Geopolitics
Highlights So What? Key geopolitical risks remain unresolved and most of the improvements are transitory. Maintain a cautious tactical stance toward risk assets. Why? U.S.-China relations remain the preeminent geopolitical risk to investors and President Trump remains a wild card on trade. Japan’s rising assertiveness in the region will also produce clashes with the Koreas and possibly also with China. USMCA ratification is not a red herring for investors. We expect USMCA will pass by year’s end but our conviction level is low. Trump’s threat to withdraw from NAFTA cannot be entirely ruled out. Remain long JPY-USD and overweight Thailand relative to EM equities. Feature Chart 1U.S. And Chinese Policy Growing More Simulative We maintain our cautious tactical stance toward risk assets despite improvements to the cyclical macro outlook. American and Chinese monetary and fiscal policy are growing more stimulative on the margin – an encouraging sign for the global economy and risk assets. We have frequently predicted this combination as a positive factor for the second half of the year and 2020. With the Federal Reserve likely to deliver a 25 basis point interest rate cut on July 31, the market is pricing in positive policy developments (Chart 1). Yet in the U.S., long-term fiscal and regulatory policies are increasingly uncertain as the Democratic Party primary and 2020 election heat up. And in China, the trade war continues to drag on the effectiveness of the government’s stimulus drive. President Trump remains a wild card on trade: the resumption of U.S.-China talks is precarious and will be accompanied by heightened uncertainty surrounding Mexico, Canada, Japan, and Europe in the near term. Even the USMCA’s ratification is not guaranteed, as we discuss below. Even more pressing are the dramatic events taking place in East Asia: Hong Kong, Japan, the Koreas, Taiwan, and the South and East China Seas. These events each entail near-term uncertainty amid the ongoing slowdown in trade and manufacturing. Our long-running theme of geopolitical risk rotation from the Middle East to East Asia has come to fruition, albeit at the moment geopolitical risk is rising in both regions due to the simultaneous showdown between Iran and the United States and United Kingdom. The market recognizes that geopolitical risks are unresolved, according to this month’s update of our currency- and equity-derived GeoRisk Indicators. This is in keeping with the above points. We regard most of the improvements as transitory – especially the drop in risk in the U.K., where Boris Johnson is now officially prime minister. We are therefore sticking with our cautious trade recommendations despite our agreement with the BCA House View that the cyclical outlook is improving and is positive for global risk assets on a 12-month horizon. What Is Happening To East Asian Stability? A raft of crises has struck East Asia, a region known for political stability and ease of doing business throughout the twenty-first century after its successful recovery from the financial crisis of 1997. The thawing of Asia’s frozen post-WWII conflicts is a paradigm shift with significant long-term consequences for investors. The fundamental drivers are as follows: China’s rise is not peaceful: President Xi Jinping has reasserted Communist Party control while pursuing mercantilist trade policy and aggressive foreign policy. The populations of Hong Kong and Taiwan have reacted negatively to Beijing’s tightening grip, exposing the difficulty of resolving serious political disagreements given unclear constitutional frameworks. Recent protests in Hong Kong are even larger than those in 2014 and 1989 (Table 1). Table 1Hong Kong: Recent Protests The Largest Ever America’s “pivot” is not peaceful: The United States is determined to respond to China’s rise, but political polarization has prevented a coherent strategy. The Democrats took a gradual, multilateral path emphasizing the Trans-Pacific Partnership while the Republicans have taken an abrupt, unilateral path emphasizing sweeping tariffs. Underlying trade policy is the increased use of “hard power” by both parties – freedom of navigation operations, weapons sales, and alliance-maintenance. America is threatening the strategic containment of China, which China will resist through alliances and relations with Russia and others. Japan’s resurgence is not peaceful: Japan’s “lost decades” culminated in the crises and disasters of 2008-11. Since then, Japan’s institutional ruling party – the Liberal Democrats – have embraced a more proactive vision of Japan in which the country casts off the shackles of its WWII settlement. They set about reflating the economy and “normalizing” the country’s strategic and military posture. The result is rising tension with China and the Koreas. Korean “reunion” is not peaceful: North Korea has seen a successful power transition to Kim Jong Un, who is attempting economic reforms to prolong the regime. South Korea has witnessed a collapse among political conservatives and a new push to make peace with the North and improve relations with China. The prospect of peace – or eventual reunification – increases political risk in both Korean regimes and provokes quarrels between erstwhile allies: the North and China, and the South and Japan. Southeast Asia’s rise is not peaceful: Southeast Asia is the prime beneficiary in a world where supply chains move out of China, due to China’s internal development and American trade policy. But it also suffers when China encroaches on its territory or reacts negatively to American overtures. Higher expectations from the U.S. will increase the political risk to Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam, and the Philippines. This is the critical context for the mass protests in Hong Kong and the miniature trade war between Japan and South Korea, and other regional risks. Which conflicts are market-relevant? How will they play out? The U.S.-China Conflict The most important dynamic is the strategic conflict between the U.S. and China. Its pace and intensity have ramifications for all the other states in the region. Because the Trump administration is seeking a trade agreement with China, it has held off from unduly antagonizing China over Hong Kong and Taiwan. President Trump has not fanned the flames of unrest in Hong Kong and has maintained only a gradual pace of improvements in the Taiwan relationship.1 But if the trade war escalates dramatically, Beijing will face greater economic pressure, growing more sensitive about dissent within Greater China, and Washington may take more provocative actions. Saber-rattling could ensue, as nearly occurred in October 2018. Currently events are moving in a more market-positive direction. Next week, the U.S. and China are expected to resume face-to-face trade negotiations between principal negotiators for the first time since May. China is reportedly preparing to purchase more farm goods – part of the Osaka G20 ceasefire – while the Trump administration has met with U.S. tech companies and is expected to allow Chinese telecoms firm Huawei to continue purchasing American components (at least those not clearly impacting national security). We are upgrading the odds of a trade agreement by November 2020 to 40% from 32% in mid-June. With this resumption of talks, we are upgrading the odds of a trade agreement by November 2020 to 40%, from 32% in mid-June (Diagram 1). Of this 40%, we still give only a 5% chance to a durable, long-term deal that resolves underlying technological and strategic disputes. The remaining 35% goes to a tenuous deal that enables President Trump to declare victory prior to the election and allows President Xi Jinping to staunch the bleeding in the manufacturing sector. Diagram 1U.S.