came in weaker than expected, contracting by 0.1% monthly. Despite this generally positive tone to the data, the dollar was still soft this week. However, downward momentum has slowed, paving the way for a short-term counter trend rally. This is consistent with a global growth slowdown. Report Links: Are Tariffs Good Or Bad For The Dollar? - March 9, 2018 The Dollar Deserves Some Real Appreciation - March 2, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 European data was disappointing: Industrial production contracted in monthly terms by 1% and also grew at only 2.7% yearly, less than the expected 4.7% pace; German CPI grew at a 1.4% yearly pace, with the harmonized index growing by 1.2%, both in line with expectations. In a speech on Wednesday, President Draghi clarified that "monetary policy will remain patient, persistent and prudent" as there is still a need for "further evidence that inflation dynamics are moving in the right direction". As global growth is downshifting, the euro could experience a significant correction before resuming its bull market. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 The Euro's Tricky Spot - February 2, 2018 From Davos To Sydney, With a Pit Stop In Frankfurt - January 26, 2018 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan has been mixed: Machinery orders yearly growth came in at 2.9%, outperforming expectations. However, domestic corporate goods inflation surprised to the downside, coming in at 2.5%. Moreover, the tertiary industry Index month-on-month growth also underperformed expectations, coming in at -0.6%. Finally, labor cash earnings yearly growth came in line with expectations at 0.7%. Last Friday, the BoJ decided to leave its interest rate benchmark unchanged at 0.1%. In its minutes, the board members shared the view that CPI will reach their 2% in fiscal 2019. Overall, we expect that rising global interest rates will cause a rise in currency volatility. This will result in a positive environment for the yen for now, but one that could prevent Japanese inflation from hitting that 2% objective in 2019. Report Links: The Yen's Mighty Rise Continues... For Now - February 16, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC! - January 12, 2018 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. has been mixed: Industrial production yearly growth underperformed expectations, coming in at 1.6%. Manufacturing production also underperformed expectations, coming in at 2.7%. However, the trade balance outperformed expectations, coming in at -3.074 billion pounds. The pound has been relatively flat this week against the U.S. dollar. Overall, we believe that the upside to the British pound against the dollar is limited, as there are already 40 basis points of interest rate hikes priced for the BoE this year. Given that inflation is set to ease following last year's rally in the pound, it is unlikely that the pound will raise rates more than what is currently priced. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 The Euro's Tricky Spot - February 2, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Australian data was mixed: Home loans fell by 1.1%; Investment lending for homes increased by 1.1%; The NAB Confidence survey declined to 9 from 11 but was in line with expectations; The NAB Conditions survey increased to 21, outperforming expectations; The Westpac Consumer Confidence increased from -2.3% to 0.2%. Elevated Household debt and the absence of wage growth are still at the forefront of Australian policymaker's minds. The RBA is reluctant to raise rates in order to avoid a deflationary spiral which would set the economy back severely. The AUD will most likely suffer this year because of this. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 From Davos To Sydney, With a Pit Stop In Frankfurt - January 26, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand has been negative: The current account surprised to the downside, coming in at -2.7% of GDP. Moreover, GDP yearly growth also underperformed expectations, coming in at 2.9%. However, it did improve from last quarter growth of 2.7%. Finally, Food Price Index monthly growth decline from last month, coming in at -0.5%. The New Zealand dollar has been flat this week against the U.S. dollar. We believe that NZD/USD and NZD/JPY are likely to suffer moving forward, as financial markets volatility is set to rise in the coming months due to the rise in global interest rates and the possibility of a slowdown in China. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 The Xs And The Currency Market - November 24, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Canadian employment figures remain strong, with the ADP employment change coming in at 39,700, above the 10,700 experienced last month. Canada's export growth should improve further as the White House is adding large amounts of fiscal stimulus in the U.S. economy, Canada's largest trading partner. This will help the BoC stick to its hiking path. However, risks are high. While Canada has so far been able to avoid the U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs, NAFTA negotiations still remain a danger for the Canadian economy. Furthermore, the housing market still remains overheated and the debt load is at risk of spiraling when mortgages begin to be refinanced at higher rates. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC! - January 12, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 The SNB left its reference rate unchanged at -0.75%. The Swiss central bank reiterated that the negative rates as well as foreign exchange intervention "remain essential". Moreover, the SNB decreased its inflation forecast for this year form 0.7% to 0.6%. The SNB also changed its forecast for 2019 from 1.1% to 0.9%. Overall, the SNB is likely to maintain a very dovish stance, given the headwinds to Swiss inflation. This will continue to put upward pressure on EUR/CHF. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 The Xs And The Currency Market - November 24, 2017 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway has been positive: Headline inflation surprised to the upside, coming in at 2.2%. It also increased from 1.6% the previous month. Meanwhile, core inflation also outperformed expectations, coming in at 1.4%. It also increased from 1.1% the previous month. USD/NOK has depreciated by roughly 1.4% this week. On Thursday, the Norges Bank left its policy rate unchanged at 0.5%. In its monetary policy report the central bank highlighted that the outlook for the Norwegian economy suggests that "it will soon be appropriate to raise rates". Overall, we believe that the krone is likely to outperform other commodity currencies, given that there are only 18 basis points priced for the next 12 months, which is less than is warranted given the strength of the economy and BCA's outlook for oil prices in 2018. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC! - January 12, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 While Swedish inflation came in line with expectations, with consumer prices growing at a 0.7% monthly pace and a 1.6% yearly pace, Sweden's unemployment came in at a much lower level than anticipated. The krona is finally strengthening after EUR/SEK traded above the critical 10.00 level. This trend should continue as the euro weakens from overbought levels. Furthermore, the eventual resurgence of inflation in Sweden will propel the SEK to stronger levels as markets reprice the Riksbank's likely policy path. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Canaries In The Coal Mine Alert 2: More On EM Carry Trades And Global Growth - December 15, 2017 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights Russian equities are among the cheapest emerging markets, and among the cheapest in the world - a re-rating could be epic; Weak growth potential and poor governance present tremendous challenges; Yet macro fundamentals are sound and economic policy is orthodox - Russia should behave as a low-beta EM market going forward; The government is highly likely to build on recent micro-level improvements with reforms to improve human capital and infrastructure; Vladimir Putin's military adventurism has stalled, reducing geopolitical risk from high levels; Continue to overweight Russian assets within EM portfolios; go long Russian / short Brazilian local currency government bonds. Feature Russia has one of the cheapest equity markets in EM and in the world. With conflict in Ukraine frozen, a stalemate in Syria, and domestic politics stable (if not inspiring), could the country be on the verge of an epic re-rating? To answer this question, investors have to first understand why Russia is cheap. Shockingly, geopolitical adventures and the 2014 collapse in oil prices have nothing to do with the bargain prices! Russian P/E plummeted in 2011 because investors realized that President Vladimir Putin was here to stay for potentially another two decades (Chart 1). And that signaled that weak governance and an atrocious record on attracting foreign investment would persist for the long term. And yet, Russian equity outperformance amidst the most recent global volatility rout serves as an indication that Russian equities have the capacity to outperform (Chart 2). Is this a fluke, or the start of something more long-term? Chart 1Russian Equities Are Cheap Chart 2Russia Outperformed In ##br##High Vol Environment This ... Is ... Sparta! Russia faces extreme challenges as a nation. It is an austere, isolated, and militaristic society - a modern-day Sparta compared to the West's Athens. Its few competitive wares are wheat, hydrocarbons, and guns. Its lack of openness toward immigration, foreign trade, services, technology, and human development tend to limit its productivity. To assess Russia's long-term economic potential, we should begin with the bad news. First, Russia has a disastrous population profile. Both labor force growth and the working age population are shrinking (Chart 3). The dependency ratio is high and rising at 45%. Though the fertility rate has notably perked up, it remains far below the replacement rate of 2.1 (Chart 4). Even given the current population, there is limited room to increase the labor participation rate, as it is already higher than in the U.S. and is not rising anymore. Chart 3Russia Loses Workers Chart 4Russian Fertility Beneath Replacement Rate Second, immigration is in decline. Most immigrants come from the Russian commonwealth, but in net terms, immigration has been drifting away since the global financial crisis, even more rapidly since the 2014 oil shock (Chart 5). Russia is rife with xenophobia and anti-immigrant politics. Even if policy were to become more inviting, the Russian-speaking sources of immigration are also seeing weak working-age population growth. And Russia is unlikely ever to become an all-weather migrant country (Chart 6).1 Chart 5Immigrants Not Welcome Chart 6Slow Growth In Immigration Sources Third, labor productivity growth has only just begun to recover and is weaker than in the past. Russia has fallen behind its emerging European neighbors (Chart 7). The same can be said for total factor productivity growth, which is a very important indicator for economies that want to modernize - it currently stands at zero. Fourth, Russia suffers from chronically weak institutions and poor governance: Inequality is high and rising (Chart 8). Chart 7Russian Productivity Has Fallen Chart 8Inequality Is On The Rise... Governance indicators are deeply negative - worse than China's (Chart 9). Corruption is rampant - Russia ranks 135 out of 180 countries on the Corruption Perceptions Index, only very slightly improving since 2014. Corruption reduces economic efficiency and the effectiveness of public investments.2 For instance, despite the rise in spending on the judicial system in Russia, "rule of law" has declined, according to the World Bank's Worldwide Governance Indicators (Chart 9, bottom panel). Nationalization remains the government's modus operandi. Not only have privatization schemes failed, but new nationalizations have continued to occur - namely the electricity sector and most recently the banks (see Chart 14 below). State ownership has risen from 30% of GDP in 2000 to 70% today.3 Fifth, Russia's self-inflicted standoff with the western world has resulted in a closed economy that misses out on the benefits of human capital, technology transfer, and trade. The country's international competitiveness is clearly suffering: Russian exports have lost market share in the world and in the EU. Even in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, two areas where Russia has the biggest advantages and lacks geopolitical constraints, Russian exports have been lackluster. Crucially, Russia is gaining market share in East Asia, though even here with difficulty (Chart 10). Leaving aside commodities, Russia has failed to develop a competitive manufacturing sector. Chart 9...And Governance Is Poor Char 10Lack Of Export Competitiveness Sixth, Russia's government spending priorities are heavily focused on national security and thus constrained from promoting economic productivity and improving governance. Total spending on national defense, state security, and diplomacy has risen to 6.4% of GDP and 31.7% of the government budget. This is twice as much as the U.S. and China at 3.2% and 2.8% of GDP, respectively. By contrast, total spending on social policy is 5.5% of GDP and 29% of the budget. Spending on education and healthcare, at 0.7% and 0.5% of GDP respectively, is well below European, American, and Chinese levels, and it has hardly increased as a share of government spending in recent years. Basic and applied research spending is tiny and falling. So far the most significant investments in social wellbeing have been limited to pensions. Yet it is a well-attested fact that increases to state pensions precede elections, as pensioners are a key political constituency for the ruling United Russia party. The spending tends to be fleeting and does not enhance productivity.4 Cutting military spending would give Russia more fiscal resources to address badly needed economic weaknesses. But it is not on the horizon, so economic reforms will face budgetary constraints. Bottom Line: Russia's long-term potential is stunted by population shrinkage, slow productivity growth, lack of openness and competitiveness, lack of diversification and complexity, weak institutions, and poor governance. Some Good News: Orthodox Macroeconomic Policy Now for the good news: Russia's economy has stabilized and its macroeconomic policy backdrop is sound and orthodox, especially relative to emerging markets. First and foremost, fiscal and monetary policies have become less pro-cyclical. This will reduce volatility in the real economy and ensure that the current cyclical recovery is sustainable (Chart 11). Fiscal policy has been tight and conservative. In fact, the government has only slightly let nominal expenditures grow since the oil crash, while spending has fallen considerably in real terms (Chart 12). Chart 11Russia Is Undergoing A Cyclical Recovery Chart 12Russia: Orthodox Fiscal Policy Consequently, the fiscal deficit has significantly narrowed. The conservative budget assumption of $40/bbl oil is still being upheld (Chart 12, bottom panel). Moreover, the new fiscal rule implemented by the Ministry of Finance last year has allowed Russia to rebuild its FX reserves (Chart 13). The rule stipulates that the Ministry of Finance will buy foreign currency when the price of oil rises above the set target level of 2,700 RUB per barrel (i.e. $40/bbl times 67 USD/RUB exchange rate), and sell foreign exchange when the oil price falls below that level. The objective is to create a counter-cyclical ballast that will limit fluctuations in the ruble caused by swings in oil prices. Lastly, the public debt-to-GDP ratio is a mere 16% in Russia. On the monetary policy side, the Central Bank of Russia has been highly orthodox. Unlike many other EM central banks, it has refrained from injecting excess liquidity into the banking system and has maintained high real interest rates (Chart 13, bottom panels). All in all, Russia is much more advanced in its macroeconomic adjustment phase than other emerging markets: Commercial banks have been increasing provisions, even though the NPL ratio has begun to fall (Chart 14). Furthermore, the central bank has been reducing the number of dysfunctional banks by removing their licenses (Chart 14, bottom panel). Chart 13Russia: Orthodox Monetary Policy Chart 14Russian Banking Sector Underwent A Clean-Up Russia is further along in its deleveraging cycle than other EMs. Having gone through the pain of a massive currency devaluation followed by substantial increases in interest rates and bank restructuring, Russia can begin to re-leverage, which will be positive for consumption and investment. In fact, re-leveraging is already underway. Bank loans are expanding after a pronounced contraction. The credit impulse - i.e. the change in bank loan growth - continues to recover (Chart 15, top panel). Importantly, debt has room to grow, especially in the consumer sector where debt levels are low (Chart 15, bottom panel). Capital spending, which had collapsed both in absolute terms and relative to GDP, has started to recover. It is supported by a recovery in broad money supply (Chart 16). Starting from an extremely under-invested position, the recovery warrants major upside in investment outlays. Chart 15Russia: Re-leveraging ##br##Has Room To Continue Chart 16Russia: Capital Expenditures ##br##Will Rise From Low Level Exposure to external risks is limited: External debt across private and public sectors remains extremely low, limiting the impact of potential foreign currency sell-offs (Chart 17). Russia's foreign funding requirement - calculated by subtracting the current account balance from external debt servicing over the next 12 months - is the second-lowest in emerging markets after Thailand, making Russia's balance-of-payments position one of the least vulnerable in the EM universe. Furthermore, Russia is making clear improvements despite the dismal trends outlined above. On the margin these improvements could raise the country's long-term growth prospects: On the external side, the composition of exports is shifting away from commodity exports (Chart 18). Although commodity exports still account for the large majority of the export pool at 81%, a gradual shift towards other sectors will allow the economy to diversify its sources of revenue and employment. The allocation of government expenditures has marginally shifted towards addressing some of Russia's long-standing structural problems. Spending on infrastructure (transport and roads) has climbed steadily (Chart 19). This is critical as the road system in Russia is significantly underinvested and is a medium through which productivity can be efficiently increased. Chart 17Russia: External Debt Has Fallen And Is Low Chart 18Russia: Export Composition Is Improving In the private sector, employment for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) has been rising (Chart 20). Importantly, this is happening in the peripheral districts as well as the economically more vibrant central federal district. Policy is becoming more supportive of SMEs, for instance via tax holidays. Allowing SMEs to gain a bigger share of the economy will hold the key to creating an environment where innovation and business confidence can start improving Russia's productivity prospects. Chart 19Russia: Road And Transport ##br##Expenditures Are Rising Chart 20Russia: SME Employment Is Rising Interestingly, the number of privately owned businesses being created is rising relative to the number of state-owned businesses. In addition, more state-owned businesses are being liquidated relative to privately owned ones (Chart 21), suggesting a willingness to accommodate "creative destruction." The "Ease of Doing Business" has improved markedly under administrative reforms, easier land registration, and improved contract enforcement (Chart 22). "Regulatory quality," "control of corruption," and "absence of violence" are key governance indicators that are directly relevant for the corporate outlook and investors, and these are improving, albeit from a negative level (Chart 23). Chart 21Russia: More Private, Less State-Owned Businesses Chart 22Easier To Do Business In Russia Chart 23Some Slight Governance Improvements In sum, while macro stability has been achieved, Russia needs to expand and sustain recent marginal developments on the micro level in order to improve its long-term economic and investment outlook. Bottom Line: The economy has stabilized and macroeconomic policy is orthodox. Marginal improvements in export composition, government spending allocations, and treatment of the private sector may not turn Russia into a high-productivity country overnight, but they do mark an inflection point that could arrest the downward trend of productivity. This is especially so if private and public initiatives are taken to further these initial developments. More Good News: Foreign Adventurism Has Stalled Russia's geopolitics are also unlikely to worsen from here, at least not in a way that is relevant to investors. President Putin's rhetoric reached peak bluster in his lengthy "State of the Nation" address to the Duma on March 1. Western media took the bait immediately, encapsulated best by The New Yorker headline, "Vladimir Putin Is Campaigning On The Threat Of Nuclear War."5 Should investors dismiss Putin's slick, computer-generated images of Florida getting nuked by multiple warheads? It depends. On one hand, our Russian geopolitical risk indicator suggests that investors have been demanding an ever smaller premium on Russian assets (Chart 24).6 There is, therefore, considerable room for the market to be surprised in the future. On the other hand, Chart 24 also shows that the premium is still at elevated levels, at least compared to the era prior to Russia's invasion of Crimea. Chart 24Geopolitical Risk Is Falling The main question for investors is whether a substantial increase in geopolitical risk could befall Russia over the short and medium term. We doubt it for three reasons: Stalemate in Syria: Russia got what it wanted in Syria. Embattled President Bashar el-Assad has survived, locking in Moscow's influence and allowing Putin to declare victory in late 2017.7 The Kremlin has already recalled most of its ground troops to Russia and has shied away from conflict with the U.S. since then.8 For example, when nine Russian mercenaries died in an attack against a U.S.