-China Trade War Decision Tree (Updated July 26, 2019) Note that these odds still leave a 60% chance for an escalation of the trade war by November 2020. Our conviction level is low when it comes to the two moderate scenarios. Ultimately, Presidents Trump and Xi can agree to a trade agreement at the drop of a hat – no one can stop Xi from ordering large imports from the U.S. or Trump from rolling back tariffs. Our conviction level is much higher in assigning only a 5% chance of a grand compromise and a 36% chance of a cold war-style escalation of tensions. We doubt that China will offer any structural concessions deeper than what they have already offered (new foreign investment law, financial sector opening) prior to finding out who wins the U.S. election in 2020. Beijing is stabilizing the economy even though tariffs have gone up. As long as this remains the case, why would it implement additional painful reforms? This would set a precedent of caving to tariff coercion – and yet Trump could renege on a deal anytime, and the Democrats might take over in 2020 anyway. The one exception might be North Korea, where China could do more to bring about a diplomatic agreement favorable to President Trump as part of an overall deal before November 2020 – and this could excuse China from structural concessions affecting its internal economy. The takeaway is that U.S.-China trade issues are still far from resolved and have a high probability of failure – and this will be a source of strategic tension within the region over the next 16 months, particularly with regard to Taiwan, the Koreas, and the South China Sea. Hong Kong And Taiwan August can be a crucial time period for policy changes as Chinese leaders often meet at the seaside resort of Beidaihe to strategize. This year they need to focus on handling the unrest in Hong Kong, and the Taiwanese election in January, as well as the trade war with the United States. Protests in Hong Kong have continued, driven by underlying socio-economic factors as well as Beijing’s encroachment on traditional political liberties. Even the groups that are least sympathetic to the protesters – political moderates, the elderly, low-income groups, and the least educated – are more or less divided over the controversial extradition bill that prompted the unrest (Chart 2). This reveals that the political establishment is weak on this issue. Chief Executive Carrie Lam is clinging to power, as Beijing does not want to give the impression that popular dissent is a viable mechanism for removing leaders. But she has become closely associated with the extradition bill and will likely have to go in order to satiate the protesters and begin the process of healing. As long as Beijing refrains from rolling in the military and using outright force to crush the Hong Kong protests, the unrest should gradually die down, as the political establishment will draw support for its concessions while the general public will grow weary of the protests – especially as violence spreads. Hong Kong has no alternative to Beijing’s sovereignty. The scene of action will soon turn to Taiwan, where the January 2020 election has the potential to spark the next flashpoint in Xi Jinping’s struggle to consolidate power in Greater China. A large majority of Taiwanese people supports the Hong Kong protests – even most supporters of the pro-mainland Kuomintang (KMT) (Chart 3). This dynamic is now affecting the Taiwanese election slated for January 2020. The relatively pro-mainland KMT has been polling neck-and-neck with the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which has struggled to gain traction throughout its term given diplomatic and economic headwinds stemming from the mainland. Similarly, while popular feeling is still largely in favor of eventual independence, pro-unification feeling has regained momentum in an apparent rebuke to the pro-independence ruling party (Chart 4). However, the events in Hong Kong have changed things by energizing the democratic and mainland-skeptic elements in Taiwan. President Tsai Ing-wen is now taking a slight lead in the presidential head-to-head opinion polls despite a long period of lackluster polling (Chart 5). A close election increases the risk that policymakers and activists in Taiwan, mainland China, the United States, and elsewhere will take actions attempting to influence the election outcome. Beijing will presumably heed the lesson of the 1996 election and avoid anything too aggressive so as not to drive voters into the arms of the DPP. However, with Hong Kong boiling, and with Beijing having already conducted intimidating military drills encircling Taiwan in recent years, there is a chance that past lessons will be forgotten. The United States could also play a disruptive role, especially if trade talks deteriorate. If the KMT wins, then anti-Beijing activists will eventually begin gearing up for protests themselves, which in subsequent years could overshadow the Sunflower Movement of 2013. If the DPP prevails, Beijing may resort to tougher tactics in the coming years due to its fear of the province’s political direction and the DPP’s policies. In sum, while the Hong Kong saga is far from over and has negative long-run implications for domestic and foreign investors, Taiwan is the greater risk because it has the potential not only to suffer individually but also to become the epicenter of a larger geopolitical confrontation between China and the U.S. and its allies. This would present a more systemic challenge to global investors. Japan And “Peak Abe” Japan’s House of Councillors election on July 21 confirmed our view that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has reached the peak of his influence. Abe is still popular and is likely to remain so through the Tokyo summer Olympics next year (Chart 6). But make no mistake, the loss of his two-thirds supermajority in the upper house shows that he has moved beyond the high tide of his influence. Having retained a majority in the upper house, and a supermajority in the much more powerful lower house (House of Representatives), Abe’s government still has the ability to pass regular legislation (Chart 7). If he needs to drive through a bill delaying the consumption tax hike on October 1 due to a deterioration in the global economic and political environment, he can still do so with relative ease. While the Hong Kong saga is far from over ... Taiwan is the greater risk. Clearly, the election loss will not impact Abe’s ability to negotiate a trade deal with the United States, which we expect to happen quickly – even before a China deal – albeit with some risk of tariffs on autos in the interim. The problem is that Abe’s final and greatest aim is to revise Japan’s American-written, pacifist constitution for the first time. This requires a two-thirds vote in both houses and a majority vote in a popular referendum. While Abe can still probably cobble together enough votes in the upper house, the election result makes it less certain – and the dent in popular support implies that the national referendum is less likely to pass. Constitutional revision was always going to be a close vote anyway (Chart 8). If Abe falls short of a majority in that referendum, then he will become a lame duck and markets will have to price in greater policy uncertainty. Even if he succeeds – which is still our low-conviction baseline view – then he will have reached the pinnacle of his career and there will be nowhere to go but down. His tenure as party leader expires in September 2021 and the race to succeed him is already under way. Hence, some degree of uncertainty should begin creeping in immediately. Abe’s departure will leave the Liberal Democrats in charge – and hence Japanese policy continuity will be largely preserved. But the entire arc of events, from now through the constitutional revision process to Abe’s succession, will raise fundamental questions about whether Abe’s post-2012 reflation drive can be sustained. We have a high conviction view that it will be, but Japanese assets will challenge that view. What of the miniature trade war between Japan and South Korea? On July 4, Japan imposed export restrictions on goods critical to South Korea’s semiconductor industry in retaliation for a South Korean court ruling that would set a precedent requiring Japanese companies such as Mitsubishi and Nippon Steel to pay reparations for the use of forced Korean labor during Japanese rule from 1910-45. Chart 9Japan Has A Stronger Hand In The Mini Trade War Japan has the stronger hand in this dispute from an economic point of view (Chart 9). While the unusually heavy-handed Japanese trade measures partly reveal the influence of President Trump, who has given a license for U.S. allies to weaponize trade, it also reflects Japan’s growing assertiveness. Abe’s government may have believed that a surge of nationalism would help in the upper house election. And the constitutional referendum will be another reason to stir nationalism and a recurring source of tension with both Koreas (as well as with China). Therefore, Japanese-Korean tensions and punitive economic measures could persist well into 2020. Bottom Line: U.S.