-controlled base in Syria, the Russian government did not so much as protest.9 Stalemate in Ukraine: We controversially suggested in 2015 that the primary reason for Russia's intervention in Syria was to distract Putin's fired-up domestic constituency from the failures of Moscow's policy in Ukraine.10 The battle to carve out a substantive portion of Eastern Ukraine, where Russian speakers live, failed miserably. Out of the 13% of Ukrainian territory encompassing the Oblasts of Kharkiv, Luhansk, and Donetsk, Moscow-backed rebels stalled after conquering approximately 20% -- or in other words only 3% of Ukrainian territory as a whole (Map 1).11 Map 1Ukraine Is A Stalemate What Else Is Left? Russia has shied away from directly confronting NATO member states. As such, Putin is unlikely to do anything in the Baltics and Scandinavia, two regions where NATO and Russia have recently arrayed forces against one another. There is always potential for Moscow to reignite conflict in the Caucasus, but it is unlikely that the market would care (they did not in 2008!). We therefore take a different view of Putin's latest aggressive military rhetoric. By stating that Russia no longer fears the U.S. ballistic missile defense system in Europe due to technological advancement, Putin is giving himself the maneuvering room to stand-down from a constant aggressive military posture. Three other factors suggest that Russia-West tensions have peaked for the current cycle: Energy: The EU is gradually diversifying its natural gas imports away from Russia (Chart 25), but the drop in the Russian share of European gas imports in 2017 is not firmly established. Europe as a whole still depends on Russia for 33% of its natural gas consumption. The threat from U.S. LNG shale imports is a decade-long theme that will only accelerate when Europeans commit to building more import terminals (like the new one in Lithuania). Moscow is not sitting still but has begun to counter this threat by becoming a far more compliant partner to the Europeans. It has even adopted the EU Commission's regulatory framework, which it had roundly rejected seven years ago. As the U.S. threat grows over the next decade, Russia will have to compete with Americans on more than just price. It will have to show Europe that it is a reliable geopolitical partner as well. As much as Europe relies on Russian natural gas exports, Moscow relies twice as much on European natural gas imports (Chart 26). Chart 25The EU Is Diversifying... Chart 26...But Both Sides Still Need Each Other Putin's confidence: President Putin remains popular, with popular approval at 81%. His government has begun to lose support, however, with the spread between his approval and his government's approval widening to 39%, one of its highest levels. Given that Russia's president is largely in charge of foreign policy, the spread suggests that the population is largely content with the current geopolitical situation, but that the risks to Putin and his regime are domestic in nature. Given that Putin is a student of Russian history, he will remember that foreign adventures have collapsed almost every Russian regime over the past two centuries!12 Oil Prices: As we have repeatedly shown, low oil prices are a limiting factor to oil producers' ability to wage war (Chart 27). Political science research shows that the relationship is not spurious. Chart 28 shows that oil states led by revolutionary leaders are much more likely to engage in militarized interstate disputes when oil prices are higher.13 While oil prices have recovered from their doldrums from two years ago, they are still a far cry from where they stood just before the invasions of Georgia and Ukraine. Chart 27Low Oil Prices Discourage Oil States From Waging War Chart 28More Oil Revenue = More Aggression Bottom Line: Over the past decade, we have argued that Russia is aggressive not because it is playing offense but because it is playing defense. The military actions that Russia has taken since 2008 - Georgia, Ukraine, and Syria - have all focused on preserving its sphere of influence. With this sphere now largely secure - and with both Europe and the U.S. begrudgingly accepting Moscow's sphere - the probability of renewed conflict is likely overstated. Putin, Act IV Broadly, there are three different paths that Putin could take over the next six years, his fourth term in office. We review them below and give our subjective probabilities for them occurring: Détente with the West and liberalization - probability 5%. The only reason we consider this scenario an option is that the EU is gradually moving toward easing sanctions and increasing investment, while the U.S. Trump administration at least has the intention of improving ties with Putin, albeit mostly blocked by Congress. The risk remains that if Democrats take over the U.S. House of Representatives, meaningful new sanctions could be imposed on Russia. A new overseas military adventure - probability 20%. Moscow has proven to be unpredictable in the past. But while there is every reason to expect that Russia will maintain its standoff with the West, nevertheless relations are already at an extremely low level.14 Yes, Western governments will be on guard against Russian meddling in internal affairs. But the Kremlin has little interest in undermining the Trump administration, or Germany's Social Democratic Party, or Italy's Forza Italia.15 Some domestic reform while maintaining Far East strategy - probability 75%. This scenario consists of Putin attempting to augment the status quo with some substantive reforms and fiscal spending at home. At the same time, Moscow would continue to court East Asian trade and investment.16 Some normalization with the West may occur incidentally, but not as a condition of this scenario. Why do we assign such high probability to the domestic reform outlook? Credible opinion polling shows a clear majority demanding reform, with 83% of Russians wanting "change." The share of this group who want "decisive" change is slightly greater than those who want merely "incremental" change (Chart 29). This will motivate political leaders to push forward a reform agenda that increases popular support. The pressure for change is also clear in the aforementioned quality of life issues affecting the middle class, and the fact that the share of the population spending more than $20 per day has stopped growing in Russia (Chart 30). The middle class will increasingly have its ambitions frustrated if living standards are not improved. Recent elections already show worrisome trends for the regime, even within the rigged electoral system.17 Chart 29Russians Want Change Chart 30A Ceiling On Middle-Class Ambitions What kind of change do the Russian people want? Primarily, more social spending. When asked what kind of change voters would like to see, living standards and social protections come first, and "great power status" comes dead last (Chart 31).18 Specifically, Russians want improved medical services, lower inflation, and better education, agriculture, and housing and utilities - not better relations with the West, fairer elections, free markets, or democratic rights (Chart 32). Russians do not want painful cuts in entitlements, partial privatization of public services, or a higher retirement age (Chart 33). And there is no fiscal need for these. Chart 31Russians Want Social Spending... Chart 32...And Better Quality Of Life Chart 33Russians Oppose Any Cuts In Benefits The Kremlin is already responding to the demand for more spending. The most intriguing part of Putin's State of the Nation speech was his emphasis on the need to reduce poverty, improve social wellbeing, and speed up economic development (Table 1). Table 1Putin's State Of The Nation Address Putin also claimed in the State of Nation address that the upcoming reforms would require "hard decisions" to be made. It seems he is willing to impose painful economic changes.19 Bottom Line: If we are right that Putin's conquests are largely finished, then he must decide whether to focus narrowly on preserving his regime, or on broadening its support for the future. Since Putin can easily rule for longer than his upcoming six-year term,20 it is too soon to expect him to pursue a retirement strategy that sidesteps the need for significant social improvement. Instead he will try to improve regime support through economic reforms. Investment Implications First, a short word on OPEC 2.0 production cuts.21 Russia is less leveraged to oil than in the past (due to its aforementioned ability to devalue the ruble and its tight budget controls). Hence it is less committed to the cartel than Saudi Arabia, and more concerned that this year's buoyant oil price outlook could challenge the new fiscal rule (which mediates oil pass-through to the ruble) and encourage U.S. shale production. So Russia's OPEC 2.0 compliance in 2019 and beyond is murky. Lower oil prices incentivize Russia's economic rebalance and further constrain its military adventurism, but too low will reduce the fiscal resources for its reforms. What about the implications for Russian financial assets? On the tactical level, Russian stocks should see some volatility. Looking at recent Russian history, the events that caused the biggest sell-offs in the succeeding 90 days were presidential elections and the devaluation of the ruble in 1998. Yet the biggest rallies occurred when Putin consolidated power over political enemies and when events suggested substantial reforms were on the way. While we cannot rule out another post-election correction if oil and EM risk assets sell off, we would expect the market to rally eventually as Putin's new policy trajectory becomes clear. On the strategic level, Russian stocks are making a major bottom formation relative to the EM benchmark and will outperform the EM equity benchmark in the coming years (Chart 34). Both BCA's Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy recommend an overweight position. Chart 34Russian And U.S. Energy ##br##Stocks Are Bottoming While the Russian bourse has historically tended to outperform the EM index during risk-on phases and underperformed in risk-off episodes, this has changed as a result of prudent macroeconomic policymaking. Namely, the decreased macroeconomic linkage between fluctuations in oil prices with the ruble and domestic interest rates. Consequently, we expect Russia to outperform in an EM risk-off phase. Another point that increases our level of conviction on overweighting Russia is that U.S. energy stocks relative to the S&P are currently at the bottom of a 60 year trend, perhaps marking an end to the structural underperformance of energy stocks (Chart 34, bottom panel). Emerging Markets Strategy recommends investors continue overweighting Russian sovereign and corporate credit within the EM credit universe, and maintain the following trades: Long Russian stocks and ruble / short Malaysian stocks an ringgit trades Long ruble / Short oil Within EM domestic bonds portfolios, Emerging Markets Strategy also recommends continuing to overweight Russian local currency bonds. Both Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy recommend the following new trade: Long Russian / short Brazilian local currency government bonds. The public debt-to-GDP ratio in Brazil is 80% while it is only 16% in Russia. The fiscal deficit in Brazil stands at a large 8% of GDP, and interest payments on public debt are equal to 6 % of GDP. Meaning that without major fiscal reforms, Brazil's public debt will continue to surge and will likely reach almost 100% of GDP by the end of 2020. And public opinion is not favoring pro-market reformers. Adjusted for their respective cyclical, macro policies, currency and interest rate trends, Russian bonds offer better value than Brazilian ones and the best within the EM universe. Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 See Sergey Aleksashenko, "The Russian Economy in 2050: Heading for Labor-Based Stagnation," Brookings, April 12, 2015, available at www.brookings.edu. 2 For instance, it is well known that corruption in the construction industry results in embezzlement and poor results in public infrastructure. If this is the case for roads, then it is all the more likely to be a problem with public administration and the judiciary, as more spending certainly does not mean more fairness and justice! 3 Federal Anti-Monopoly Service. Please see David Szakonyi, "Governing Business: The State and Business in Russia," Russian Political Economy Project, Foreign Policy Research Institute, January 2018, available at www.fpri.org. 4 Sarah Wilson Sokhey, "Buying Support? Putin's Popularity and the Russian Welfare State," Russian Political Economy Project, Foreign Policy Research Institute, February 2018, available at www.fpri.org. 5 Please see Geesen, Misha, The New Yorker, "Vladimir Putin Is Campaigning On The Threat Of Nuclear War," dated March 2, 2018, available at www.newyorker.com. 6 We rarely put much stock in quantitative measures of geopolitical risk. However, the parsimony and track record of our Russian geopolitical risk indicator makes it a valuable tool. The Geopolitical Risk Premium is calculated based on USD/NOK exchange rate, Russia's CPI relative to the U.S.'s CPI, and a time trend. We chose Norway because it is a "riskless" oil producer. The USD/RUB exchange rate was adjusted according to the relative inflation in the U.S. and Russia. The deviation from the fair value after taking into account these factors is the risk premium. 7 Please see Nathan Hodge, "Putin Declares Victory In Surprise Stopover In Syria," dated December 11, 2017, available at www.wsj.com. 8 The most recent deployment of Russia's stealth air superiority fighter - the Sukhoi Su-57 - appears designed to give the newly built jet some time in combat zone and is not an escalation. 9 Although Russian media is replete with rumors that several hundreds of Russians died in the attack, the Kremlin's official line is that only nine Russian nationals died in the attack. Please see, Christoph Reuter, "The Truth About The Russian Deaths In Syria," Der Spiegel, dated March 2, 2018, available at www.spiegel.de. 10 Please see, BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: A Tale Of Red Herrings And Black Swans," dated October 14, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 A quick note on our map: we include Kharkiv in our definition of Donbass. Most international observers do not, as there was no pro-Russian revolt in the Oblast. However, this is a heuristic error given that the majority Russian speaking population of Kharkiv made it a prime region for revolt against Kiev. That it did not revolt illustrates the limits of Russian capabilities and the paucity of its strategic effort in East Ukraine. Our estimate of 3% of Ukrainian territory is consistent with other estimates, for instance the 2.5% cited in Carl Bildt, "Is Peace In Donbas Possible?" European Council On Foreign Relations, dated October 12, 2017, available at www.ecfr.eu. 12 The idea that the Russian populace gives its leaders a blank check to pursue aggressive foreign policy is not rooted in historical evidence. In fact, Russia has a very spotty history when it comes to the popular backing of failed military campaigns: the Crimean War in the mid-nineteenth century, the 1904-1905 Russo-Japanese War, the First World War in 1917, Afghanistan in the 1980s, and the First Chechen War in the early 1990s. Each of these military losses and dragged-out campaigns led to popular backlash and domestic political crises (in some cases outright revolutions!), especially when complemented with economic pain. Putin is an astute reader of history and therefore we doubt he will commit himself to another lengthy military campaign. 13 Please see Cullen S. Hendrix, "Oil Prices and Interstate Conflict Behaviour," Peterson Institute for International Economics, dated July 2014, available at www.iie.com. 14 The United States has (for now) backed away from considering imposing sanctions on the purchase of Russian sovereign debt; U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin issued a report against this possibility. So far U.S. sanctions have focused on limiting U.S. financing for Russian state-owned enterprises and energy and financial sectors more broadly. 15 The German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel, a top leader in the SDP, is leaning on the new Grand Coalition to discuss an easing of Russian sanctions contingent on a UN peacekeeping role in Ukraine. 16 China's economy is a key support, but Xi wants to change that economy in a way that is broadly negative for Russia. And the Belt and Road Initiative is not enough for Russia's needs. Russia will thus look not only to China but to all of East Asia for markets and investment. Thus China's reform intensity, and Russo-Japanese peace negotiations, are our bellwethers for Russia's Far East and broader export success. 17 The ruling United Russia performed poorly in the 2012 elections, and fell from 83% to 79% of seats in regional elections last September. That same month, the Moscow municipal elections shocked the ruling elite due to extremely low voter turnout of 15%. Last year, anti-corruption activist and opposition leader Alexei Navalny ignited a surprising countrywide political network during his failed bid to become a presidential contender. And even Communist Party candidate Pavel Grudinin's presidential campaign reflects a yearning for change. We would not be surprised to see striking personnel reshuffles, such as the replacement of Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev with a new "fresh faced" reformer. 18 Given this sentiment at home, Russian policymakers are unlikely to have missed the significance of the recent events in Iran, in which such sentiments helped mobilize significant anti-regime protests. 19 Examples of difficult policies in Putin's speech include: improving tax enforcement and increasing income tax rate; cutting spending to afford investments in human capital, cutting law enforcement spending and the audit office (no cuts to defense spending were on the menu); reducing the size of the state sector; selling off assets and privatizing the banking sector; keeping inflation in check (this is popular, but requires persistently hawkish monetary policy). 20 Article 81.3 of the Russian constitution can be amended fairly easily to allow Putin additional terms in office beyond 2024. 21 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "OPEC 2.0 Getting Comfortable With Higher Prices," dated February 22, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights The U.S. government shutdown showed that the path of least resistance is for more fiscal spending; President Trump is turning to trade and foreign policy amid a lack of popularity at home; North Korean diplomacy is on track, but U.S.