-China relations remain the preeminent geopolitical risk to investors, especially if the Taiwan election becomes a lightning rod. Japan’s rising assertiveness in the region will also produce clashes with the Koreas and possibly also with China. We are playing these risks by remaining long JPY-USD and overweight Thailand relative to EM equities, as Thailand is more insulated than other East Asian economies to trade and China risks. Keep An Eye On The USMCA Last week we highlighted U.S. budget negotiations and argued that the result would be greater fiscal accommodation. The results of the just-announced budget deal are depicted in Chart 10. One side effect is an increased likelihood of eventual tariffs on Mexico if the latter fails to staunch the influx of immigrants across the U.S. southern border, since President Trump has largely failed to secure funding for his proposed border wall. Meanwhile, the administration’s legislative and trade focus will turn toward ratifying the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement (USMCA). There is an increased likelihood of eventual U.S. tariffs on Mexico ... since President Trump has largely failed to secure funding for his proposed border wall. Ratification is not a red herring for investors, since Trump could give notice of withdrawal from NAFTA in order to hasten USMCA approval, which would induce volatility. Moreover, successful ratification could embolden him to take a strong hand in his other trade disputes, while failure could urge him to concede to a quick deal with China. Chart 11Trade Uncertainty Supports The Dollar Further, trade policy uncertainty in the Trump era has correlated with a rising trade-weighted dollar (Chart 11), so there is a direct channel for trade tensions (or the lack thereof) to influence the global economy at a time when it badly needs a softer dollar – in addition to the negative effects of trade wars on sentiment. The signing of the USMCA trade agreement by American, Mexican, and Canadian leaders last November effectively shifted negotiations from the international stage to the domestic stage. Last month Mexico became the first to ratify the deal. The delay in the U.S. and Canada reflects their more challenging domestic political environments ahead of elections, especially in the United States. Ratification in the U.S. has been stalled by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who is locked in stalemate with the Trump administration. She is holding off on giving the green light to present the agreement to Congress until Democrats’ concerns are addressed (Diagram 2). Trump, meanwhile, is threatening to withdraw from NAFTA – a declaration that cannot be entirely ruled out, even though we highly doubt he would actually withdraw at the end of the six-month waiting period. Diagram 2Pelosi Is Stalling USMCA Ratification Process Republicans are looking to secure the USMCA’s passage before the 2020 campaign goes into full force in order to claim victory on one of Trump’s key 2016 campaign promises. The administration’s May 30 submission of the draft Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) to Congress initiated a 30-day waiting period that must pass before the administration can submit the text to Congress. But the administration is unlikely to put the final bill to Congress before ensuring that House Democrats are ready to cooperate.2 House democrats are in a position of maximum leverage and are using the process to their political advantage. House Democrats are in a position of maximum leverage – since they do not need the deal to become law – and are using the process to their political advantage. If the bill is to be ratified through the “fast action” Trade Protection Authority (TPA), which forbids amendments and limits debate in Congress, then now is their only chance to make amendments to the text, which was written without their input. Even in the Democrat-controlled House, there is probably enough support for the USMCA to secure its passage. There are 51 House Democrats who were elected in districts that Trump won or that Republicans held in 2018, and are inclined to pass the deal. Moreover 21 House Democrats have been identified from districts that rely heavily on trade with Canada and Mexico (Chart 12).3 If these Democrats vote along with all 197 Republicans in favor of the bill, it will pass the House. This is a rough calculation, but it shows that passage is achievable. What is more, there is a case to be made for bipartisan support for USMCA. Trump’s trade agenda has some latent sympathy among moderate Democrats, and Democrats within Trump districts, unlike his border wall. Democrats will appear obstructionist if they oppose the bill. Unlike trade with China, American voters are not skeptical of trade with Canada – and the group that thinks Mexico is unfair on trade falls short of a majority (Chart 13). Since enough Democrats have a compelling self-interest in securing the deal, and since Trump and the GOP obviously want it to pass, we expect it to pass eventually. The question is whether it can be done by year’s end. Once the bill is presented to Congress and passes through the TPA process, it will become law within 90 days. Assuming that the bill is presented to the House in early September, when Congress reconvenes after its summer recess, the bill could be ratified before year-end. Otherwise, without the expedited TPA process, the bill will no longer be protected against amendment and filibuster, leaving the timeline of ratification vulnerable to extensive delay. The above timeline may be too late for Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who faces general elections on October 21. The ratification process has already been initiated, as Trudeau would benefit from wrapping up the entire affair prior to the national vote.4 However, the process most recently has been stalled in order to move in tandem with the U.S., so that parliament does not ratify an agreement that the U.S. fails to pass. Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland has indicated that parliament is not likely to be recalled for a vote unless there is progress down south. This leaves the Canadian ratification process at the mercy of progress in the U.S. – and ultimately Speaker Pelosi’s decision. The current government faces few hurdles in getting the bill passed (Chart 14). The next step is a final reading in the House where the bill will either be adopted or rejected. If it is approved, the bill will then proceed to the Senate where it will undergo a similar process. If the bill is passed in the same form in the House and Senate, it will become law. Chart 15...But Trudeau's Party Is At Risk Failure to ratify the deal before the election means it will be set aside and reintroduced in the next parliament. The Liberal Party is by no means guaranteed to win a majority in the election – our base case has Trudeau forming the next government, but the race is close (Chart 15). A Conservative-led parliament would be likely to pass the bill, but it would likely be delayed to 2021 at that point due to American politics. We suspect that Trudeau will eventually stop delaying and push for Canadian ratification. This would pressure Pelosi and the Democrats to go ahead and ratify, when they are otherwise inclined to reopen negotiations or otherwise delay until after November 2020. If this gambit succeeded, Trudeau would have forced total ratification prior to October 21, which would give him a badly needed boost in the election. He can always go through the frustration of re-ratifying the deal in his second term if the Democrats insist on changes, but not if he does not survive for a second term – so it is worth going forward at home and trying to pressure Pelosi into ratification in September or early October. Bottom Line: In light of Canada’s October election and the U.S. 2020 election cycle, USMCA faces a tight schedule. A delay into next year risks undermining the ratification effort, as we enter a period of hyper-partisan politics amid the 2020 presidential campaigns. This makes the third quarter a sweet spot for USMCA ratification. While we ultimately expect that it will make it through, each passing day raises the odds against it. GeoRisk Indicators Update: July 26, 2019 All ten GeoRisk indicators can be found in the Appendix, with full annotation. Below are the most noteworthy developments this month. U.K.: As expected, Boris Johnson sealed the Conservative party leadership contest. This was largely priced in by the markets and as such did not result in a big shift in our risk indicator. Johnson has stated that he is willing to exit the EU without a deal and it is undeniable that the odds of a no-deal Brexit have increased. Nevertheless, the odds of an election are also rising as Johnson may galvanize Brexit support under the Conservative Party even as Bremain forces are divided between the rising Liberal Democrats and a Labour Party hobbled by Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. The odds that Johnson is willing to risk his newly cemented position on a snap election – having seen what happened in June 2017 – seem overstated to us, but we place the odds at about 21%. As for a no-deal exit, opinion polling still suggests that the median British voter prefers a soft exit or remaining in the EU. This imposes constraints on Johnson, as he may ultimately be forced to try to push through a plan similar to Theresa May’s, but rebranded with minimal EU concessions to make it more acceptable – or risk a no-confidence vote and potential loss of control. We maintain that GBP will stay weak, gilts will remain well-bid, and risk-off tendencies will be reinforced. France: Our French indicator points toward a significant increase in political risk over the last month. President Macron’s government has recently unveiled the pension system overhaul that he promised during the 2017 campaign. The reform, which is due to take effect in 2025, encourages citizens to work longer, as their full pension will come at the age of 64 – two years later than under current regulations. French reform efforts have historically prompted significant social unrest. Both the 1995 Juppé Plan and the 2006 labor reforms were scrapped as a result of unrest, and the 2010 pension reform strikes forced the government to cut the most controversial parts of the bill. Labor unions have already called for strikes against the current bill in September. However, no pain, no gain. Unrest is a sign that ambitious reforms are being enacted, and Macron’s showdown with protesters thus far is no more dramatic than the unrest faced by the most significant European reform efforts. The 1984-85 U.K. miners’ strike led to over 10,000 arrested and significant violence, but resulted in the closures of most collieries, weakening of trade union power, and allowed the Thatcher government to consolidate its liberal economic program. German labor reforms in the early 2000s led to strikes, but marked a turning point in unemployment and GDP trends (Chart 16), and succeeded in increasing wages and pushing people back into the labor force (Chart 17). And the 2011 Spanish reforms under PM Rajoy led to the rise of Indignados, student protesters occupying public spaces, but ultimately helped kick-start Spain’s recovery. Investors should therefore not fear unrest, and we expect any related uncertainty to abate in the medium term. Chart 16Hartz IV Reforms Were Also Accompanied By Unrest... Chart 17...But Were Ultimately Favorable Note that Macron is doubling down on reforms after the experience of the Yellow Vest protests, just as his favorability has rebounded to pre-protest levels. While Macron’s approval is nearly the lowest compared to other French presidents at this point in their terms (Chart 18), he does not face an election until 2022, so he has the ability to trudge on in hopes that his reform efforts will bear fruit by that time. Spain: Our Spanish indicator is showing signs of increasing tensions as Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez attempts to form a government. After ousting Mariano Rajoy in a vote of no confidence in June 2018, Sanchez struggled to govern with an 84-seat minority in Congress. The Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party’s (PSOE) proposed budget plan was voted down in Congress in February, forcing Sanchez to call a snap election for April 28 in which PSOE secured 123 seats. The PSOE leader failed the first investiture vote on July 23 – and the rerun on July 25 – with less votes in his favor than his predecessor Mariano Rajoy received during the 2015-2016 government formation crisis (Chart 19). In the first investiture vote, Sanchez secured 124 votes out of the 176 he needed to be sworn in as prime minister. This led to a second round of voting in which Sanchez needed a simple majority, which he failed to do with 124 affirmative, 155 opposing votes, and 67 abstentions. Going forward, Sanchez has two months to obtain the confidence of Congress, otherwise the King may dissolve the government, leading to a snap election. The Spanish government is more fragmented today than at any point during the last 30 years (Chart 20). Even if Pedro Sanchez’s PSOE were to successfully negotiate a deal with Podemos and its partner parties, the coalition would still require support from nationalist parties such as Republican Left of Catalonia or Basque Nationalist Party to govern. These will likely require major concessions relating to the handling of Catalonian independence, which, if rejected by PSOE, will result in yet another gridlocked government. The next two months will see a significant increase in political risk, and we assign a non-negligible chance to another election in November, the fourth in four years. Turkey: Investors should avoid becoming complacent on the back of the stream of encouraging news following the Turkey-Russia missile defense system deal. Our indicator is signaling that the market is pricing a decrease in tensions, and President Trump has stated that sanctions will not be immediate. Nevertheless, we would be wary. Congress is taking a much tougher stance on the issue than President Trump: The U.S. administration already excluded Turkey from the F-35 stealth fighter jet program; Senators Scott (R) and Young (R) introduced a resolution calling for sanctions; Senator Menendez (D) stated that merely removing Turkey from the F-35 program would not be enough; The new Defense Secretary nominee Mark Esper said that he was disappointed with Turkey’s “drift from the West”; And U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo expressed confidence that President Trump would impose sanctions. Under CAATSA, a law that targets companies doing business with Russia, the U.S. must impose sanctions on Turkey over the missile deal, but does not have a timeline to do so. The sanctions required are formidable, and the U.S. has already imposed sanctions on China for a similar violation. If President Trump is not going forward with sanctions now, he still could proceed later if Turkey does not improve U.S. relations in some other way. From Turkey’s side, Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu threatened retaliation if the U.S. were to impose sanctions. Turkey is also facing increasing tensions domestically. Erdogan suffered a stinging rebuke in the re-run of the Istanbul mayoral election. This defeat has left Erdogan even more insecure and unpredictable than before. On July 6, he fired central bank governor Murat Cetinkaya using a presidential decree, which calls the central bank’s independence into question. He may reshuffle his cabinet, which could make matters worse if the appointments are not market-friendly. As domestic tensions continue to escalate, and when the U.S. announces sanctions, we expect the lira to take yet another hit and add to Turkey’s economic woes. Diagram 3Brazil: Pension Reform Timeline Chart 21Brazil Faces A Fiscal Deficit Despite Pension Reform Brazil: Brazilian risks are likely to remain elevated as the country faces crunch-time over the controversial pension reform on which its fiscal sustainability depends. Although the Lower House voted overwhelmingly in support of the reform on July 11, the bill needs to make it