-China relations and Taiwan are potential black swans; Iran and the U.S. are playing a risky double game that will add geopolitical risk premium to oil; NAFTA will be a bellwether for Trump's future actions on issues that carry greater constraints, like Iran and China; Book profits on French vs German industrials and China volatility; close U.S. curve steepener and long PHP/TWD. Feature This weekend, investors woke up to the nineteenth government shutdown since 1976, a product of "grand standing" on both sides of the aisle. Our low-conviction view, which we elucidated last week, is that President Donald Trump will be forced to migrate to the middle on policy as the midterm election approaches.1 Chart 1Trump Hitting (And Building!) A Wall Despite a roaring stock market, strong economic fundamentals, and decade-low unemployment, President Trump's popularity continues to flounder. There is now even a perceptible decline in his support among GOP voters. Key problems for Trump have been the failure to repeal the Affordable Care Act and the intensification of the Mueller investigation (Chart 1). We suspect that he will try to preempt an electoral disaster in November by means of bipartisan deal-making and more orthodox policies. The government shutdown, although not entirely unexpected, undermined the view that President Trump is thinking about moderating his stance. That said, the Democrats are as much, if not more, to blame. With the Republicans in charge of Congress and the White House, it is clear that the Democrats thought that voters would ultimately see the shutdown as the GOP's fault. This was a dangerous assumption given that current polling suggests the Democrats have more to lose. One positive about the short-lived imbroglio is that it was the first government shutdown in twenty years that had little to do with government spending, whether the appropriations bill explicitly or entitlements. While immigration is an intractable issue, the disagreement between Republicans and Democrats is not about dollars. This is good news for the markets as it means that more spending will likely be necessary to grease the wheels of compromise. Our mantra continues to be that the political path of least resistance will lead towards profligacy. While the media's focus is on domestic politics, the real risks remain in the international arena. The two are connected. As political science theory teaches us, policymakers often play "two-level games," with the domestic arena influencing what is possible in the international one. As Donald Trump loses political capital on the domestic front, his options for affecting policy will become constrained. However, the U.S. constitution places almost no constraints on the president when it comes to foreign policy. To this arena we turn, starting with China-U.S. relations and the other potential risks in Asia (the Korean Peninsula and Taiwan). We also briefly turn to Iran and NAFTA. What binds all these risks is that it is essentially up to President Trump whether they become market-relevant or not. Korean Diplomacy Is On Track In mid-September North Korean tensions peaked (Chart 2).2 Leader Kim Jong Un chose to demonstrate known missile capabilities rather than escalate the crisis. Chart 2Markets Have Called Kim's Bluff Chart 3North Korea Is Running Out Of Cash We expected this choice given Pyongyang's considerable military constraints. Kim is a rational actor following his father Kim Jong Il's nuclear negotiations playbook.3 Just as brinkmanship reached new highs, Kim Jong Un declared victory and offered to play nice. Specifically, he launched his most advanced missile yet on November 28 (the Hwasong-15) and immediately thereafter North Korean state media declared that North Korea has "finally realized the great historic cause of completing the state nuclear force," complete with a fireworks celebration in Pyongyang.4 Kim confirmed this message personally on January 1 while offering an olive branch to South Korea for the New Year. Apparently, then, Kim is responsive to the United States' threats of devastating military retaliation against any attack. Kim is also responsive to the fact that China's President Xi Jinping has joined the U.S. coalition imposing sanctions on the North (Chart 3), squeezing North Korea's economy. The deep drop in exports to China suggests that the North will run into foreign-exchange problems if it does not adjust its posture - not to mention shortages of goods like fuel that China is gradually cutting off (Chart 4). In short, the U.S. established a credible military threat in 2017, just as it did with Iran in 2012 (Chart 5). China responded to the U.S. and established a credible economic threat of its own. Kim has de-escalated. Kim said in his New Year declaration that he would only use his nuclear deterrent if the U.S. committed an act of aggression. Rhetoric about destroying American cities is gone. Meanwhile Kim has engaged South Korea in direct negotiations, with military-to-military talks possibly to follow, and both sides will make a display of friendship at the Olympic Games in South Korea in February. Chart 4China Is Enforcing Sanctions Chart 5Credible Threat Cycle: North Korea Mirrors Iran While our view that diplomacy will reduce tensions is on track, we caution that the underlying disagreement is driven by North Korea's weapon capabilities and remains unresolved. The North Korean issue is not a red herring and the diplomatic route may continue to be bumpy from time to time.5 Markets could still be rattled by surprise North Korean provocations. Nevertheless, we do not expect a replay of the 2017 level of "fire and fury" that caused the U.S. 10-year treasury yield to drop from 2.31% to 2.05% between June and September 2017. If the North should jerk back toward a belligerent posture and decisively throw away this opportunity for diplomacy, then we will watch closely to determine whether its provocations truly alter the status quo and whether the U.S. shows any sign of greater willingness to respond with force. Otherwise we will simply monitor the diplomatic talks and watch for any signs of internal stress in North Korea as global sanctions tighten.6 Bottom Line: Korean risks remain market-relevant as the crisis is not resolved and talks are just beginning. Nevertheless, diplomacy is taking shape. We remain long the Korean two-year government bond versus the ten-year on the back of global trends and continued de-escalation. China-U.S. Relations May Sour Anyway Over the past year we have warned clients that U.S.-China tensions are the fundamental source of geopolitical risk globally and in Asia Pacific; that North Korea is a derivative of this fact; and that China's cooperation in policing North Korea would only temporarily dissuade the Trump administration from imposing punitive measures on China over trade. Despite China's assistance with North Korea, Trump will be driven by domestic American politics to slap tariffs on China in addition to those levied on January 22.7 First, Trump is committed to an "America First" trade policy and to economic nationalist voters. Thus he may need to show more muscle against China ahead of the midterm elections. This is particularly true for the key rust-belt states that handed him the election in 2016, where four Democratic senators' seats are in competition in November (not to mention nine other senate seats that could be swayed for similar reasons) (Chart 6). It is politically embarrassing to Trump that China racked up its largest trade surplus ever with the U.S. in his first year in office and is on track to continue racking up surpluses (Chart 7). While Beijing has vowed to open up market access and import more goods and services, these promises have yet to impress (Chart 8). Chart 6Trump's Base Expects Protectionism Chart 7China's Exports To U.S. Are Growing... Administrative rulings on several trade disputes early this year will give Trump ample opportunity to take additional trade action against China. The critical question, however, is whether Trump will continue to focus on item-by-item trade remedies (perhaps at an accelerated pace), or whether he goes beyond previous administrations and demands that China make progress on structural and systemic issues. The latter is more politically difficult and would have greater macro consequences. The U.S. has recently suggested that it made a mistake by bringing China into the WTO. This comes after the December WTO meeting in which the administration was able to secure a joint statement with Japan and Europe that increased the pressure on China.8 At the same time, Trump is weighing a significant decision (due by August, but possible any day now) on China's alleged systemic intellectual property theft, which Trump says is likely to require a "fine" (penalty). And comments by White House officials suggest that the administration may be going after China's promotion of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) as well as forced technology transfers (Chart 9).9 These are structural demands on China that will create much bigger frictions than tariffs on a few sub-sectors. Chart 8...While Imports Remain Tepid Chart 9Foreign Firms Forced To Transfer Tech Second, assuming that the U.S. and international community reach some kind of deal to reduce Korean tensions over the next six-to-eighteen months - for instance, a missile-test moratorium and corresponding easing of sanctions. It is likely still to be a complicated and ugly deal, as Pyongyang has no intention of giving up its nuclear and missile capabilities. The U.S. will have to make unpopular compromises with a rogue regime, comparable to the Iranian nuclear deal of 2015. The deal will leave a bitter taste in Trump's mouth and the administration will likely blame China for failing to prevent the North from achieving its nuclear status. It will rotate to address other long-standing disagreements with China, and may well look for compensation for Korea by taking a harder line on trade. Bottom Line: Korean diplomacy may delay or soften Trump's trade policies but cannot change his domestic political calculus. The Trump administration is more, not less, likely to impose further punitive trade measures on China as the midterm election draws near. We expect Chinese equity volatility to remain high. We are closing our recommendation to go long the CBOE China ETF Volatility Index, which has appreciated by 26.5%. This is not an investable index but an indicator of volatility in ETFs. A Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis? The rumor is going around that China and Taiwan are on the verge of a "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis." Clients all over the world - from Hong Kong to San Francisco to Toronto - are asking us about cross-strait tensions and the risk of war. As we go to press, Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen has just publicly acknowledged that war is possible. Taiwan could indeed be a geopolitical "black swan." It was one of our top five black swans for 2016,10 and several extraordinary events that year suggested that our concerns are warranted: China cut off all communication with the island; the Taiwanese navy accidentally fired a missile towards the mainland on the Communist Party's birthday; and a U.S. president-elect spoke directly with a Taiwanese president for the first time since 1979, creating an uproar in Beijing.11 Today, in the wake of Xi Jinping's concentration of power at the nineteenth National Party Congress,12 and Beijing's heavy-handed crackdown on Hong Kong throughout 2017,13 there is renewed concern that China is about to stage a major intervention to rein in Taiwan. There is even talk that China could be preparing to mount a surprise attack.14 The rumors are arising from a confluence of events. On the mainland side, Xi is personally powerful and has made it a priority to lead China into a "New Era" of greater Chinese influence globally. This means that a decision to take bolder action on Taiwan could come from individual whim rather than a collective decision within the party (which would tend to maintain the status quo). Xi has also taken personal control of the military through promotions, and reasserted that the "party controls the gun," making it less likely that he would meet institutional resistance in any major foreign policy initiative. Finally, Xi has hardened Communist Party policies toward Taiwan, reflected in increased military drills, controversial new air traffic routes, and tougher language in the five-year policy blueprint that he presented to the party congress. On the Taiwanese side, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which is the party that leans toward independence from the mainland, dominates the country's politics. The DPP not only won the presidency but also won legislative control for the first time in the January 2016 election.15 The DPP is also the leading party on lower levels of government. And young Taiwanese people increasingly identify as exclusively Taiwanese.16 While President Tsai has been relatively pragmatic so far, her party has fewer domestic political constraints than in the past - leaving room for the party's more radical side to have more influence or for Tsai to overreach. Internationally, Tsai has allies in Trump and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan - both nationalists who favor Taiwan and harbor deep suspicions about the reviving communism emanating from Beijing. Hence we still see Taiwan as a potential black swan event in the coming years. However, we would put a near 0% subjective probability on the likelihood that China will spring a massive surprise attack in the near future. Why? Xi is not yet breaking the status quo: Xi has not yet shown himself to be a reckless revisionist. China's foreign policy assertiveness is a gradual process that began in the mid-2000s - it traces the country's growing economic importance and need for supply-line security (Chart 10). Xi has trod carefully in both the East and South China Seas, and both of these strategic thrusts are connected with China's security vis-à-vis Taiwan, as well as vis-à-vis the U.S. and Japan. There is no reason to think that China is ready to launch a multi-front attack against the combined forces of the U.S., Taiwan, Japan, and the rest of the American alliance system. North Korea's new missile capabilities do not tip the scales in China's favor either. Incidentally, even Xi's tougher rhetoric at the party congress echoed the 2005 "Anti-Secession" law, so that more evidence would be needed to conclude that a drastic policy shift is under way.17 China may even want to avoid antagonizing the Taiwanese ahead of local elections later this year. Trump is not yet breaking the status quo: Trump's Asia policy has been consistent with that of previous administrations.18 And Trump's moves to assure Taiwan of U.S. commitment to its defense are status quo. After all, the Democratic Party is historically more enthusiastic about supplying Taiwan with arms (Chart 11). Trump has assured Xi Jinping he will adhere to the "One China" policy; and it is rarely observed that Trump's controversial phone call with Taiwanese President Tsai followed the first-ever tête-à-tête between a Chinese president and his Taiwanese counterpart.19 As long as Trump upholds the norm, the U.S. remains committed to Taiwan's defense yet will refuse to let Taiwan lock it into excessive tensions with China. This policy actually reduces the probability of a miscalculation by Beijing or Taipei. By contrast, the probability would rise if China and Taiwan perceived that the U.S. was withdrawing from its commitments, as Taiwan might want to suck the U.S. back in, or China might see Taiwan as vulnerable. Incidentally, if the Trump administration is not rushing into conflict over Taiwan, then Japan's Abe administration certainly is not. Tsai is not yet breaking the status quo: President Tsai has so far played a pragmatic role. While she is dissatisfied with the "1992 Consensus," which holds that there is only "One China" but two different interpretations of it, she has not rejected the status quo, and she has not implied that Taiwan should be its own state (either of which would cause a huge reaction from the mainland). And there is no serious prospect of a popular independence referendum ("Twexit"?) on the horizon, which would assuredly prompt Beijing to aggressive measures. Chart 10China's Assertiveness Grows With Trade Chart 11Trump Has Not Changed Status Quo In order for us to increase the probability of a Taiwanese war, we would have to see one of these three players start behaving in a way that truly violates the status quo that has prevailed since the U.S. and China normalized relations in 1979. The real risk for Taiwan comes if the U.S. and China fail to arrest the secular decline in relations that began in the mid-2000s. A serious misunderstanding between these two would have a range of global repercussions, and could lead to miscalculation over Taiwan. Unfortunately, a miscalculation is conceivable within Trump's and Tsai's terms, which last until 2020. Consider the following scenario as an example. The U.S. is currently demanding that China assist with the North Korean problem, and may believe that it can compensate China by delaying any punitive trade measures. However, China may be expecting something else - it may be expecting the U.S. to downgrade relations with Taiwan. (In other words, China says, we diminish the North Korean threat to the U.S. mainland, you diminish the Taiwanese threat to the Chinese mainland.) Instead of giving China what it wants, the U.S. may provide Taiwan with new weapon capabilities in response to China's militarization of the South China Sea. In this way, U.S.-China competition could shift to the Taiwan Strait in the aftermath of any Korean settlement. In the meantime, we see Taiwan as vulnerable to China's discrete economic sanctions, which China has not hesitated to use in this or other diplomatic spats (Chart 12).20 Chart 12Mainland Tourists Punish Rebel Taiwan Bottom Line: What is clear to us is that U.S.-China tensions continue to grow and Taiwan could become more frightened, or more emboldened, in the "security dilemma" between them. But until we see signs that any of the relevant powers are actively attempting to break the status quo, we see war as a distant prospect. More likely, today's robust trade between China and Taiwan could suffer a hit due to politics, and tit-for-tat cross-strait sanctions could be imposed. We are closing our tactical trade of long Philippine peso / short Taiwanese dollar for a loss of 5%. This was a speculative play on the divergence in diplomatic relations with China. Taiwan has allowed its currency to rise to avoid antagonizing President Trump, while China and Taiwan have so far avoided the diplomatic crisis that we expect eventually to occur, as outlined above. Iran: Could America Pivot Back To The Middle East? BCA's Geopolitical Strategy correctly forecast the U.S.-Iran détente two years before the nuclear deal was agreed in the summer of 2015.21 At the heart of this call was our read of global forces, namely the paradigm shift in the global distribution of power away from American hegemony towards multipolarity (Chart 13). As the U.S. pivoted its geopolitical focus towards China, Iran became a thorn in its side, forcing it to maintain considerable presence in the Middle East. Without a formal détente with Iran - of which the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is the fulcrum - such a pivot to Asia would be extremely difficult. On January 12, President Trump imperiled our forecast by threatening not to waive sanctions against Iran the next time they come due (May 12).22 To avoid that fate, President Trump wants to see three major changes to the JCPOA: An indefinite extension of limits on Iran's uranium enrichment; Immediate access for inspectors to all nuclear sites; Adding new provisions to limit development of ballistic missiles. These additions are likely to kill the deal, although Trump appears to have directed his comments to the European signatories only. This could potentially create a loophole in the crisis, by allowing Europe to agree to new thresholds for re-imposing sanctions outside of the deal's framework. Pressure from the U.S. president comes at a delicate time for Iran. Domestic unrest has been ongoing since December 28. Although protests have largely fizzled out, they have reopened the rift between the clerical regime, led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and moderate President Hassan Rouhani. In a surprising statement, President Rouhani said, "it would be a misrepresentation and also an insult to Iranian people to say they only had economic demands ... people had economic, political, and social demands." He went on to say that "We cannot pick a lifestyle and tell two generations after us to live like that ... The views of the young generation about life and the world is different than ours." We agree with President Rouhani. First, 49% of Iran's population is under the age of 30 (Chart 14). Meanwhile, the Supreme Leader and the twelve members of the "Guardian Council" - which has the power to veto parliamentary legislation and to vet presidential candidates - have an average age of 73.23 As with the 2009 Green Revolution, which was brutally repressed, Iran's demographics provide the kindling for a potential regime change. Chart 13American Hegemony Ended,##br## Global Multipolarity Ascending Chart 14Iran's Youth:##br## A National Security Risk Second, Iran's economy is clearly not the main reason for the angst. While unemployment is elevated at 12%, it is only slightly above its two-decade average. Meanwhile, inflation is well below its average, with real GDP growth at 5.8% by the end of 2016 (Chart 15). Considering that inflation peaked at 44%, and real GDP growth bottomed at -16% during the most severe sanctions, the current situation is not dire. What has irked the population is that while the private sector suffered throughout the sanctions ordeal, government spending remained elevated (Chart 16). This is not merely because of automatic stabilizers amidst a deep recession. Instead, Iran has elevated its military spending as new geopolitical opportunities presented themselves in the region (Chart 17). It currently spends more on its military as a percent of GDP than any peer in the region (save for Saudi Arabia, its chief rival). It is openly engaged in military conflict in both Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, while it continues to support allies militarily, economically, and diplomatically across the region, particularly Hezbollah in Lebanon. Chart 15Economic Situation Poor But Not Dire Chart 16Government Felt No Pain During Sanctions Chart 17Iran Overspends On Military Third, Chart 18 shows that Iran is becoming "dangerously wealthy." Both the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the 2009 Green Revolution occurred at, or near, the peak of Iran's wealth. The 25 years preceding each event saw the country's GDP per capita triple and double, respectively. Chart 18Wealth Is Also A National Security Risk Political scientists Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel have empirically shown that wealth changes people's basic values and beliefs, from political and economic beliefs to religion and sexual mores.24 This is the process of modernization. Economic development gives rise to cultural changes that make individual autonomy, gender equality, and even democracy likely. Iran has essentially come full circle since 1979. We suspect that the conservative hardliners in the regime understand the revolutionary context well. After all, they were themselves in their 30s when they rebelled against the old corrupt regime. As such, they will welcome President Trump's pressure as it gives them a raison d'être and an opportunity to undermine the moderate President Rouhani who staked his presidency on the success of the nuclear deal. The risk in this scenario is that the domestic arena of the ongoing "two-level game" will prevent both the U.S. and Iran from backing away from a confrontation. Iranian hardliners, who control part of the armed forces, could lash out in the Persian Gulf, either by rhetorically threatening to close the Straits of Hormuz - as they did repeatedly in 2011 - or by boarding foreign vessels in international waters.25 Geopolitical tensions would therefore serve to undermine President Rouhani's embrace of diplomacy and to de-legitimize any further protests, which would be deemed treasonous. For Trump, a belligerent Iranian response to his pressure would in turn legitimize his suspicion of the nuclear deal. What about the global constraints of multipolarity that compelled the U.S. to seek a détente with Iran