through another Lower House vote slated for August 6. The bill will then proceed to at least two more rounds of voting in the Senate (by end-September at the earliest), with a three-fifths majority required in each round before being enshrined in Brazil’s constitution (Diagram 3). The whole process will likely be delayed by amendments and negotiations. The estimated savings of the bill in its current form are about 0.9 trillion reals, down from the 1.236 trillion reals originally targeted, which risks undermining the effort to close the fiscal deficit. Our colleagues at BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy still forecast a primary fiscal deficit in four years’ time (Chart 21).5 Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For instance, the U.S.’s latest $2.2 billion arms package does not include F-16 fighter jets to Taiwan, and F-35s have entirely been ruled out. The Trump administration sent Paul Ryan, rather than a high-level cabinet member, to inaugurate the new office building of the American Institute in Taiwan for the 40th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act. At the same time, the Trump administration is threatening a more substantial upgrade of relations through more frequent arms sales, the Taiwan Travel Act (2018), and the Asia Reassurance Initiative Act (2018). 2 The risk is that history repeats itself. In 2007, then President George W. Bush sent the free-trade agreement with Colombia to Congress prior to securing Pelosi’s approval. She halted the fast-track timeline and the standoff lasted nearly five years. 3 Please see Gary Clyde Hufbauer, “USMCA Needs Democratic Votes: Will They Come Around?” Peterson Institute For International Economics, May 15, 2019, available at piie.com. 4 Bill C-100, as it is known, has already received its second reading in the House of Commons and has been referred to the Standing Committee on International Trade. 5 Please see BCA Research’s Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report titled “On Chinese Banks And Brazil,” dated July 18, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Geopolitical Calendar
Highlights As central banks continue to push on a string for 2 percent inflation, it will underpin the valuation of equities and other risk-assets. So long as the global 10-year bond yield remains well below 2.5 percent, equity market sell-offs will be limited to corrections rather than an outright bear market. Within bonds, steer towards those where the monetary policy toolbox is not depleted, namely U.S. T-bonds. Within currencies, steer towards those where the monetary policy toolbox is already depleted, namely the yen and the euro. Expect an early U.K. General Election whose result is extremely difficult to call. Until this fog of U.K. political uncertainty clears, steer clear of the pound and go long the international FTSE100 versus the domestic FTSE250. Dear Client, In lieu of the next weekly report I will be presenting the quarterly webcast on Tuesday 6 August at 10.00AM EDT, 3.00PM BST, 4.00PM CEST, 10.00PM HKT. Be sure to join me. Dhaval Joshi Feature How Central Banks Have Misunderstood Inflation Chart Of The WeekInflation Expectations Just Track Actual Inflation Central banks continue to obsess about their failure to achieve inflation of two point zero (Chart I-2). The irony is that they should be rejoicing from the rooftops, because the major developed economies have all now reached the holy grail of price stability. Central banks have misunderstood price stability because they have defined it over-precisely in terms of econometric models and mathematics, when the way we actually perceive it has as much to do with psychology and physiology. Chart I-2Failing To Achieve Two Point Zero The human brain cannot distinguish inflation rates between -1 and 2 percent, a range we just perceive as ‘price stability’. As an example, if a loaf of bread costs 77 pence today, most people – myself included – would not perceive the difference between it costing 70 pence five years ago (2 percent inflation) or 73 pence (1 percent inflation). Compounding the perception difficulty is quality improvements. If the ingredients and nutritional quality are better today, then the price of the loaf may actually have gone down! Yet central banks persist in thinking of inflation within a linear spectrum which they can nail to one decimal place. Even now, Draghi talks about “survey-based inflation expectations at a level of 1.6/1.7 percent” as if the decimal point actually means something! What Draghi fails to recognise is that the human brain cannot perceive inflation to that level of mathematical precision. If I cannot distinguish between -1 and 2 percent inflation, then it is impossible for the central bank to change my inflation expectations within that range, because the entire range just feels like price stability to me. Therefore, my behaviour in terms of wage demands and willingness to borrow will also stay unchanged. And if my behaviour is unchanged, what is the transmission mechanism from -1 to 2 percent inflation? Chart I-3Inflation Expectations Just Track Actual Inflation This largely explains why monetary policy can take an economy from price instability into the range of price stability, but cannot fine-tune inflation within this broad range of price stability between -1 to 2 percent. The ultimate proof is that the market-based inflation expectations that central banks try to guide just track actual inflation (Chart Of The Week and Chart I-3). The problem is that central banks have created a rod for their own back. It is difficult for them to change their targets without gravely undermining their credibility. As Fed Chair Jay Powell points out “2 percent has become the global norm… saying that you’re going to change target – I wonder how credible that will be.” When Monetary Policy Is Depleted Monetary policy operates through the term structure of interest rates. The central bank sets short-term rates directly, and it establishes long-term rates through its forward guidance and QE tools. Other tools, like the TLTROs, simply ensure the effective transmission of the term structure to the banking system. Regarding QE, many people still believe that it is the central bank’s removal of bond supply that drives down their yields. This is plain wrong. The bond market sets the price of the QE transaction according to the signal it receives about future interest rate policy. For example, if QE implied rampant inflation down the road – and therefore higher interest rates – the act of QE would lift bond yields, perhaps considerably. In fact, the market interprets QE as a resolve to keep policy rates lower for longer and this is why it depresses yields. At this week’s ECB policy announcement, expect the usual flannel and bluster. To achieve its 2 percent inflation target, “the Governing Council stands ready to act and use all the instruments that are in the toolbox”. The trouble is, once the term structure is at its lower bound all along its length – as it almost is in the euro area and Japan – the monetary policy toolbox is out of tools (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). Chart I-4The Monetary Policy Toolbox Is Out Of Tools... Chart I-5...Once The Term Structure Is At Rock Bottom All Along Its Length The ECB’s increasing impotence is not something it wants to admit. As Upton Sinclair pointed out: it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it! But to his credit, Draghi has at least hinted that the ECB toolbox is depleted, acknowledging that “in case of adverse contingencies, fiscal policy will have to play a fundamental role.” What Does This Mean For Market Strategy? To repeat, in a range of -1 to 2 percent, inflation expectations become insensitive to monetary policy. So in their obsession to achieve two point zero, central banks have pushed harder and harder on a piece of string. As a result, the experimental policy tools of our era have been forward guidance and QE, which have depressed bond yields to unprecedented lows (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Chart I-6Forward Guidance And QE... Chart I-7...Have Depressed Bond Yields To Historic Lows Now we come to the crucial twist in the story. When bond yields enter a range of -1 to 2 percent risk-asset valuations become