in order to pivot to Asia? They remain in place. As such, President Trump's simultaneous pressure on Iran and China runs counter to U.S. strategy, given its limited material resources and diplomatic bandwidth. It is therefore unsustainable. What we cannot forecast, however, is whether the White House will realize this before or after it commits the U.S. to a serious confrontation. Bottom Line: Domestic political calculus in both Iran and the U.S. make further Tehran-Washington tensions likely. The two countries are playing a dangerous two-level game that could spiral out of control in the Middle East. For the time being, however, we expect merely a minor geopolitical risk premium to seep into the energy markets, supporting our bullish BCA House View on oil prices. NAFTA: Of Global Relevance On a recent client trip through Toronto and Ottawa we were unsurprisingly asked a lot of questions regarding the fate of NAFTA. The deal is not just of importance to Canada but to the world. It is a bellwether for our low-conviction view that President Trump is going to moderate to the middle on policy issues ahead of the midterm elections. We encourage clients to read our November Special Report titled "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism."26 In it, we cautioned clients that the probability of NAFTA being abrogated by Trump is around 50%. Why so high? Because there are few constraints: Economic: The U.S. economy has been largely unaffected by NAFTA (Chart 19) and would likely experience no disruption if Trump abrogated the deal and began negotiations on bilateral trade agreements with Canada and Mexico. Political: Investors and the media are overstating the importance of the Midwest automotive and agricultural sectors to Trump's base. Trump's Midwest voters knew well his view on NAFTA when they voted for him. In fact, they voted for him because of his NAFTA view. Investors have to realize that Americans do not support unbridled free trade (Chart 20). Constitutional/Legal: There is an argument that Congress could stop President Trump from withdrawing from NAFTA, but the only way to do so would be to nullify his executive orders or legislate a law that prevents the president from withdrawing. However, given the point from above, Congress is afraid to go against the median voter. The immediate implications for investors are that both the CAD and MXN could face downside pressure following the Montreal round of negotiations ending January 29. Both fell by 1.2% and 1.9% respectively in the week of trading following the third round of negotiations in September (Chart 21). Chart 19U.S. Economy:##br## Largely Unaffected By NAFTA Chart 20America Belongs To##br## The Anti-Globalization Bloc Chart 21NAFTA Negotiations##br## Are FX-Relevant More broadly, NAFTA is an important bellwether for the direction of Trump's policy. He has practically no constraints to abrogating the deal. If his intention is to renegotiate two separate deals - or simply reactivate the 1988 Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement - then it makes sense for him to end NAFTA and score political points at home. As such, if he does not, it will indicate that the White House is not truly populist but has been captured by the Republican establishment. Bottom Line: If President Trump does not abrogate NAFTA, which comes with few constraints, then he has clearly decided to throw his lot in with the U.S. establishment, which has consistently been more pro-trade than the American voter. This would be highly bullish for investors as it would suggest that the (geo)political risk premium would dissipate going forward. In fact, the decision on NAFTA could be a broad indicator for future decisions on trade relations with China, Iranian sanctions, and policy writ large. For if Trump sides with the establishment on an issue with minimal constraints, then he is more likely to do so on issues with greater constraints. This month, we are closing our 2/30 curve steepener recommendation, which is down 90bps since inception. The two alternative ways we have played rising U.S. growth and inflation prospects - shorting the 10-year Treasury vs. the Bunds and shorting the Fed Funds December 2018 futures - are in the money, 27bps and 46bs respectively. We are keeping both open for now. In addition, we are closing our long French industrial equities relative to German industrials for a gain of 10.26%. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China," dated January 17, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 The playbook is really Nikita Khruschev's. 4 Please see "NK celebrates completion of nuke arsenal with fireworks," The Korea Herald, December 2, 2017, available at www.koreaherald.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Trump decided to impose tariffs on solar panels and washing machine, mostly affecting China and South Korea, on January 22. On steel and aluminum, Trump has until late April to decide, i.e. 90 days after reports from the Commerce Department due Jan. 15 and Jan. 22. Please see Andrew Restuccia and Doug Palmer, "White House preparing for trade crackdown," Politico, dated January 7, 2018, available at www.politico.com. 8 The U.S. Trade Representative's latest edition of an annual report to Congress over China's compliance with World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments declares that the U.S. "erred in supporting China's entry into the WTO on terms that have proven to be ineffective in securing China's embrace of an open, market-oriented trade regime." Please see "Joint Statement by the United States, European Union and Japan at MC11," December 2017, and "USTR Releases Annual Reports on China's and Russia's WTO Compliance," dated January 2018, available at ustr.gov. 9 Please see Lesley Wroughton, "Trump administration says U.S. mistakenly backed China WTO accession in 2001," Reuters, January 19, 2018, available at www.reuters.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Scared Yet? Five Black Swans For 2016," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see "China cuts communication with Taiwan," Al Jazeera, June 25, 2016, available at www.aljazeera.com; "Taiwan mistakenly fires supersonic missile killing one," BBC, July 1, 2016, available at www.bbc.com; Mark Landler and David E. Sanger, "Trump Speaks With Taiwan's Leader, An Affront To China," New York Times, December 2, 2016, available at www.nytimes.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Party Congress Ends ... So What?" dated November 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see "U.S.-China: From Rivalry To Proxy Wars" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Xi Jinping is rumored to have told Communist Party leaders in 2012 that the country would invade Taiwan by 2020. Please see Ian Easton, The Chinese Invasion Threat: Taiwan's Defense and American Strategy in Asia (Project 2049 Institute, 2017). 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taiwan's Election: How Dire Will The Straits Get?" dated January 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 National Chengchi University's long-running data series on Taiwanese identity shows that 58% of Taiwanese people identify as Taiwanese, and 70% under the age of 40. However, 77.5% of twenty-year olds also support the political status quo, i.e. do not seek political independence. Please see Marie-Alice McLean-Dreyfus, "Taiwan: Is there a political generation gap?" dated June 9, 2017, available at lowyinstitute.org. 17 Please see Richard C. Bush, "What Xi Jinping Said About Taiwan At The 19th Party Congress," Brookings Institution, October 19, 2017, available at www.brookings.edu. 18 Even the North Korea threat portfolio was bequeathed to him from former President Barack Obama, and it is being managed largely by the Pentagon and navy. 19 In other words, the incoming Trump administration implied that if China's leader Xi Jinping can speak directly to Taiwan's leader Ma Ying-jeou, then U.S. President Donald Trump can speak to Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen. This is a sign that alliances are alive and well, and that there are tensions, but it is not a harbinger of war. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Does It Pay To Pivot To China?" dated July 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Out Of The Vault: Explaining The U.S.-Iran Détente," dated July 15, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 22 The JCPOA did not actually legislate the removal of sanctions against Iran as the Obama administration was unable to get the Republican-controlled Senate to agree. Instead, the president has to use his executive authority to continue waiving sanctions against Iran. 23 That is only two years away from the average life expectancy in Iran. 24 Please see Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel, Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 25 Iranian military personnel - almost always the Navy of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards - seized British Royal Navy personnel in 2007 and U.S. Navy personnel in 2016. 26 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Geopolitical risks were overstated in 2017, but have now become understated; If Donald Trump becomes an early "lame duck" president, he will seek relevance abroad; This could mean a protectionist White House, or increased geopolitical tensions with Iran and North Korea; North Korean internal stability could come into question as economic sanctions begin to bite; Political risks in the U.K. and Italy could rise with markets overly complacent on both; Emerging markets, particularly Brazil and Mexico, will see renewed political risk. Feature Buoyant global growth, political stability in Europe, and steady policymakers' hands in China have fueled risk assets in 2017. As the year draws to a close, investors also have tax cuts in the U.S. to celebrate. Our high conviction view that tax cuts would happen - and that they would be fiscally profligate - is near the finish line.1 In making this call, we ignored the failure to repeal Obamacare, the "wisdom" of old "D.C. hands," and direct intelligence from a source inside the White House circle who swore tax reform would be revenue neutral. Throughout the year, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy remained confident that the GOP would ignore its fiscal conservative credentials and focus on the midterm elections.2 That election is increasingly looking like a bloodbath-in-the-making for the Republican Party (Chart 1). What of the latest opinion polls showing that the tax cuts are unpopular with half of all Americans? The polls also show that a solid one-third of all Americans remain in support of the Republican plan (Chart 2). We suspect - as do Republican strategists - that those are the Republicans who vote in midterm elections. Given the atrociously low turnout in midterm elections - just 36.4% of Americans voted in 2014 - Republicans need their base to turn out in November. The tax cuts are not about the wider American public but the Republican base. Chart 1Midterm Election: A Bloodbath? Chart 2Republican Base Supports Tax Cuts As we close the book on 2017, we look with trepidation towards 2018. Our main theme for next year is that the combination of economic stimulus from the tax cuts in the U.S. and structural reforms in China will create a U.S.-dollar-bullish policy mix that will combine into a headwind for global risk assets, particularly emerging market equities.3 However, in this report, we focus on some of the more exotic risks that investors may have to deal with. In particular we focus on five potential "black swans" - low probability, high market-impact events - that are neither on the market's radar nor the media's. To qualify for our list, the events must be: Unlikely: There must be less than a 20% probability that the event will occur in the next 12 months. Out of sight: The scenario we present should not be receiving media coverage, at least not as a serious market risk. Geopolitical: We must be able to identify the risk scenario through the lens of our geopolitical methodology. Genuinely unpredictable events - such as meteor strikes, pandemics, crippling cyber-attacks, solar flares, alien invasions, and failures in the computer program running the simulation that we call the universe - do not make the cut. Black Swan 1: Lame Duck Trump "Lame duck" presidents - leaders whose popularity late in their term has sunk so low that they can no longer affect policy - are said to be particularly adventurous in the foreign arena. While this adage has a spotty empirical record, there are several notable examples in recent memory.4 American presidents have few constitutional constraints when it comes to foreign policy. Therefore, when domestic constraints rise, U.S. presidents seek relevance abroad. Chart 3The Day After The Midterms, Trump's Overall Popularity Will Matter More Than That Among Republicans President Trump may become the earliest, and lamest, lame duck president in recent U.S. history. While his Republican support remains healthy, his overall popularity is well below the average presidential approval rating at this point in the political cycle (Chart 3). Based on these poll numbers, his party is likely to underperform in the upcoming midterm election (Chart 4). A Democrat-led House of Representatives would have the votes to begin impeachment, which we would then consider likely in 2019. As we have argued in our "impeachment handbook," the market impact of such a crisis would ultimately depend on market fundamentals and the global context, not political intrigue.5 Chart 4Trump Is Becoming A Liability For The GOP President Trump's political capital ahead of the midterm elections is based on his ability to influence Republican legislators. Despite low overall poll numbers, President Trump can use the threat of endorsing primary challengers against conservative peers in Congress to move his agenda in the legislature. He has effectively done this with tax cuts. However, the day after the midterm elections, President Trump's own numbers will matter for the GOP. Given that President Trump will be on the ballot in the 2020 general election, his low approval numbers with non-Republican voters will hang like an albatross around the party's neck. This is a serious issue, particularly given that 22 of the 33 Senators up for reelection in 2020 will be Republican.6 Robust economic growth and a roaring stock market have not boosted Trump's popularity so far. At the same time, a strong economy ready to translate into higher wages is about to be "pump-primed" by stimulative tax cuts (Chart 5). We would expect the result to be a stronger dollar, which should keep the U.S. trade deficit widening well into Trump's second year in office. At some point, this will become a sore political point, given Trump's protectionist rhetoric and his administration's focus on the trade balance as a key measure of U.S. power. Chart 5Wage Pressures Are Building What kind of adventures would we expect to see President Trump embark on in 2018? There are three prime candidates: China-U.S. trade war: The Trump administration started off with threats against China and then proceeded to negotiations. However, neither the North Korean situation nor the trade deficit has seen substantial improvement, and a lame duck Trump administration would be more likely to resort to serious punitive actions. Even improvements on the Korean peninsula would not necessarily prevent Washington from getting tougher on Beijing over trade, as the Trump administration will be driven by domestic politics. Investors should carefully watch whether the World Trade Organization deems China a "market economy," which could trigger a U.S. backlash, and whether the various investigations by U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross result in anti-dumping and countervailing duties being imposed more frequently on specific Chinese exports. Thus far, the empirical evidence suggests that the Trump administration has picked up the pace of protectionist rulings (Chart 6). Notably, the Trump administration claims that the Comprehensive Economic Dialogue has "stalled," and it is reviving deeper, structural demands on Chinese policymakers.7 Iran Jingoism: Rumors that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson may be replaced by CIA Director Mike Pompeo - who would be replaced at the CIA by Senator Tom Cotton - can only mean one thing: the White House has Iran in its sights. Both Pompeo and Cotton are hawks on Iran. The administration may be preparing to shift its focus from North Korea, where American allies in the region are urging caution, to the Middle East, where American allies in the region are urging aggression. Investors should watch whether Tillerson is removed and especially how Congress reacts to President Trump's decision on October 15 to decertify the Iran nuclear agreement (also called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA). The Republican-controlled Congress has until December 15 to reimpose sanctions on Iran that were suspended as part of the deal, with merely a simple majority needed in both chambers. However, President Trump will also have an opportunity, as early as January, to end waivers on a slew of sanctions that were not covered under the JCPOA. North Korea: It would be natural to slot North Korea as first on our list of potential foreign policy adventures for President Trump. However, it does not really fit our qualification of a black swan. North Korea is not "out of sight." Additionally, President Trump has already broken with the tradition of previous administrations by upping the pressure on Pyongyang. In fact, a North Korean black swan would be if President Trump succeeded in breaking the regime in Pyongyang. To that scenario we turn next. Chart 6Trump: Game Changer In U.S. Trade Policy? Bottom Line: Geopolitics has not affected the markets in 2017, with risk assets reaching record highs and the VIX reaching record lows (Chart 7). This was our view throughout the year and we called for investors to "buy in May and have a nice day" as a result of our analysis.8 We do not see this as likely in 2018. The Trump administration has no credible legislative agenda after tax cuts. We expect Congress to stall as we enter the summer primary season and for the GOP to lose the House to the Democrats. President Trump is an astute political analyst and will sense these developments before they happen. There is a good chance that he will attempt to sway the election and pre-empt his lame duck status with an aggressive foreign policy. Chart 72017 Goldilocks: S&P 500 Up, VIX Down Investment implications are twofold. First, we continue to recommend an equally weighted basket of Swiss 10-year bonds and gold as a portfolio hedge.9 Second, risk premium for oil prices should rise in 2018. Not only is the supply-demand balance favorable for oil prices, but geopolitical risks are likely to rise as well. Black Swan 2: A Coup In Pyongyang Our colleague Peter Berezin, BCA's Chief Global Strategist, has suggested that a coup d'état against Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un could be a black swan trigger that spooks the markets.10 While Peter used the scenario as a tongue-in-cheek way to weave Kim into a narrative that tells of a late 2019 recession, we have long raised North Korean domestic politics as the true Korean black swan.11 Here we entertain Peter's idea for three reasons.12 First, China has upped the economic pressure on Pyongyang. Under Kim Jong-un, the North Korean state has attempted some limited economic "opening up," namely to China. But the attempt to finalize the nuclear deterrent has delayed an already precarious process. There has now been a $617 million drop in Chinese imports from the country since the beginning of the year (Chart 8), with coal imports particularly affected (Chart 9). China has also pulled back on tourism. Meanwhile, North Korea's imports of Chinese goods have risen, which suggests that the country's current account balance may be widening. At some point, if these trends continue, Pyongyang will run out of foreign currency with which to purchase Chinese and Russian imports. Chart 8China Is Turning The Screws On Pyongyang... Chart 9...Particularly On Coal Imports Second, Pyongyang is well aware of pressures against the regime. The assassination of Kim Jong-nam - the older half-brother of Kim Jong-un - in February of this year sent a message to the world, but especially to China, which kept Kim Jong-nam around as an alternative to the current Kim. That Pyongyang went to the extreme lengths of poisoning Kim Jong-nam with VX nerve agent in a foreign airport suggests that Kim Jong-un is still worried about threats to his rule.13 If Beijing's economic sanctions continue to tighten in 2018, the military could conceivably see the Supreme Leader's aggressive foreign policy as a risk to regime survival. Third, Pyongyang could miscalculate and create a crisis from which it cannot deescalate. A provocation that disrupts international infrastructure and commerce or kills civilians from the U.S. or Japan could trigger a downward spiral. For instance, an attack against international shipping in the Yellow Sea or Sea of Japan by North Korean submarines would be an unprecedented act that the U.S. and Japan would likely retaliate against.14 We could see the U.S. following the script from Operation Praying Mantis in the Persian Gulf in 1988 - the largest surface engagement by the U.S. Navy since the Second World War. In that incident, the U.S. sunk half of Iran's navy in retaliation for the mining of the guided missile frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts. In the case of North Korea, this would primarily mean taking out its approximately 20 Romeo-class submarines and an unknown number of domestically-produced - Yugoslav-designed - newly built submarines. Such a conflict is not our baseline case, but we assign much higher probability to it than an all-out war on the Korean Peninsula. How would Pyongyang react to the sinking of its submarines? Our best case is that the regime would do nothing. The leadership in Pyongyang is massively constrained by its quantifiable military inferiority. True, North Korea has around 6 million military personnel - about 25% of the total population is under arms - but unfortunately for Pyongyang, this large army is arrayed against one of the most sophisticated defenses ever constructed by man: the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). To support its ground forces, North Korea would have at its disposal only about 20-30 Mig-29s. Countering two dozen jets would be South Korea's combined 177 F-15s and F-16s, plus American forces that would vary in size depending on how many aircraft carriers were deployed in the vicinity. Given that a single American aircraft carrier holds up to 48 fighter jets, North Koreans would quickly find themselves fighting a losing battle. Which is why they may never initiate one. If Kim Jong-un insists on retaliation, the military could remove and replace him with, for instance, his 30-year old sister, who has recently risen in party ranks, or his 36-year old brother Kim Jong-chul, who is apparently not entirely uninvolved in the regime despite living an unassuming life in Pyongyang. What would a regime change mean for the markets? It depends on whether it is successful or not. An unsuccessful coup could lead to a massive purge and likely a total break in Pyongyang's relations with the outside world, including China. This would seriously destabilize North Korea's decision-making. The global community would have to begin contemplating a total war on the Korean peninsula. Alternatively, a successful coup could lead to temporary volatility, yet long-term stability. The military regime in the North may even be open to reunification over the long term, depending on how U.S.-China relations evolve. Bottom Line: China does not want to cripple North Korea or throw a coup. But it is cooperating with sanctions and could therefore trigger one by mistake. At least two regimes have collapsed in the past when facing the pincer movement of economic sanctions and American military pressure - South Africa's apartheid regime in 1991 and Slobodan Miloševic's Yugoslavia in 1999. Kim Jong-un could face a similar fate, particularly if China applies excessive economic pressure. Black Swan 3: Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn There is no election scheduled in the U.K. for 2018, but if one were to be held the ruling Tories would be in trouble (Chart 10). In fact, the combined anti-Brexit forces are currently in a solid lead over the pro-Brexit parties, Conservatives and the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP) (Chart 11). Chart 10Labour Is In The Lead... Chart 11...As Are Anti-Brexit Forces Writ-Large What could trigger such an election? Ultimately, the final exit deal may prompt a new election. More immediately, the ongoing negotiations over the status of the Irish border would be a prime candidate. As our colleague Dhaval Joshi, head of BCA's European Investment Strategy noted recently, Prime Minister Theresa May's government is propped up by the Northern Irish Unionists to whom May has promised that there will be no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. This will likely create a crisis as the EU negotiations may inadvertently threaten the Good Friday peace agreement. The Northern Ireland Unionists will not tolerate the border moving to the Irish Sea. This would effectively take Northern Ireland into the EU customs union and single market, and out of the U.K.'s domestic trading zone. It would also embolden Scotland's push for single market access. In essence, the Tory government may collapse because of differences within the U.K.'s "three kingdoms" before it even has the chance to collapse over differences with the EU.15 The market may cheer a Labour-Scottish National Party (SNP) coalition government, a potential winner of an early election, as it would mean that a new referendum on the U.K. leaving the EU could be held. The latest polls suggest that "Bremorse" (remorse for Brexit) has set in, as a clear majority in the U.K. thinks that Brexit was a bad idea (Chart 12). However, we suspect that it would take Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn several months, if not over a year, before he called such a referendum. First, Corbyn is on record supporting a soft Brexit, not a new referendum, and he has only just begun to adjust this position. Second, a soft Brexit is far more difficult to achieve than the hard Brexit of Prime Minister Theresa May since it requires the U.K. to subvert its sovereignty in significant ways (i.e., accepting EU regulation) in order to access the EU Common Market. Third, the most politically palatable way to re-do the referendum is to put a U.K.-EU deal up to the people to decide, which means that Corbyn first has to spend a long time negotiating that deal. Chart 12Bremorse Sets In The market may be disappointed to find out that PM Corbyn is not willing or able to put the question of the U.K.'s EU exit up to a vote right away. Instead, the market would have to deal with Corbyn's economic policies, which are markedly left-wing. Corbyn harkens back to the 110 Propositions pour la France of French President François Mitterrand, if not exactly to the ghastly 1970s of the U.K.'s own history. A brief sample platter of Labour's proposals under Corbyn includes: Increasing the U.K. corporate tax rate to 26% from 20%; Increasing the minimum wage; Forcing companies not to out-source operations; Nationalizing public infrastructure companies. How should investors play a Corbyn victory? We think that the U.K. pound would likely rally on a higher probability of reversing Brexit. However, this "no Brexit" rally would quickly dissipate as PM Corbyn reiterated his promise to fulfill the democratic desire of the population to exit the EU. While Corbyn's negotiating team set to work on getting a better Brexit deal out of Brussels, the market would quickly turn its attention to the reality that Corbyn is not kidding about socialism.16 The result would be a selloff in the pound. Bottom Line: BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy has pointed out that the pound remains well below its fair value (Chart 13). However, as BCA's chief FX strategist Mathieu Savary points out, the valuation technicals may be misleading as the currency has entered a new economic, trade, and political paradigm. A Corbyn premiership is not clearly positive for Brexit, while opening up a completely different question: is the U.K. also exiting the free-market, laissez-faire paradigm that it has helped lead since May 1979? Black Swan 4: Italy Is A Black Swan Hiding In Plain Sight The spread between Italian and German 10-year government bonds has narrowed 72 basis points since April, suggesting that investors have grown comfortable with the risks associated with the Italian election due by May (Chart 14). There are three reasons why we agree with the market: Chart 13Pound Valuation Reflects Post-Brexit Paradigm Chart 14Investors Not Worried About Italy New electoral rules passed in October make it highly likely that a center-right alliance will take shape between the Forza Italia of former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and the mildly Eurosketpic Lega Nord. These two could form a government alone, or in a grand coalition with the center-left Democratic Party (PD) (Chart 15). Both Lega Nord and the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S) have moved to the center on the questions of European integration and membership in the currency union; The European migration crisis is over and its supposedly constant impact on Italy is waning (Chart 16). Meanwhile, Italy's economy is on the mend, with its banking sector finally following the Spanish trajectory with a drop in non-performing loans (Chart 17). Chart 15Italy Set For A Hung Parliament Chart 16Migration Crisis Is Over (Yes, Even In Italy) Chart 17Italian Recovery Is Just Starting That said, we continue to warn clients that the underlying support for the common currency is lagging in Italy. The support level is just above 55%, despite a strong rally in the rest of the Euro Area (Chart 18). Similarly, over 40% of Italians appear confident in the country's future outside of the EU (Chart 19). Chart 18Italians Stand Out For Distrust Of Euro Chart 19Italians Not Enthusiastic About EU Our baseline case is that Italian elections will produce a weak and ineffective government, though crucially not a Euroskeptic one. How could we be wrong? Easy: one of the three reasons why we agree with the market could shift. For example, M5S could alter its pledge to remain in the Euro Area and surprisingly win on a Euroskeptic platform. Why would the party do something like that? Because it makes sense! Polls are already showing that M5S's recent moderation on the euro is not paying political dividends, with its support sharply sliding since the summer. With power quickly slipping out of reach for the party, why wouldn't they put a down-payment on the next election by trusting the underlying trend in opinion polling and investing in a Euroskeptic platform that might pay political dividends in the future? If we think that this strategy makes sense based on the data, then the M5S leadership might as well. Chart 20Can MIB Keep Outperforming? Another scenario is a major terror attack perpetrated by recent migrants from North Africa. Italy has been spared from radical Islamic terror. As such, the country may not be as desensitized to it as other European nations. A strong showing by Lega Nord and the far-right Fratelli d'Italia could force Forza Italia to move to the right as well. On our travels, we have noticed that few investors want to talk about Italy. There is wide acknowledgement of the structural trends pointing to a rise of Euroskepticism in the country, but also an appearance of consensus that this is a problem for a later date. We agree with this consensus, but our conviction is low. Bottom Line: Italian election risk is completely unappreciated by the markets. The country's equity market is one of the best performing this year (Chart 20), while government bonds are pricing in no political risk as the election approaches. We believe that shorting both would present a good hedging opportunity. Black Swan 5: Bloodbath In Latin America Our last black swan risk is not really a black swan to us but a forecast we believe will happen. As we outlined last month, we fear that Chinese policy-induced credit contraction will be negative for emerging markets, as BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy data asserts (Chart 21). BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy has pointed out in its latest missive that its "Carry Canary Indicator" - performance of EM/JPY crosses - is signaling that a sharp deceleration in global growth is coming in Q1 2018 (Chart 22).17 Latin America (especially Chile, Peru, and Brazil) is the region most exposed to the combination of a slowing China and a China-induced drop in commodity prices. Chart 21When China Sneezes, EM Gets The Flu Chart 22Ominous Signal From EM/JPY From a political perspective, this is most negative for Brazil and Mexico. Both countries hold elections in 2018, with the Mexican election further complicated by the ongoing NAFTA renegotiations. We believe that the future of NAFTA hangs in the balance, with a high probability that the Trump administration will decide to abrogate the deal.18 Currently, anti-market political forces are in the lead in both countries. In Brazil, no pro-market candidate is leading in the polls (Chart 23). In fact, anti-market options have a 48% lead on the centrists. Granted, there are ten months until the election, but we are skeptical that the Brazilian population will change its mind and support reformers. If the "median voter" in Brazil supported reforms, the current Temer administration would have passed them already. In Mexico, anti-establishment candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (also known as AMLO) is leading in the polls (Chart 24), as is his new party Morena (Chart 25). If Morena wins the most seats in the Mexican Congress, it will be more difficult for the opposition parties to combine to counter it.19 Chart 23There Is No Pro-Market Option In Brazil Chart 24AMLO Is In The Lead ... Chart 25...As Is Morena In 2017, we argued that politics were not a tailwind for EM asset performance. Instead, investors chased yield in the favorable economic context of Chinese economic stimulus, low developed market yields, and a weak U.S. dollar. In reality, politics was just as dire in much of EM as it was in prior years of asset underperformance, but the surge of global liquidity in 2018 masked the problems. We do not think the EM rally is sustainable in 2018. As the global economic and market context shifts, investors will start paying attention. Suddenly, political problems will enter into focus. Here we argue that Brazil and Mexico are likely to be the main targets of portfolio outflows, but a strong case could be made for South Africa and Turkey as well.20 Bottom Line: Political risk in Latin America will return. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "U.S. Election: Outcomes & Investment Implications," dated November 9, 2016, and "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Reconciliation And The Markets - Warning: This Report May Put You To Sleep," dated May 31, 2017, "How Long Can The 'Trump Put' Last?" dated June 14, 2017, and "Is King Dollar Back?" dated October 4, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Geopolitics - From Overstated To Understated Risks," dated November 22, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 President Clinton launched the largest NATO military operation against Yugoslavia amidst impeachment proceedings against him while President George H. W. Bush ordered U.S. troops to Somalia a month after losing the 1992 election. Ironically, President George H. W. Bush intervened in Somalia in order to lock in the supposedly isolationist Bill Clinton, who had defeated him three weeks earlier, into an internationalist foreign policy. President George W. Bush ordered the "surge" of troops into Iraq in 2007 after losing both houses of Congress in 2006; President Obama arranged the Iranian nuclear deal after losing the Senate (and hence Congress) to the Republicans in 2014. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Particularly vulnerable, in our view, will be Cory Gardner (R, Colorado), Joni Ernst (R, Iowa), Susan Collins (R, Maine), and Thom Tillis (R, North Carolina). 7 U.S. Treasury Under Secretary for International Affairs David Malpass recently claimed that high-level talks had "stalled" and re-emphasized the U.S.'s structural complaints: "We are concerned that China's economic liberalization seems to have slowed or reversed, with the role of the state increasing ... State-owned enterprises have not faced hard budget constraints and China's industrial policy has become more and more problematic for foreign firms. Huge export credits are flowing in non-economic ways that distort markets." The growing presence of Communist Party cells within corporations is another important structural concern that puts the administration at loggerheads with China's leaders. Please see Andrew Mayeda and Saleha Mohsin, "US Rebukes China For Backing Off Market Embrace," Bloomberg, November 30, 2017, available at www.bloomberg.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market?" dated August 16, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy, "A Timeline For The Next Five Years: Part II," dated December 1, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see "North Korea: From Overstated To Understated" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategic Outlook 2016: Multipolarity & Markets," dated December 9, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. A notable coup attempt occurred in 1995-96 in North Hamgyong; something like a coup attempt may have occurred in 2013; and defectors from North Korea have reported various stories of plots and conspiracies against the regime. 12 After all, Peter predicted that Donald Trump would be a serious candidate for the U.S. presidency back in September 2015! 13 Still worried, that is, even after Kim Jong-un's supposed "consolidation of power" in 2013-14 when he executed his influential and China-aligned uncle, Jang Song Thaek, and purged the latter's faction. There were reports of rogue military operations at that time. With low troop morale reported by North Korean defectors, the possibility of insubordination cannot be ruled out. 14 A North Korean submarine sank the South Korean corvette Cheonan in 2010, and North Korean artillery shelled two islands killing South Korean civilians later that year, but these attacks were still within the norm of North Korean provocations. The two countries are still technically at war and have contested maritime as well as land borders. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 To help investors get ready for a Corbyn premiership, we thought his appearance on President Nicolás Maduro's weekly radio show would be a good place to start: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eL8_wtS-0I 17 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy, "Canaries In The Coal Mine Alert: EM/JPY Carry Trades," dated December 1, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy "Update On Emerging Markets: Malaysia, Mexico, And The United States Of America," dated August 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "South Africa: Crisis Of Expectations," dated June 28, 2017, and "Turkey: Military Adventurism And Capital Controls," dated December 7, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Geopolitical risks were overstated in 2017, but have now become understated; If Donald Trump becomes an early "lame duck" president, he will seek relevance abroad; This could mean a protectionist White House, or increased geopolitical tensions with Iran and North Korea; North Korean internal stability could come into question as economic sanctions begin to bite; Political risks in the U.K. and Italy could rise with markets overly complacent on both; Emerging markets, particularly Brazil and Mexico, will see renewed political risk. Feature Buoyant global growth, political stability in Europe, and steady policymakers' hands in China have fueled risk assets in 2017. As the year draws to a close, investors also have tax cuts in the U.S. to celebrate. Our high conviction view that tax cuts would happen - and that they would be fiscally profligate - is near the finish line.1 In making this call, we ignored the failure to repeal Obamacare, the "wisdom" of old "D.C. hands," and direct intelligence from a source inside the White House circle who swore tax reform would be revenue neutral. Throughout the year, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy remained confident that the GOP would ignore its fiscal conservative credentials and focus on the midterm elections.2 That election is increasingly looking like a bloodbath-in-the-making for the Republican Party (Chart 1). What of the latest opinion polls showing that the tax cuts are unpopular with half of all Americans? The polls also show that a solid one-third of all Americans remain in support of the Republican plan (Chart 2). We suspect - as do Republican strategists - that those are the Republicans who vote in midterm elections. Given the atrociously low turnout in midterm elections - just 36.4% of Americans voted in 2014 - Republicans need their base to turn out in November. The tax cuts are not about the wider American public but the Republican base. Chart 1Midterm Election: A Bloodbath? Chart 2Republican Base Supports Tax Cuts As we close the book on 2017, we look with trepidation towards 2018. Our main theme for next year is that the combination of economic stimulus from the tax cuts in the U.S. and structural reforms in China will create a U.S.