hyper-sensitive to monetary policy. We refer readers to previous reports in which we have extensively explained this dynamic. The upshot is that at ultra-low bond yields, the transmission to price inflation breaks down, but the transmission to risk-asset inflation increases exponentially1 (Chart I-8 and Chart I-9). Chart I-8Ultra-Low Bond Yields... Chart I-9...Have Lifted Equity Valuations To Historic Highs For market strategy, the good news is that as central banks continue to push on a string for 2 percent inflation, it will underpin the valuation of equities and other risk-assets. So long as the global 10-year bond yield remains well below 2.5 percent, sell-offs will be limited to corrections rather than an outright bear market.2 The other good news is that if there is no major dislocation in financial markets, economic downturns will be limited to down-oscillations rather than an outright recession. This is because, contrary to popular belief, the causality does not run from recessions to financial market dislocations; it almost always runs the other way, from financial market dislocations to recessions. The final strategic point is: within currencies, steer towards those where the monetary policy toolbox is already depleted, namely the yen and the euro. Conversely, within bonds, steer towards those where the monetary policy toolbox is not depleted, namely U.S. T-bonds. Brexit Update Talking of flannel and bluster, Britain’s Conservative party has elected a new leader who, by default, becomes the new Prime Minister. But while the Conservatives and the U.K. have a new leader, as far as Brexit is concerned, plus ça change plus c’est la même chose. A new leader does not change the tight parliamentary arithmetic in which the Conservative/DUP pact now has a wafer-thin working majority of just four, likely reduced to just three after the Brecon and Radnorshire by-election on August 1. Neither does it change the EU27’s ‘red line’ to protect the integrity of the single market at the Republic of Ireland’s border with Northern Ireland. Meaning that either the whole of the U.K. or Northern Ireland must stay in a customs union with the EU27. Chart I-10When The Pound Weakens, The International FTSE100 Outperforms The Domestic FTSE250 Given these hard constraints we expect an early General Election whose result is extremely difficult to call. This is because the U.K.’s first past the post voting system is designed for a two party structure, and not for the four parties that are now in contention (five in Scotland).3 Until this fog of political uncertainty clears at least partly, steer clear of the pound. U.K. equity investors should go long the international FTSE100 versus the domestic FTSE250 (Chart I-10). Fractal Trading System* This week we note that the blistering outperformance of the New Zealand electricity sector following the public float last year is technically extended and susceptible to a countertrend reversal. This trade is based on the 52-week fractal dimension and so has a potential duration of a year, longer than our normal trades. Short the New Zealand electricity sector versus the broader New Zealand market setting a profit target of 7 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. In other trades, short Russia (MOEX) versus Japan (Nikkei) achieved its 5 percent profit target and is now closed. This leaves five open positions. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment’s fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report ‘Risk: The Great Misunderstanding Of Finance’ October 25, 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 2 We define the global bond yield as the simple average of the 7-10 year government bond yields in the U.S., euro area, and China. A proxy is the simple average of the 10-year yields in the U.S., France, and China. 3 From political left to right, the parties are Labour, Liberal Democrat, Conservative, and Brexit. Scotland also has the Scottish National Party. Fractal Trading System The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations
Most of the major progressive candidates are electable – they have a popular and electoral path to the White House – as revealed by their successful head-to-head polling against Trump in battleground state opinion polling. But these pathways are narrower than…
The risks are to the downside because the market is at all-time highs and Democratic proposals include raising taxes on corporations and re-regulating the economy. Whether you accept our 55% odds of Trump reelection, the race will be a continual source of…
Highlights So What? U.S. policy uncertainty adds to a slew of geopolitical reasons to remain tactically cautious on risk assets. Why? U.S. fiscal policy should ultimately bring market-positive developments – though the budget negotiation process could induce volatility in the near-term. We expect spending to go up and do not expect a default due to the debt ceiling or another prolonged government shutdown. Former Vice President Joe Biden remains the frontrunner for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination in 2020. But left-wing progressive candidates are gaining on him and their success will trouble financial markets. With Persian Gulf tensions still elevated, go long Q1 2020 Brent crude relative to Q1 2021. Feature Chart 1U.S. Politics Poses Risks Through Next November Economic policy uncertainty is rising in the United States even as it falls around the world (Chart 1). Ongoing budget negotiations and the Democratic primary election give equity investors another reason to remain cautious in the near term. We expect more volatility. There also remain several persistent global threats to markets posed by unresolved geopolitical risks – rising Brexit risks with Boris Johnson likely to take the helm in the United Kingdom; oil supply threats amid Iran’s latest rejection of U.S. offers to negotiate its missile program; and a major confirmation of our theme of geopolitical risk rotation to East Asia, with Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the South China Sea all heating up at once. In sum, political and geopolitical risks are showing investors a yellow light, even though the macroeconomic outlook still supports BCA’s cyclical (12-month) equity overweight. U.S. Fiscal Policy Will Remain Accommodative While U.S. monetary policy has taken a dovish turn – supported by other central banks – fiscal spending is now coming into focus for investors. We expect the budget battle to be market-relevant this year, injecting greater economic policy uncertainty, but the end-game should be market-positive. Brinkmanship will not get as bad as during the debt ceiling crises of 2011 and 2013, though market jitters will be frontloaded if Pelosi and the White House fail to conclude a deal immediately. Chart 2The 'Stimulus Cliff' Awaits President Trump The U.S. budget process is always rocky and is usually concluded well into the fiscal year under discussion. This year the fight will be more important than over the past few years because, as the two-year bipartisan agreement of 2018 lapses, the so-called “stimulus cliff” looms over the U.S. economy and will get caught up in the epic battle over the 2020 election. The stimulus cliff is the automatic imposition of fiscal spending cuts (“sequestration”) in FY2020 that would take effect as a result of the Budget Control Act of 2011. Standard estimates of the U.S. budget deficit expect that the deficit will shrink in 2020 if the spending caps are not raised, resulting in a negative fiscal thrust (Chart 2). The result would be to decrease aggregate demand at a time when the risk of recession is relatively high (Chart 3). Chart 3Recession Odds Still High Over Next 12 Months This is clearly not in President Trump’s interest, since a recession would devastate his reelection odds. Hence, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and other White House officials are pushing for a budget deal before the House of Representatives goes on recess on July 26 and the Senate on August 2. Ideally, an agreement would raise the spending caps, appropriate funds for the rest of the budget, and lift the “debt ceiling,” the statutory limit on U.S. debt. But it would be surprising if a deal came together as early as next week. A failure to agree on a budget deal before Congress goes on recess will make the market increasingly jittery. Congress can cancel the August recess, or wait until September 9 when they reconvene, but a failure to agree on something between now and then will make the market increasingly jittery. The U.S. has already surpassed the current debt limit and the latest estimates suggest that the Treasury Department’s “extraordinary measures” to meet U.S. debt payments could be exhausted by early-to-mid September.1 This would give Congress only a week in September to raise the debt limit. There are three main reasons to expect that the debt ceiling fight will not get out of hand: Chart 4Americans Stopped Worrying And Love Debt First, a technical default on U.S. debt could result in a failure to meet politically explosive obligations, such as sending social security checks to seniors. No one in Washington would benefit from such a failure and President Trump would suffer the most. Second, the public is not as worried about national deficits and debt today as it was in the aftermath of the financial crisis (Chart 4). Democrats, as the pro-government party, do not have an incentive to stage a showdown over the debt like Tea Party Republicans did under the previous administration. To be fair, they did do so in January 2018, but backed off after merely two days due to high political costs. Third, the one budget conflict that could create a catastrophic impasse – funding for Trump’s border wall – can be assuaged by Trump’s use of executive action, as he demonstrated by declaring a national emergency and appropriating military funds for fencing. Trump is fighting a general election in 2020 and is unlikely to use the debt ceiling as leverage to the point that the U.S. defaults on its obligations. The risk to investors, however, is that he goes back to threatening a 25% tariff on Mexico if it fails to staunch the flow of immigrants from Central America. What if the Republicans and Democrats cannot agree on the budget and spending caps? Democrats say they will not raise the debt limit unless they get non-defense spending increases. House Democrats need to reward their constituents for voting for them in 2018 and want to increase non-defense spending at “parity” with increases to defense spending. They also want to reduce the defense increases that Republicans seek in order to pay for non-defense increases. President Trump and the Republicans have a higher defense target and a lower non-defense target. The truth is that the Republicans and Democrats have agreed three times to increase spending caps beyond the levels required under the 2011 law – and they have done so most emphatically under President Trump with the FY2018-19 agreement (Chart 5). This year the two parties stand about $17 billion apart on defense and $30 billion apart on non-defense spending.2 We would expect both sides to splurge on spending and get what they want, but they could also split the difference: the amounts are small but the acrimony between the two parties could extend the talks. Congress may have to pass one or more “continuing resolutions” (stopgap measures keeping spending levels constant) to negotiate further. A continuing resolution could at least raise the debt ceiling and leave the rest of the budget negotiation until later, removing the majority of the political risk under discussion. Is another government shutdown possible? Yes, but not to the extent of early 2019. Trump saw a sharp drop in his approval ratings during the longest-ever government shutdown last year (Chart 6). Brinkmanship could lead to another shutdown, but he is likely to capitulate before it becomes prolonged. In early 2020, he wants to be lobbing grenades into the Democratic primary election rather than giving all of the Democrats an easy chance to criticize him for dysfunction in Washington. Ultimately, Trump can simply refrain from vetoing whatever the House and Senate agree – it is not in his interest to shrink the budget deficit in an election year. The Democrats’ spending increases would boost aggregate demand and are thus in President Trump’s personal interest. Trump is the self-professed “king of debt” – he is not afraid to agree to a deal that will be criticized by fiscal hawks. The latter have far less influence in Congress anyway since the 2018 midterm election. Why should House Democrats extend the economic expansion knowing that it would likely improve President Trump’s reelection chances? Because Trump will capitulate to most of their spending demands; voters would punish them if they are seen deliberately engineering “austerity”; and they need to show voters that they can govern. As for the 2020 race, they will focus on other issues: they will attack Trump on trade and immigration and focus on social policy: health care, the minimum wage, taxes and inequality, climate change, and student debt. What will be the fiscal and economic impact of a budget deal? The budget deal under negotiation ($750 billion in defense discretionary spending, $639 billion in non-defense discretionary spending) would raise the spending cap by about $145 billion – this is slightly above the $112 billion negative fiscal thrust expected in 2020.3 The result is that the U.S. fiscal drag expected in 2020 will at least be eliminated (if not turned into a fiscal boost), helping to prolong the cycle. The removal of fiscal drag will coincide with monetary easing, which is positive for markets since inflation is subdued. The Federal Reserve abandoned rate hikes this year (after four last year) because of the asymmetric risk of deflation relative to inflation (Chart 7). The FOMC believes that they can always jack up interest rates to combat an inflation overshoot, as their predecessors did in the 1980s, but that they are constrained by the zero lower-bound in interest rates. They may never recover from a loss of credibility and collapse of inflation expectations, so an insurance policy is necessary. The result is likely to be one or two rate cuts this year, which has already improved financial conditions. Chart 7The Fed Fears The Asymmetric Threat Of Deflation Bottom Line: Budget brinkmanship could become a near-term source of volatility but it is ultimately likely to be resolved with the pro-market outcome of less fiscal drag in 2020. The debt ceiling debate is unlikely to result in a U.S. default and any government shutdown is likely to resemble the short one of 2018 more than the long one of 2019. We expect U.S. equities to grind higher over the 12-month cyclical horizon, but we remain exceedingly cautious on a three-month tactical horizon. The price of Trump’s capitulation on border funding could be a renewed threat of tariffs against Mexico. The Budget Deal, Geopolitics, And The Dollar Chart 8China Shifts From Reform To Stimulus What does this fiscal outlook imply for the U.S. dollar? Near-term moves will probably be negative, since the fiscal boost outlined above will not be comparable to 2018-19, and meanwhile our view on China’s stimulus is bearing out reasonably well (Chart 8). Improvements in global growth, Fed cuts, and rising oil prices will weigh on the greenback even though later we expect the dollar to recover on the back of renewed U.S.