-dollar-bullish policy mix that will combine into a headwind for global risk assets, particularly emerging market equities.3 However, in this report, we focus on some of the more exotic risks that investors may have to deal with. In particular we focus on five potential "black swans" - low probability, high market-impact events - that are neither on the market's radar nor the media's. To qualify for our list, the events must be: Unlikely: There must be less than a 20% probability that the event will occur in the next 12 months. Out of sight: The scenario we present should not be receiving media coverage, at least not as a serious market risk. Geopolitical: We must be able to identify the risk scenario through the lens of our geopolitical methodology. Genuinely unpredictable events - such as meteor strikes, pandemics, crippling cyber-attacks, solar flares, alien invasions, and failures in the computer program running the simulation that we call the universe - do not make the cut. Black Swan 1: Lame Duck Trump "Lame duck" presidents - leaders whose popularity late in their term has sunk so low that they can no longer affect policy - are said to be particularly adventurous in the foreign arena. While this adage has a spotty empirical record, there are several notable examples in recent memory.4 American presidents have few constitutional constraints when it comes to foreign policy. Therefore, when domestic constraints rise, U.S. presidents seek relevance abroad. Chart 3The Day After The Midterms, Trump's Overall Popularity Will Matter More Than That Among Republicans President Trump may become the earliest, and lamest, lame duck president in recent U.S. history. While his Republican support remains healthy, his overall popularity is well below the average presidential approval rating at this point in the political cycle (Chart 3). Based on these poll numbers, his party is likely to underperform in the upcoming midterm election (Chart 4). A Democrat-led House of Representatives would have the votes to begin impeachment, which we would then consider likely in 2019. As we have argued in our "impeachment handbook," the market impact of such a crisis would ultimately depend on market fundamentals and the global context, not political intrigue.5 Chart 4Trump Is Becoming A Liability For The GOP President Trump's political capital ahead of the midterm elections is based on his ability to influence Republican legislators. Despite low overall poll numbers, President Trump can use the threat of endorsing primary challengers against conservative peers in Congress to move his agenda in the legislature. He has effectively done this with tax cuts. However, the day after the midterm elections, President Trump's own numbers will matter for the GOP. Given that President Trump will be on the ballot in the 2020 general election, his low approval numbers with non-Republican voters will hang like an albatross around the party's neck. This is a serious issue, particularly given that 22 of the 33 Senators up for reelection in 2020 will be Republican.6 Robust economic growth and a roaring stock market have not boosted Trump's popularity so far. At the same time, a strong economy ready to translate into higher wages is about to be "pump-primed" by stimulative tax cuts (Chart 5). We would expect the result to be a stronger dollar, which should keep the U.S. trade deficit widening well into Trump's second year in office. At some point, this will become a sore political point, given Trump's protectionist rhetoric and his administration's focus on the trade balance as a key measure of U.S. power. Chart 5Wage Pressures Are Building What kind of adventures would we expect to see President Trump embark on in 2018? There are three prime candidates: China-U.S. trade war: The Trump administration started off with threats against China and then proceeded to negotiations. However, neither the North Korean situation nor the trade deficit has seen substantial improvement, and a lame duck Trump administration would be more likely to resort to serious punitive actions. Even improvements on the Korean peninsula would not necessarily prevent Washington from getting tougher on Beijing over trade, as the Trump administration will be driven by domestic politics. Investors should carefully watch whether the World Trade Organization deems China a "market economy," which could trigger a U.S. backlash, and whether the various investigations by U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross result in anti-dumping and countervailing duties being imposed more frequently on specific Chinese exports. Thus far, the empirical evidence suggests that the Trump administration has picked up the pace of protectionist rulings (Chart 6). Notably, the Trump administration claims that the Comprehensive Economic Dialogue has "stalled," and it is reviving deeper, structural demands on Chinese policymakers.7 Iran Jingoism: Rumors that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson may be replaced by CIA Director Mike Pompeo - who would be replaced at the CIA by Senator Tom Cotton - can only mean one thing: the White House has Iran in its sights. Both Pompeo and Cotton are hawks on Iran. The administration may be preparing to shift its focus from North Korea, where American allies in the region are urging caution, to the Middle East, where American allies in the region are urging aggression. Investors should watch whether Tillerson is removed and especially how Congress reacts to President Trump's decision on October 15 to decertify the Iran nuclear agreement (also called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA). The Republican-controlled Congress has until December 15 to reimpose sanctions on Iran that were suspended as part of the deal, with merely a simple majority needed in both chambers. However, President Trump will also have an opportunity, as early as January, to end waivers on a slew of sanctions that were not covered under the JCPOA. North Korea: It would be natural to slot North Korea as first on our list of potential foreign policy adventures for President Trump. However, it does not really fit our qualification of a black swan. North Korea is not "out of sight." Additionally, President Trump has already broken with the tradition of previous administrations by upping the pressure on Pyongyang. In fact, a North Korean black swan would be if President Trump succeeded in breaking the regime in Pyongyang. To that scenario we turn next. Chart 6Trump: Game Changer In U.S. Trade Policy? Bottom Line: Geopolitics has not affected the markets in 2017, with risk assets reaching record highs and the VIX reaching record lows (Chart 7). This was our view throughout the year and we called for investors to "buy in May and have a nice day" as a result of our analysis.8 We do not see this as likely in 2018. The Trump administration has no credible legislative agenda after tax cuts. We expect Congress to stall as we enter the summer primary season and for the GOP to lose the House to the Democrats. President Trump is an astute political analyst and will sense these developments before they happen. There is a good chance that he will attempt to sway the election and pre-empt his lame duck status with an aggressive foreign policy. Chart 72017 Goldilocks: S&P 500 Up, VIX Down Investment implications are twofold. First, we continue to recommend an equally weighted basket of Swiss 10-year bonds and gold as a portfolio hedge.9 Second, risk premium for oil prices should rise in 2018. Not only is the supply-demand balance favorable for oil prices, but geopolitical risks are likely to rise as well. Black Swan 2: A Coup In Pyongyang Our colleague Peter Berezin, BCA's Chief Global Strategist, has suggested that a coup d'état against Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un could be a black swan trigger that spooks the markets.10 While Peter used the scenario as a tongue-in-cheek way to weave Kim into a narrative that tells of a late 2019 recession, we have long raised North Korean domestic politics as the true Korean black swan.11 Here we entertain Peter's idea for three reasons.12 First, China has upped the economic pressure on Pyongyang. Under Kim Jong-un, the North Korean state has attempted some limited economic "opening up," namely to China. But the attempt to finalize the nuclear deterrent has delayed an already precarious process. There has now been a $617 million drop in Chinese imports from the country since the beginning of the year (Chart 8), with coal imports particularly affected (Chart 9). China has also pulled back on tourism. Meanwhile, North Korea's imports of Chinese goods have risen, which suggests that the country's current account balance may be widening. At some point, if these trends continue, Pyongyang will run out of foreign currency with which to purchase Chinese and Russian imports. Chart 8China Is Turning The Screws On Pyongyang... Chart 9...Particularly On Coal Imports Second, Pyongyang is well aware of pressures against the regime. The assassination of Kim Jong-nam - the older half-brother of Kim Jong-un - in February of this year sent a message to the world, but especially to China, which kept Kim Jong-nam around as an alternative to the current Kim. That Pyongyang went to the extreme lengths of poisoning Kim Jong-nam with VX nerve agent in a foreign airport suggests that Kim Jong-un is still worried about threats to his rule.13 If Beijing's economic sanctions continue to tighten in 2018, the military could conceivably see the Supreme Leader's aggressive foreign policy as a risk to regime survival. Third, Pyongyang could miscalculate and create a crisis from which it cannot deescalate. A provocation that disrupts international infrastructure and commerce or kills civilians from the U.S. or Japan could trigger a downward spiral. For instance, an attack against international shipping in the Yellow Sea or Sea of Japan by North Korean submarines would be an unprecedented act that the U.S. and Japan would likely retaliate against.14 We could see the U.S. following the script from Operation Praying Mantis in the Persian Gulf in 1988 - the largest surface engagement by the U.S. Navy since the Second World War. In that incident, the U.S. sunk half of Iran's navy in retaliation for the mining of the guided missile frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts. In the case of North Korea, this would primarily mean taking out its approximately 20 Romeo-class submarines and an unknown number of domestically-produced - Yugoslav-designed - newly built submarines. Such a conflict is not our baseline case, but we assign much higher probability to it than an all-out war on the Korean Peninsula. How would Pyongyang react to the sinking of its submarines? Our best case is that the regime would do nothing. The leadership in Pyongyang is massively constrained by its quantifiable military inferiority. True, North Korea has around 6 million military personnel - about 25% of the total population is under arms - but unfortunately for Pyongyang, this large army is arrayed against one of the most sophisticated defenses ever constructed by man: the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). To support its ground forces, North Korea would have at its disposal only about 20-30 Mig-29s. Countering two dozen jets would be South Korea's combined 177 F-15s and F-16s, plus American forces that would vary in size depending on how many aircraft carriers were deployed in the vicinity. Given that a single American aircraft carrier holds up to 48 fighter jets, North Koreans would quickly find themselves fighting a losing battle. Which is why they may never initiate one. If Kim Jong-un insists on retaliation, the military could remove and replace him with, for instance, his 30-year old sister, who has recently risen in party ranks, or his 36-year old brother Kim Jong-chul, who is apparently not entirely uninvolved in the regime despite living an unassuming life in Pyongyang. What would a regime change mean for the markets? It depends on whether it is successful or not. An unsuccessful coup could lead to a massive purge and likely a total break in Pyongyang's relations with the outside world, including China. This would seriously destabilize North Korea's decision-making. The global community would have to begin contemplating a total war on the Korean peninsula. Alternatively, a successful coup could lead to temporary volatility, yet long-term stability. The military regime in the North may even be open to reunification over the long term, depending on how U.S.-China relations evolve. Bottom Line: China does not want to cripple North Korea or throw a coup. But it is cooperating with sanctions and could therefore trigger one by mistake. At least two regimes have collapsed in the past when facing the pincer movement of economic sanctions and American military pressure - South Africa's apartheid regime in 1991 and Slobodan Miloševic's Yugoslavia in 1999. Kim Jong-un could face a similar fate, particularly if China applies excessive economic pressure. Black Swan 3: Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn There is no election scheduled in the U.K. for 2018, but if one were to be held the ruling Tories would be in trouble (Chart 10). In fact, the combined anti-Brexit forces are currently in a solid lead over the pro-Brexit parties, Conservatives and the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP) (Chart 11). Chart 10Labour Is In The Lead... Chart 11...As Are Anti-Brexit Forces Writ-Large What could trigger such an election? Ultimately, the final exit deal may prompt a new election. More immediately, the ongoing negotiations over the status of the Irish border would be a prime candidate. As our colleague Dhaval Joshi, head of BCA's European Investment Strategy noted recently, Prime Minister Theresa May's government is propped up by the Northern Irish Unionists to whom May has promised that there will be no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. This will likely create a crisis as the EU negotiations may inadvertently threaten the Good Friday peace agreement. The Northern Ireland Unionists will not tolerate the border moving to the Irish Sea. This would effectively take Northern Ireland into the EU customs union and single market, and out of the U.K.'s domestic trading zone. It would also embolden Scotland's push for single market access. In essence, the Tory government may collapse because of differences within the U.K.'s "three kingdoms" before it even has the chance to collapse over differences with the EU.15 The market may cheer a Labour-Scottish National Party (SNP) coalition government, a potential winner of an early election, as it would mean that a new referendum on the U.K. leaving the EU could be held. The latest polls suggest that "Bremorse" (remorse for Brexit) has set in, as a clear majority in the U.K. thinks that Brexit was a bad idea (Chart 12). However, we suspect that it would take Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn several months, if not over a year, before he called such a referendum. First, Corbyn is on record supporting a soft Brexit, not a new referendum, and he has only just begun to adjust this position. Second, a soft Brexit is far more difficult to achieve than the hard Brexit of Prime Minister Theresa May since it requires the U.K. to subvert its sovereignty in significant ways (i.e., accepting EU regulation) in order to access the EU Common Market. Third, the most politically palatable way to re-do the referendum is to put a U.K.-EU deal up to the people to decide, which means that Corbyn first has to spend a long time negotiating that deal. Chart 12Bremorse Sets In The market may be disappointed to find out that PM Corbyn is not willing or able to put the question of the U.K.'s EU exit up to a vote right away. Instead, the market would have to deal with Corbyn's economic policies, which are markedly left-wing. Corbyn harkens back to the 110 Propositions pour la France of French President François Mitterrand, if not exactly to the ghastly 1970s of the U.K.'s own history. A brief sample platter of Labour's proposals under Corbyn includes: Increasing the U.K. corporate tax rate to 26% from 20%; Increasing the minimum wage; Forcing companies not to out-source operations; Nationalizing public infrastructure companies. How should investors play a Corbyn victory? We think that the U.K. pound would likely rally on a higher probability of reversing Brexit. However, this "no Brexit" rally would quickly dissipate as PM Corbyn reiterated his promise to fulfill the democratic desire of the population to exit the EU. While Corbyn's negotiating team set to work on getting a better Brexit deal out of Brussels, the market would quickly turn its attention to the reality that Corbyn is not kidding about socialism.16 The result would be a selloff in the pound. Bottom Line: BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy has pointed out that the pound remains well below its fair value (Chart 13). However, as BCA's chief FX strategist Mathieu Savary points out, the valuation technicals may be misleading as the currency has entered a new economic, trade, and political paradigm. A Corbyn premiership is not clearly positive for Brexit, while opening up a completely different question: is the U.K. also exiting the free-market, laissez-faire paradigm that it has helped lead since May 1979? Black Swan 4: Italy Is A Black Swan Hiding In Plain Sight The spread between Italian and German 10-year government bonds has narrowed 72 basis points since April, suggesting that investors have grown comfortable with the risks associated with the Italian election due by May (Chart 14). There are three reasons why we agree with the market: Chart 13Pound Valuation Reflects Post-Brexit Paradigm Chart 14Investors Not Worried About Italy New electoral rules passed in October make it highly likely that a center-right alliance will take shape between the Forza Italia of former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and the mildly Eurosketpic Lega Nord. These two could form a government alone, or in a grand coalition with the center-left Democratic Party (PD) (Chart 15). Both Lega Nord and the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S) have moved to the center on the questions of European integration and membership in the currency union; The European migration crisis is over and its supposedly constant impact on Italy is waning (Chart 16). Meanwhile, Italy's economy is on the mend, with its banking sector finally following the Spanish trajectory with a drop in non-performing loans (Chart 17). Chart 15Italy Set For A Hung Parliament Chart 16Migration Crisis Is Over (Yes, Even In Italy) Chart 17Italian Recovery Is Just Starting That said, we continue to warn clients that the underlying support for the common currency is lagging in Italy. The support level is just above 55%, despite a strong rally in the rest of the Euro Area (Chart 18). Similarly, over 40% of Italians appear confident in the country's future outside of the EU (Chart 19). Chart 18Italians Stand Out For Distrust Of Euro Chart 19Italians Not Enthusiastic About EU Our baseline case is that Italian elections will produce a weak and ineffective government, though crucially not a Euroskeptic one. How could we be wrong? Easy: one of the three reasons why we agree with the market could shift. For example, M5S could alter its pledge to remain in the Euro Area and surprisingly win on a Euroskeptic platform. Why would the party do something like that? Because it makes sense! Polls are already showing that M5S's recent moderation on the euro is not paying political dividends, with its support sharply sliding since the summer. With power quickly slipping out of reach for the party, why wouldn't they put a down-payment on the next election by trusting the underlying trend in opinion polling and investing in a Euroskeptic platform that might pay political dividends in the future? If we think that this strategy makes sense based on the data, then the M5S leadership might as well. Chart 20Can MIB Keep Outperforming? Another scenario is a major terror attack perpetrated by recent migrants from North Africa. Italy has been spared from radical Islamic terror. As such, the country may not be as desensitized to it as other European nations. A strong showing by Lega Nord and the far-right Fratelli d'Italia could force Forza Italia to move to the right as well. On our travels, we have noticed that few investors want to talk about Italy. There is wide acknowledgement of the structural trends pointing to a rise of Euroskepticism in the country, but also an appearance of consensus that this is a problem for a later date. We agree with this consensus, but our conviction is low. Bottom Line: Italian election risk is completely unappreciated by the markets. The country's equity market is one of the best performing this year (Chart 20), while government bonds are pricing in no political risk as the election approaches. We believe that shorting both would present a good hedging opportunity. Black Swan 5: Bloodbath In Latin America Our last black swan risk is not really a black swan to us but a forecast we believe will happen. As we outlined last month, we fear that Chinese policy-induced credit contraction will be negative for emerging markets, as BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy data asserts (Chart 21). BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy has pointed out in its latest missive that its "Carry Canary Indicator" - performance of EM/JPY crosses - is signaling that a sharp deceleration in global growth is coming in Q1 2018 (Chart 22).17 Latin America (especially Chile, Peru, and Brazil) is the region most exposed to the combination of a slowing China and a China-induced drop in commodity prices. Chart 21When China Sneezes, EM Gets The Flu Chart 22Ominous Signal From EM/JPY From a political perspective, this is most negative for Brazil and Mexico. Both countries hold elections in 2018, with the Mexican election further complicated by the ongoing NAFTA renegotiations. We believe that the future of NAFTA hangs in the balance, with a high probability that the Trump administration will decide to abrogate the deal.18 Currently, anti-market political forces are in the lead in both countries. In Brazil, no pro-market candidate is leading in the polls (Chart 23). In fact, anti-market options have a 48% lead on the centrists. Granted, there are ten months until the election, but we are skeptical that the Brazilian population will change its mind and support reformers. If the "median voter" in Brazil supported reforms, the current Temer administration would have passed them already. In Mexico, anti-establishment candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (also known as AMLO) is leading in the polls (Chart 24), as is his new party Morena (Chart 25). If Morena wins the most seats in the Mexican Congress, it will be more difficult for the opposition parties to combine to counter it.19 Chart 23There Is No Pro-Market Option In Brazil Chart 24AMLO Is In The Lead ... Chart 25...As Is Morena In 2017, we argued that politics were not a tailwind for EM asset performance. Instead, investors chased yield in the favorable economic context of Chinese economic stimulus, low developed market yields, and a weak U.S. dollar. In reality, politics was just as dire in much of EM as it was in prior years of asset underperformance, but the surge of global liquidity in 2018 masked the problems. We do not think the EM rally is sustainable in 2018. As the global economic and market context shifts, investors will start paying attention. Suddenly, political problems will enter into focus. Here we argue that Brazil and Mexico are likely to be the main targets of portfolio outflows, but a strong case could be made for South Africa and Turkey as well.20 Bottom Line: Political risk in Latin America will return. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "U.S. Election: Outcomes & Investment Implications," dated November 9, 2016, and "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Reconciliation And The Markets - Warning: This Report May Put You To Sleep," dated May 31, 2017, "How Long Can The 'Trump Put' Last?" dated June 14, 2017, and "Is King Dollar Back?" dated October 4, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Geopolitics - From Overstated To Understated Risks," dated November 22, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 President Clinton launched the largest NATO military operation against Yugoslavia amidst impeachment proceedings against him while President George H. W. Bush ordered U.S. troops to Somalia a month after losing the 1992 election. Ironically, President George H. W. Bush intervened in Somalia in order to lock in the supposedly isolationist Bill Clinton, who had defeated him three weeks earlier, into an internationalist foreign policy. President George W. Bush ordered the "surge" of troops into Iraq in 2007 after losing both houses of Congress in 2006; President Obama arranged the Iranian nuclear deal after losing the Senate (and hence Congress) to the Republicans in 2014. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Particularly vulnerable, in our view, will be Cory Gardner (R, Colorado), Joni Ernst (R, Iowa), Susan Collins (R, Maine), and Thom Tillis (R, North Carolina). 7 U.S. Treasury Under Secretary for International Affairs David Malpass recently claimed that high-level talks had "stalled" and re-emphasized the U.S.'s structural complaints: "We are concerned that China's economic liberalization seems to have slowed or reversed, with the role of the state increasing ... State-owned enterprises have not faced hard budget constraints and China's industrial policy has become more and more problematic for foreign firms. Huge export credits are flowing in non-economic ways that distort markets." The growing presence of Communist Party cells within corporations is another important structural concern that puts the administration at loggerheads with China's leaders. Please see Andrew Mayeda and Saleha Mohsin, "US Rebukes China For Backing Off Market Embrace," Bloomberg, November 30, 2017, available at www.bloomberg.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market?" dated August 16, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy, "A Timeline For The Next Five Years: Part II," dated December 1, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see "North Korea: From Overstated To Understated" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategic Outlook 2016: Multipolarity & Markets," dated December 9, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. A notable coup attempt occurred in 1995-96 in North Hamgyong; something like a coup attempt may have occurred in 2013; and defectors from North Korea have reported various stories of plots and conspiracies against the regime. 12 After all, Peter predicted that Donald Trump would be a serious candidate for the U.S. presidency back in September 2015! 13 Still worried, that is, even after Kim Jong-un's supposed "consolidation of power" in 2013-14 when he executed his influential and China-aligned uncle, Jang Song Thaek, and purged the latter's faction. There were reports of rogue military operations at that time. With low troop morale reported by North Korean defectors, the possibility of insubordination cannot be ruled out. 14 A North Korean submarine sank the South Korean corvette Cheonan in 2010, and North Korean artillery shelled two islands killing South Korean civilians later that year, but these attacks were still within the norm of North Korean provocations. The two countries are still technically at war and have contested maritime as well as land borders. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 To help investors get ready for a Corbyn premiership, we thought his appearance on President Nicolás Maduro's weekly radio show would be a good place to start: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eL8_wtS-0I 17 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy, "Canaries In The Coal Mine Alert: EM/JPY Carry Trades," dated December 1, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy "Update On Emerging Markets: Malaysia, Mexico, And The United States Of America," dated August 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "South Africa: Crisis Of Expectations," dated June 28, 2017, and "Turkey: Military Adventurism And Capital Controls," dated December 7, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Middle Eastern geopolitics will add upside risk to our bullish oil view, but not cause a drastic supply shock; Saudi Arabia is at last converting from a feudal monarchy to a modern nation-state; The greatest risk is domestic upheaval, motivating Saudi internal reforms and power consolidation; Abroad, the Saudis are constrained by military weakness, relatively low oil prices, and U.S. foreign policy; Geopolitical risk premia are seeping back into oil prices, but OPEC 2.0 and the Saudi-Iranian détente are still intact. Feature Geopolitical and political turbulence in Saudi Arabia kicked into high gear in November, with Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman apparently turning the Riyadh Ritz-Carlton into a luxury prison for members of the royal family.1 At the same time, rumors are swirling that the bizarre resignation of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri, allegedly orchestrated by Saudi Arabia, is a potential casus belli. In this scenario, Lebanon would become a proxy war for a confrontation between Sunni Gulf monarchies led by Saudi Arabia (aided by Israel) and their Shia rivals, led by Iran and its proxy Hezbollah. To our clients around the world we say, "please take a deep breath." In this report, we intend to separate the signal from the noise. The Middle East has been a theater of paradigm shifts since at least 2011.2 Not all of them are investment relevant. In this report, we conclude that: Changes under way in the Middle East are the product of impersonal, structural forces that have been in place since the U.S. pulled out of Iraq in 2011; Saudi Arabia is engaged in belated, European-style nation-building, a volatile process that will raise tensions in the country and the region; Saudi Arabia remains constrained by a lack of resources and military capabilities, and unclear alliance structures. Iran, meanwhile, benefits from the status quo. As such, no major war with Iran is likely in the short term, although proxy wars could intensify. In the short term, we agree that the moves by Saudi leadership will increase tensions domestically and in the region. However, over the long term, the evolution of Saudi Arabia from the world's last feudal monarchy into a modern nation-state should improve the predictability of Middle East politics. Regardless of our view, one thing is clear: Saudi Arabia has an incentive to keep oil prices at the current $64 per barrel, or higher, as domestic and regional instability looms. As such, we believe that risks to oil prices are to the upside, but a global growth-constraining geopolitical shock to oil supply is unlikely. The Paradigm Shift: Multipolarity "Tikrit is a prime example of what we are worried about ... Iran is taking over [Iraq]."3 -- Prince Saud al-Faisal, Saudi Foreign Minister, to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, March 5, 2015 Pundits, journalists, investors, and Middle East experts all make the same mistake when analyzing the region: they assume it exists on "Planet Middle East." It does not. The Middle East is part of a global system and its internal mechanic is not sui generis. Its actors are bit players in a much bigger game, which involves nuclear powers like the U.S., China, and Russia. Yes, the whims and designs of Middle East leaders do matter, but only within the global constraints that they are subject to. The greatest such constraint has been the objective and observable withdrawal of the U.S. from the Middle East, emblematized by a dramatic reduction of U.S. troops in the region (Chart 1). The U.S. went from stationing 250,000 troops in 2007 to mere 36,000 in 2017. The withdrawal was not merely a manifestation of President Barack Obama's dovish foreign policy. Rather, it was motivated by U.S. grand strategy, specifically the need to "pivot to Asia" and challenge China's rising geopolitical prowess head on (Chart 2). Chart 1U.S. Geopolitical Deleveraging Chart 2China's Ascendancy Challenges The U.S. As we expected, President Donald Trump has not materially increased the U.S. presence in the region since taking office.4 His efforts to eradicate the Islamic State have largely built on those of his predecessor. While he has rhetorically changed policy towards Iran, and taken steps to imperil the nuclear deal by decertifying it, he has not abrogated the deal. The U.S. president can withdraw from the nuclear deal without congressional approval, yet President Trump has merely passed the buck to Congress, which has until the end of the year to decide whether to re-impose sanctions. For Saudi Arabia, U.S. rhetoric and half measures do not change the fact that Iraq is now devoid of American troops and largely in the Iranian sphere of influence. Following the 1991 Gulf War, Saudi Arabia enjoyed the best of both worlds for two decades: a Sunni-dominated but weakened Iraq serving the role of an impregnable buffer between itself and the much more militarily capable Iran. Since Iraq's paradigm shift in the wake of American invasion, the buffer has not only vanished but has been replaced by a Shia-dominated, Iranian-influenced Iraqi state (albeit still relatively weak). Unsurprisingly, Saudi military spending as a share of GDP nearly doubled from the 2011 U.S. withdrawal to 2015, and in absolute terms has risen from $48.5 billion in 2011 to $63.7 billion in 2016, revealing a deep concern in Riyadh that its northern border has become nearly indefensible (Chart 3). Chart 3Saudis React To U.S. Withdrawal Meanwhile, Baghdad's heavy-handed political and military tactics produced an immediate reaction from the Sunni population.5 Militant Sunni insurgent groups, with material support from unofficial (and probably official) channels in Saudi Arabia and wider Gulf monarchies, began to fight back. Violence escalated and soon melded with the emerging civil war in Syria, which by early 2013 had taken on a sectarian cast as well. This led to the emergence of the Islamic State, which grew out of the earlier Sunni insurgence against the U.S. in the Al Anbar governorate. The military success of the Islamic State in 2014 against the inexperienced and demoralized Iraqi Army forced Baghdad to lean even more heavily on domestic Shia militias, and Iran, for survival. Islamic State militants reached the outskirts of Baghdad in September 2014 and were only beaten back by a combination of hardline Shia militias and Iranian advisers and irregular troops. From the Saudi perspective, this direct intervention by the Iranian military in Iraq was the final straw. Most jarring to the Saudis was the fact that the Americans acquiesced to the Iranian presence in Iraq and even collaborated with Iran. In fact, the overt presence of Iranian military personnel in Syria and Iraq drew no rebuke from the U.S. Some American officials even seemed to praise the Iranian contribution to the global effort against the Islamic State. Meanwhile, the nuclear negotiations continued undisturbed, right down to their successful conclusion in July 2015. Bottom Line: Global multipolarity and the rise of China has forced America's hand, and the dramatic withdrawal of military assets from the Middle East is the direct consequence. Saudi Arabia has suffered a dramatic reversal of geopolitical fortunes, with its crucial geographic buffer, Iraq, now dominated by its strategic rival, Iran. Saudi Arabia "Goes It Alone," And Fails Miserably "Saudi Arabia will go it alone."6 -- Mohammed bin Nawwaf Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Saudi ambassador to the U.K., December 17, 2013 To counter growing Iranian influence across the region and its strategic isolation, Saudi Arabia relied on five general strategies, all of which have failed: Map 1Saudi Arabia's Shia-Populated Eastern Province Is A Crucial Piece Of Real Estate Asymmetric warfare: Saudi Arabia has explicitly and implicitly supported radical-Islamist Sunni militant groups around the region. Some of these groups were either directly linked to, or vestiges of, al-Qaeda. The Islamic State, which received implicit support from Saudi Arabia in its early days of fighting president Bashar al-Assad in Syria, eventually turned against Saudi Arabia itself. Its agents claimed multiple mosque attacks in the Shia-populated Eastern Provinces (Map 1), attacks intended to incite sectarian violence in this key oil-producing Saudi area. Saudi officials also became alarmed at a large number of Saudi youth who went to fight with Islamic State fighters across the region, some of whom are now back in the country (Chart 4). "Sunni NATO": Talk of a broad, Sunni alliance against Iran has not materialized. Despite the Saudis' best efforts, the main Sunni military powers - Egypt and Pakistan - have remained aloof of its regional efforts to isolate Iran. The best example is the paltry contribution of its Sunni peers to the ongoing war in Yemen, where anti-government Houthi rebels are nominally allied with Iran. Pakistan contemplated sending a brigade of 3,000 troops to the Saudi-Yemen border earlier this year, but has refused to join the fight directly. Egypt sent under 1,000 troops early in the war, but none since. Talk of a 40,000 Egyptian deployment to the Yemen conflict earlier this year has not materialized. If Pakistan and Egypt are unwilling to help Saudi Arabia against the Houthis, why would they be interested in directly confronting a formidable military power like Iran? Direct warfare: When supporting militants and spending money on allies did not work, Saudi Arabia decided to try its hand at direct warfare. In February 2015, it began airstrikes against the Houthi rebels in Yemen. The war, which costs Saudi Arabia over $70 billion a year, has gone badly for Saudi Arabia.7 Despite two years of intensive involvement by Saudi Arabia and its GCC allies, the capital Sanaa remains in Houthi hands. As far as we are aware, there has been no real Saudi ground troop commitment to the conflict. K-street: Despite its best efforts, and the vast resources spent on lobbyists in Washington, Saudi Arabia could not prevent the U.S. détente with Iran. What the Saudis failed to appreciate was multipolarity, i.e. how the U.S. pivot to Asia would affect Washington's policy toward the Middle East.8 Oil prices: At the fateful November 2014 OPEC meeting, Saudi Arabia refused to cut oil production in the face of falling prices, instead increasing production (Chart 5). Since late 2016, however, Saudi Arabia has reversed this aggressive bid for market share and orchestrated oil production cuts with Russia and OPEC states. Chart 4The Islamic State Movement Threatens Saudi Arabia Chart 5Saudis Surged Production Into Falling Prices Each and every one of the above strategies has failed. The last one is the most spectacular: Saudi Arabia was forced to backtrack from its oil production surge and negotiate with long-time geopolitical rival Russia, which was courting the Saudis to relieve its budget pressures from low oil prices. Saudi Arabia not only accepted the need to work with Russia, but also acquiesced to Russia's geopolitical demands for détente in the ongoing Syrian Civil War. The latter will force Saudi Arabia at least tacitly to accept the continued leadership of President al-Assad in Syria. Furthermore, Saudi intervention in Yemen has gone nowhere. Pundits who claim that the Saudis are on the verge of a major military engagement in ______ (insert Middle East country), should carefully study the effectiveness of the Saudi military in Yemen. After over two years of Saudi bombardment, the Houthis are further entrenched in the country. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia's Sunni allies have not committed many ground troops to the effort, save for Sudan, which is impoverished and has no choice but to curry favor with its largest foreign donor. Bottom Line: The past six years have taught the Saudi leadership a series of hard lessons. Saudi Arabia cannot "go at it alone." On the contrary, the rise of the Islamic State - a messianic political entity claiming religious superiority to the Saudi kingdom - has alarmed the Saudi leadership and awoken it to a truly existential risk: domestic upheaval. Nation-Building, Saudi Style "What happened in the last 30 years is not Saudi Arabia. What happened in the region in the last 30 years is not the Middle East. After the Iranian revolution in 1979, people wanted to copy this model in different countries, one of them is Saudi Arabia. We didn't know how to deal with it. And the problem spread all over the world. Now is the time to get rid of it."9 -- Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, October 24, 2017 European nation-states developed over the course of five hundred years, from roughly the end of the Hundred Years' War between England and France to the unification of Italy and Germany in the mid-nineteenth century. Fundamentally, these efforts were about centralizing state power under a single authority by evolving the governance system away from feudal monarchy toward a constitutional, bureaucratic, and national system. The defining feature of feudalism was the separation of feudal society into three "estates": the clergy, the nobility, and the peasantry. The first two estates - the clergy and the nobility - had considerable rights and privileges. The king, who was above all three estates, nonetheless had to curry favor with both in order to raise taxes and wage wars. The state was weak and often susceptible to foreign influence via interference in all three estates. Saudi Arabia is one of the world's last feudal monarchies and it does not have five hundred years to evolve. Still, the best model for what is going on inside Saudi Arabia today is the European nation-building of the past. In brief, recent Saudi policies - from foreign policy assertiveness to domestic reforms - are intended to centralize power and evolve Saudi Arabia into a modern nation-state. Three parallel efforts, modeled on European history from the last millennia, are under way: Curbing the "first estate": Saudi Arabia has begun to curb the power of the religious establishment. In April 2016, it severely curbed the powers of the hai'a - the country's religious police. They no longer have the power to arrest. Instead, they have to report violations of Islamic law to the secular police; and they are only allowed to work during office hours.10 The state has even arrested a prominent cleric who opposed the change in hai'a powers, and has dismissed many other conservative clerics since King Salman came to power. Curbing the "second estate": The detention of members of the Saudi royal family at the Ritz Carlton is part of an ongoing effort to curb the powers of the "landed aristocracy" and bring it under the control of the ruling Sudairi branch of the royal family.11 This is not just palace intrigue, but a necessary step in harnessing the financial resources of the state, which are currently dispersed amongst roughly 2,000 members of the "second estate." Rallying the "third estate": Nationalism was used by European leaders of the nineteenth century to rally the plebs behind the state-building efforts of the time. Similarly, King Salman and his son, Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, are building a Saudi national identity. To do so, they are appealing to the youth, which makes up 57% of the country's population (Chart 6), as well as emphasizing the existential threat that Iran poses to the kingdom. Chart 6Still A Young Country We do not see these efforts as merely the reckless agenda of an impulsive thirty year-old, as Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman is often derisively portrayed by his opponents. We see genuine strategy in every policy that has been initiated by Saudi leadership since King Salman took over in January 2015. Several efforts are particularly notable. Vision 2030: A Major Salvo Against The "First Estate" As we indicated in May 2016, we consider the Saudi "Vision 2030" reform blueprint to be a serious document.12 While its plan to address Saudi economic constraints is overly ambitious and vague, there are nonetheless several prominent themes that reveal the preferences of Saudi leaders: Education: The document emphasizes the link between education and economic development. Notably, there is no mention of religion. Gender Equality: Elevating the role of women in the economy will require relaxing many strict social and religious rules that impede gender equality. As if on cue, the Saudi leadership announced that it would soon end its policy of forbidding women to drive. Corruption: A new emphasis on government transparency and reducing corruption will undermine many powerful vested interests, including the religious elites. We were right to emphasize these three themes back in May 2016 as it is now obvious that King Salman and his son Mohammad bin Salman are following the prescriptions of their Vision 2030. What explains their reformist zeal? Over half of the Saudi population of almost 30 million is below 35 years of age. The youth population is facing difficulty entering the labor force, with unemployment above 30% (Chart 7). This rising angst is often expressed online, where the Saudi population is as interconnected as its peers in emerging markets (Chart 8). Saudi citizens have an average of seven social media accounts and the country ranks seventh globally in terms of the absolute number of social media accounts. Between a quarter and a fifth of the population uses Facebook, a quarter of all Saudi teenagers use Snapchat,13 and Twitter has the highest level of penetration in Saudi Arabia of any other country in the region.14 Chart 7A Potential National Security Risk Chart 8Saudi Youth Is As Internet Savvy As Others The idea that the royal family can take on the religious establishment on behalf of the youth seems far-fetched. Skeptics point out that the conservative Sunni Wahhabi religious movement lies at the foundation of the Saudi state. However, commentators who take this mid-eighteenth-century alliance as a key feature of modern Saudi Arabia often overstate its nature and influence. Not only is the Wahhabi hold on power potentially overstated, but Westerners may even overstate the country's religiosity as a whole. According to the World Values Survey, Saudi Arabia is less religious than Egypt and is on par with Morocco.15 Although Saudi Arabia has not appeared in the survey since 2004, it is fair to assume that, with the proliferation of social media and rise in the youth population, the country has not become more religious over the past decade (Chart 9). In addition, Saudis identify with values of self-expression over values of survival (as much as moderate Muslim Malaysians, for example), which is a sign of a relatively wealthy, industrial society. Chart 9Saudi Arabia: More Modern Than You Think The Weekend At The Ritz: The "Second Estate" Is Put On Notice The ongoing effort to curb the power of the Saudi "second estate" is not just about court intrigue and political maneuvering. Without harnessing the economic resources of the wider Saudi aristocracy, the state would succumb to debilitating capital outflows. If the Saudi "second estate" decided to "vote" against King Salman and his son with their "deposits" - and flee the country - the all-important currency peg would collapse. Despite a pickup in oil prices, Saudi Arabia's currency reserves are falling rapidly and could soon dip below the total amount of local-currency broad money (Chart 10). Beneath that point, confidence among locals and foreigners in the currency peg could shatter, leading to massive capital flight, which was clearly a very serious problem as of end-2016 (Chart 11). Chart 10KSA: Forex Reserves Depleting Chart 11KSA: Capital Outflows Persist The peg of the Saudi riyal to the U.S. dollar is not just an economic tool. It is a crucial social stability anchor for an economy that imports nearly all of its basic necessities. De-pegging would lead to a massive increase in import costs and thus a potential political and social crisis. The Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency (SAMA) has at its disposal considerable resources for the next two years. However, this is only the case if capital outflows do not pick up and oil prices continue to stabilize. The Russia-OPEC deal is in place to ensure the latter. The "weekend at the Ritz" is meant to ensure the former. But doesn't the crackdown against the wealth of 2,000 royal family members represent appropriation of private property? Not in the minds of King Salman and his reformist son. In fact, if the financial wealth of the royal family is used to fill the coffers of the Saudi sovereign wealth fund, there is no reason why members of the Saudi "second estate" cannot benefit from its future investment returns and essentially "clip coupons" for a living. In fact, prior to the anti-corruption crackdown against the "second estate," Saudi officials hosted a completely different event at the Ritz Carlton: a gathering of top international investors for a conference called "Davos in the Desert." Judging by the conversations we had with a number of participants at that event, the point was not to encourage investments in Saudi Arabia. Rather, it was to secure the services of top international managers as Saudi Arabia ramps up the investment activities of its Public Investment Fund (PIF). Investors should therefore consider the first weekend at the Ritz as the launch of a new international investment vehicle by Saudi officials and the second weekend at the Ritz as its capitalization by the wider "second estate." We expect that fighting corruption will remain a major domestic policy thrust going forward. A recent academic study, for example, takes on the difficult job of eradicating wasta - the concept that each favor or privilege in Saudi society flows through middlemen or connections.16 The volume has been edited by Mohamed A. Ramady, professor of Finance and Economics at King Fahd University in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, and is undoubtedly supported by the royal family. Moreover, King Salman and his son have the example of Chinese President Xi Jinping's impressive power consolidation via anti-corruption campaign right in front of them and are unlikely to have embarked on this course with the expectation that it would be a short process. Iran As An Existential Threat: Harnessing The "Third Estate" Real reform is always and everywhere difficult, otherwise the desired end-state would already be the form. For the Saudi leadership, attacking both the first and second estate presents considerable risks. It is appropriate, therefore, to believe that a palace coup may be attempted against King Salman and his son.17 International tensions with Iran are a particularly useful strategy to distract the opposition and paint all domestic dissent as treasonous. This is not to say that Saudi Arabia does not face considerable strategic challenges from Iran. As mentioned, Iranian influence in Iraq is particularly threatening to Saudi Arabia as it gives Tehran influence over a key strategic buffer that also produces 4.4 million barrels of crude per day. Furthermore, Iran supported the 2011 uprising in Shia-majority Bahrain against the Saudi-allied al-Khalifa monarchy; it at least nominally supports the Houthi rebels in Yemen; it has directly intervened in Syria on behalf of President al-Assad; and it continues to support Hezbollah in Lebanon. It is safe to say that, since 2011, Iran has been ascendant in the Middle East and has surrounded Saudi Arabia with strategic threats on all points of the compass. But to what extent is the Saudi rhetoric on Lebanon, Bahrain, Yemen, and Qatar a real threat to the stability in the Middle East? We turn to this question in our next section. Bottom Line: Saudi Arabia's domestic intrigue is far more logical than pundits and the media make it out to be. King Salman and his son, Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, are trying to build a modern nation state from what is today the world's last feudal monarchy. To do so, they have to enlist the support of the third estate - the country's large youth population - and curb the powers of its first and second estates - the religious establishment and the landed aristocracy. The process will be filled with risks and volatility, but is ultimately necessary for the long-term stability of the kingdom. Regional Risk Of War Is Overstated "[I am] positive there will be no implications coming out of this dramatic situation at all."18 -- Secretary of Defense James Mattis, asked about the Qatar crisis and the fight against ISIS, June 5, 2017 As this report goes to publication Saudi Arabia has accused Iranian-allied Hezbollah of forcing Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri to run for his life. Hariri resigned while visiting Saudi Arabia. Although he claims that he is not being held against his will by Saudi authorities, his resignation is highly suspect. Saudi officials have also called a failed missile attack on Riyadh's airport, allegedly launched by Houthi rebels in Yemen, as a possible "act of war" by Iran. Meanwhile, Bahrain's Saudi-allied government has accused Iran of destroying an oil pipeline via terrorist action. The region's rumor mill - one of the most productive in the world - is in overdrive. What are the chances of increased proxy warfare between Saudi Arabia and Iran? We think that there is a good chance that Saudi Arabia will step up its military activity in the ancillary parts of the Middle East. In particular, we could see renewed Saudi military campaigns in Yemen and Bahrain. In isolation, these campaigns would add a temporary risk premium to oil prices. But given that Iran has no intention to become directly involved in either, we would expect Saudi moves to be largely for show. Over the long term, we do not see a direct confrontation between Iran and Saudi Arabia for three reasons. First, Saudi military capabilities are paltry and the kingdom has failed to secure the support of the wider Sunni world for its "Sunni NATO." We have already mentioned Saudi military failures in Yemen. Anyone who thinks that Saudi Arabia is ready to directly confront Iran must answer two questions. First, how does the Saudi military confront a formidable foe like Iran when it cannot dislodge Houthis from Yemen? Second, if Saudi Arabia is itching for a real conflict with Iran, why is it not saber-rattling in Iraq, a far more strategic piece of real estate for Saudi Arabia than any of the other countries where it accuses Iran of meddling? Chart 12Correlation Between Oil Prices And Military Disputes Second, oil prices remain a constraint to war. The reality is that there is a well-known relationship between high oil prices and aggressive foreign policy in oil-producing states (Chart 12). Political science research shows that the relationship is not spurious. Chart 13 shows that oil states led by revolutionary leaders are much more likely to engage in militarized interstate disputes when oil prices are higher.19 While oil prices have recovered from their doldrums from two years ago, they are also a far cry from their pre-2014 highs. In fact, by our calculation, oil prices are still below the Saudi budget break-even price of oil, despite its best efforts to implement austerity (Chart 14). Chart 13More Oil Revenue = More Aggression Chart 14Saudi Spending Binge Raised Oil Breakevens Third, Saudi Arabia has failed to secure a clear security commitment from the U.S. While the Trump administration is far more open to supporting Saudi Arabia than the Obama administration, it still criticized the Saudi decision to ostracize Qatar. Secretary of Defense James Mattis made a visit to Qatar in September to offer American support. In a shocking reversal to over half-a-century of geopolitics, King Salman went to Moscow this October to deepen geopolitical relations with Russia.20 The visit included several business deals in the realm of energy and a significant promise by Saudi Arabia to purchase Russian arms in the future, including the powerful S-400 SAM system. Saudi Arabia is the world's third-largest arms importer and uses purchases as a tool of diplomacy, but has never purchased weapons from Russia in a significant way in the past. While many pundits have pointed to the Saudi-Russian détente as a sign of strength, we see it as a sign of weakness. It illustrates that Saudi Arabia is diversifying its security portfolio away from the U.S. It is doing so because it has to, not because it wants to. As U.S. petroleum imports continue to decline due to domestic shale production, Saudi Arabia is compelled to find new allies (Chart 15). The plan to hold an initial public offering for Aramco, and to target sovereign Chinese entities as major bidders for Aramco assets, fits this pattern as well. Chart 15Saudi Arabia Has To Diversify Its Security ##br##Portfolio As U.S. Oil Imports Decline However, diversifying the geopolitical security portfolio to include Russia and China will not mean that Saudi Arabia will have a blank check to wage direct war against Iran. Both Russia and China have considerable diplomatic and economic interests in Iran and are as likely to restrain as to enable Saudi ambition. Finally, talk of a Saudi-Israeli alliance against Hezbollah in Lebanon is as far-fetched as a direct Saudi-Iranian confrontation. Israel won the 2006 war against Hezbollah, but at a high cost of 157 soldiers killed and 860 wounded.21 The Israeli public grew tired of the one month campaign, showing political limits to offensive war. Furthermore, twelve years later, Hezbollah is even more deeply entrenched in Lebanon. Unless Saudi Arabia is willing to provide ground troops for the effort (see Yemen discussion above), it is unclear why Israel would want to enter the morass of Lebanese ground combat on behalf of Riyadh. Bottom Line: Constraints to Saudi offensive military action remain considerable: paltry military capability, fiscal constraints imposed by low oil prices, and a lack of clear support from the U.S. While rhetorical attacks on Iran serve the strategic goal of nation-building, we do not expect a major war between oil-producing states that would significantly raise oil prices over the medium term. The rhetoric and posturing will increase volatility and temporarily push up prices from time to time. Investment Implications Of Saudi Nation-Building First, on the question of OPEC 2.0, our baseline case is for the 1.8 million barrel-per-day production cuts to be extended through June 2018, drawing OECD inventories down toward their five-year average and creating the conditions for Brent and WTI prices to average $65 per barrel and $63 per barrel respectively next year.22 Moreover, both Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman and Russian President Vladimir Putin have endorsed extensions through end-2018. These comments add bullish upside risk to prices, though they also alter perceptions and thus raise the short-term downside risk if no extension is agreed this month (which we think is the least likely scenario). Second, as to broader geopolitical risks in the Middle East, we believe they are rising yet again in the short and medium term, after the relative calm of 2017.23 We could see Saudi officials decide to ramp up military operations in Yemen or revive them in neighboring Bahrain. However, we do not see much of a chance of serious conflict in Lebanon or Qatar. The former would require an Israeli military intervention, which is unlikely given the outcome of the 2006 war. The latter would require American acquiescence, which is unlikely given the vital U.S. strategic presence in the country's Al Udeid military base. Nonetheless, even temporary military operations in any of these locales could add a geopolitical risk premium to oil markets. For example, the 2006 Lebanon-Israel War, which had no impact on oil production, generated a significant jump in oil prices (Chart 16). Chart 16Even The 2006 Israel-Lebanon War Produced A Risk Premium... Over the long term, how should investors make sense of the complicated Middle East geopolitical theater? Our rule of thumb is always to seek out the second derivative of any geopolitical event. In the context of the Middle East, by "second derivative" we mean that we are interested in whether the market impact of a new piece of information - of a new geopolitical event - will amount to more than just a random perturbation with ephemeral, decaying market implications. To determine the potential of new information to catalyze a persistent market risk premium or discount, we investigate whether it changes the way things change in a given region or context. For a geopolitical event in the Middle East to have such second derivative implications, and thus global market implications, we would need to see it have an impact on at least two of the following three factors: Oil supply: The event should impact current global oil supply either directly or through a clear channel of contagion. Geography: The event should occur in a geography that is of existential significance to one of the regional or global players. Sectarian contagion: The event should exacerbate sectarian conflict - Sunni versus Shia. When we consider the security dilemma between Iran and Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the Eastern Province in Saudi Arabia are two regions critical to global oil supply. Tellingly, neither has played a role in the recent spate of tensions between the two countries. Saudi Arabia has been very careful not to increase tensions with Iran in Iraq. In fact, the Saudi leadership has reached out to Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, who was received by King Salman in October in the presence of U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. How should investors price domestic political intrigue in Saudi Arabia? In the long term, any failure of King Salman and his son to reform the country would be negative for internal stability, with risks to oil production if social unrest were to increase. In the short and medium term, however, even a palace coup would likely have no lasting impact on oil prices as it would be highly unlikely that an alternative leadership would imperil the kingdom's oil exports. On the contrary, a coup against King Salman could lead to lower oil prices if the new leadership in Riyadh decided to renege on their oil production cuts with Russia. The bottom line is that the geopolitical risk premium is likely to rise. The evolution of Saudi Arabia away from a feudal monarchy requires the suppression of the kingdom's first and second estates, a dangerous business that will likely be smoothed by nationalism and saber-rattling. Risks to oil prices, therefore, are to the upside. However, given the considerable constraints on Saudi Arabia's military and foreign policy capabilities, we do not foresee global growth-constraining oil supply risks in the Middle East. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 The latest news from Riyadh is that the nearby Courtyard by Marriott Hotel may have been enlisted by the Saudi authorities for the crackdown, in addition to the Ritz Carlton. If true, we can only imagine the horrors that the prisoners are subject to! 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: Paradigm Shift," dated November 13, 2013, and BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: Paradigm Shift (Update)," dated July 9, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see "Iran 'taking over' Iraq, Saudis warn, blaming U.S. refusal to send troops against ISIS," The National Post, dated March 5, 2015, available at nationalpost.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Geopolitics Of Trump," dated December 2, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Iran's influence in Iraq grew almost immediately following the American military withdrawal. Iraq's Shia Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, wasted no time revealing his allegiance to Iran or his sectarian preferences. Baghdad issued an arrest warrant for the Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi literally the day after the last American troops withdrew from the country, signaling to the Sunni establishment that compromise was not a priority. Persecution of the wider Sunni population soon followed, with counter-insurgency operations in Sunni populated Al Anbar and Nineveh governorates. 6 Please see Mohammed bin Nawwaf bin Abdulaziz al Saud, "Saudi Arabia Will Go It Alone," New York Times, dated December 17, 2013, available at nytimes.com. 7 Please see Bruce Riedel, "Saudi Arabia's Mounting Security Challenges," Al Monitor, dated December 2015, available at al-monitor.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Out Of The Vault: Explaining The U.S.-Iran Détente," dated July 15, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see Martin Chulov, "I will return Saudi Arabia to moderate Islam, says crown prince," The Guardian, dated October 24, 2017, available at www.theguardian.com. 10 Something tells us that most violations of Islamic law are likely to be committed after hours! 11 The Sudairi branch of the Saud dynasty refers to the issue of Saudi Arabia's founder Abdulaziz Ibn Saud with Hassa bint Ahmed Al Sudairi, one of Ibn Saud's wives and a member of the powerful Al Sudairis clan. The union produced seven sons, the largest faction out of the 45 sons that Ibn Saud fathered. As the largest grouping, the sons - often referred to as the "Sudairi Seven" - were able to consolidate power and unite against the other brothers. In addition to the current King Salman, the other member of the Sudairi faction who became a king was Fahd, ruling from 1982 to 2005. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Saudi Arabia's Choice: Modernity Or Bust," dated May 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 The app is used to transmit photos and videos between users that disappear from the device after being viewed in 10 seconds. It is highly unlikely to be used for religious education. It is highly likely to be used by teenagers for ... well, use your imagination. 14 Please see "Social Media In Saudi Arabia - Statistics And Trends," TFE Times, dated January 12, 2017, available at tfetimes.com; "Saudi social media users ranked 7th in the world," Arab News, November 14, 2015, available at arabnews.com. 15 The World Values Survey is used in academic political science research to track changes in global social and political values. Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel have summarized the key findings in Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005). For more information, please see http://worldvaluessurvey.org. 16 Please see Mohamed A. Ramady, ed., The Political Economy Of Wasta: Use and Abuse of Social Capital Networking (New York: Springer, 2016). 17 It would not be the first such coup in Saudi history. King Saud was deposed in 1962 by his brother, King Faisal. 18 Please see Nahal Toosi and Madeline Conway, "Tillerson: Dispute Between Gulf States And Qatar Won't Affect Counterterrorism," dated June 5, 2017, available at www.politico.com. 19 Please see Cullen S. Hendrix, "Oil Prices and Interstate Conflict Behaviour," Peterson Institute for International Economics, dated July 2014, available at www.iie.com. 20 Please see BCA Energy Sector Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "King Salman Goes To Moscow, Bolsters OPEC 2.0," dated October 11, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see "Mideast War, By The Numbers," Associated Press, August 17, 2006, available at www.washingtonpost.com. 22 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Oil Forecast Lifted As Markets Tighten," dated October 19, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 23 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Forget About The Middle East?" dated January 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.