-China conflict and global recession in 2021 or thereafter. Beyond the recession, two of our major political and geopolitical themes continue to point to large downside risk to the dollar: populist politics and multipolarity, or geopolitical competition among the world’s great powers. Beyond the recession, two of our major political and geopolitical themes continue to point to large downside risk to the dollar: populist politics and multipolarity. Populism and the Fed: Domestically, the United States is seeing a rise in populism that is continuing across administrations and political parties. This is conducive to easier monetary policy. Left-wing firebrand Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (AOC) recent exchange with Fed Chairman Jay Powell highlights the trend. AOC asked one of the most frequent questions that BCA’s clients ask: Does the Phillips Curve still work? Powell answered that in recent years it has not. President Trump’s Economic Director Larry Kudlow applauded AOC, saying “she kind of nailed that” (obviously the administration is pushing for lower rates). If inflation is not a risk, monetary policy need not guard against it. This interchange should be taken in the context of President Trump’s attempts to jawbone Powell into rate cuts and the notable monetary promiscuousness of his ostensibly “hard money” Federal Reserve nominees. The extremely different ideological and institutional profiles of these various policymakers suggests that a new consensus is forming that is conducive to more dovish monetary policy than otherwise expected over the long run. Populists of any stripe, from Trump to AOC, would like to see lower interest rates, higher nominal GDP growth, and a lower real debt burden on households. We are reminded of an oft-overlooked point about the stagflation of the 1970s. Fed Chair Arthur Burns is usually depicted as a lackey of President Richard Nixon who succumbed to political influence and failed to raise interest rates adequately to fight inflation. But this is only part of the story. Leaving aside that the Fed only had a single mandate of minimizing unemployment at that time, Burns was conflicted. He saw the need to fight inflation, but he had more than Nixon’s wrath to fear. He also dreaded the impact on the Fed’s credibility and popular support as an institution if he hiked rates too aggressively and stoked unemployment (Chart 9).4 Chart 9Rate Hikes Are Hard To Defend Amid High Unemployment In other words, populism can constrain the Fed from the bottom up as well as from the top down in a context of rising unemployment.5 Multipolarity and Currency War: Since President Trump’s election we have highlighted that dollar depreciation is likely to be the administration’s ultimate aim if President Trump’s overall economic strategy is truly to stimulate growth, reduce the trade deficit, and repatriate manufacturing. Jacking up growth rates relative to the rest of the world while disrupting global trade via tariffs is a recipe for a strong dollar that undermines the attempt to bring jobs back from overseas. We have always argued that China would not grant the U.S. “shock therapy” liberalization and market opening – and that neither China, nor Europe, nor Japan would or could engage in currency appreciation along the lines of a new Smithsonian or Plaza Accord. The U.S. does not have as much geopolitical clout as it had in the 1970s-80s when it forced major currency deals on its allies and partners. The remaining option is for the U.S. to attempt unilateral depreciation. The combination of profligate spending, easy monetary policy, and populism may do the trick. But it is also possible that President Trump will attempt to engineer depreciation through Treasury Department intervention. If a slide toward recession threatens his reelection – or he is reelected and hence gets rid of the first-term reelection constraint – his unorthodox policies pose a significant risk to the dollar. Bottom Line: The U.S. dollar faces near-term risks as growth rebalances towards rest of the world, but will probably resume its rise in the impending recessionary environment and expected re-escalation of tensions with China. Over the long run, it faces severe risks due to fiscal mismanagement, domestic populism, and geopolitical struggle. A Progressive Overshoot Will Hurt Democrats … And Equities Chart 10A Democratic Win Will Weigh On Animal Spirits The Democratic Party’s primary election is also a risk to the equity rally. We see a 45% risk that President Trump will be unseated in November 2020 and hence that the U.S. will once again experience a dramatic policy reversal (as in 2000, 2008, and 2016). The risks are to the downside because the market is at all-time highs and Democratic proposals include raising taxes on corporations and re-regulating the economy (Chart 10). Whether you accept our 55% odds of Trump reelection, the race will be a continual source of uncertainty for investors going forward. How extreme is the uncertainty? Former Vice President Joe Biden remains the frontrunner in the race, though he has lost his initial bump in opinion polls (Chart 11). Biden’s success is market-positive relative to the other Democratic candidates since he is an establishment politician and a known quantity. Given his age, a Biden presidency would likely last for one term and focus on repudiating Trumpism and consolidating the Obama administration’s signature achievements (the Affordable Care Act, Dodd-Frank, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, environmental regulation, etc). Greater predictability in the health care sector and a return to lower-level tensions with Iran would be market-positive. The financial sector would be consoled by the fact that nothing worse than Dodd-Frank would be in the offing. A Biden victory would be more likely to yield Democratic control of the senate than a progressive candidate’s victory.6 This means that the risk of Democrats taking full control of government and passing more than one major piece of legislation after 2020 increases with Biden. Yet any candidate capable of defeating Trump is likely to take the senate in our view; and Biden’s legislative initiatives are likely to be more centrist.7 So as long as Biden remains in the lead in primary polling, he increases his chances of winning the nomination, maximizes the 45% chance of Democrats winning the White House, and decreases the intensity of the relative policy uncertainty facing markets. The risk to the Democrats is … a left-wing or progressive overshoot that knocks out Biden in the primary, replacing him with a progressive candidate who may not be as electable in the general election. The risk to the Democrats is that the leftward policy shift within the party (Chart 12) may lead to a left-wing or progressive overshoot that knocks out Biden in the primary, replacing him with a progressive candidate who may not be as electable in the general election. This would give President Trump the ability to capitalize on his advantage as the incumbent by inveighing against socialism. Most of the major progressive candidates are electable – they have a popular and electoral path to the White House – as revealed by their successful head-to-head polling against Trump in battleground state opinion polling (Chart 13). But these pathways are narrower than Biden’s. Biden is the only candidate whose name has been on the ballot in two presidential elections carrying the critical Rust Belt swing states Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (not to mention Ohio and Florida). He is from Pennsylvania. And he is more competitive than most of his rivals in the American south and southwest, giving him the potential to pick up Florida or Arizona in the general election. But none of this matters if Biden cannot win the Democratic nomination first. The risk of a progressive overshoot is growing at present. Biden is losing his lead in the primary polling, as mentioned. Progressive candidates taken together are polling better than centrists, contrary to previous Democratic primaries (Chart 14). This is true even if we define centrists broadly, for instance to include Buttigieg (Chart 15). Biden is in a weaker position than Hillary Clinton in 2007 – and the more progressive candidate Obama ultimately defeated her (Chart 16). Biden has now slipped to second place in one national poll and some state polls. The second round of Democratic debates on July 30-31 will be a critical testing period for whether Biden can maintain frontrunner status. The first round fulfilled our expectation of boosting the progressives at his expense, especially Elizabeth Warren. It surprised us in dealing a blow to the campaign of Bernie Sanders, the independent Senator from Vermont who initiated the progressive left’s surge with his hard-fought race against Hillary Clinton in 2016. Sanders is more competitive than the other progressives in the Rust Belt, and in the general election, based on his head-to-head polling against Trump. Yet he has fallen behind in recent Democratic primary polling, ceding ground to Warren, Harris, and Buttigieg, who are all his followers in some sense. The second debate is a critical opportunity for him to arrest the loss of momentum. Otherwise he is likely to be fatally wounded: a collapse in polling beneath his floor of about 15%, and relative to other progressives, despite extensive name recognition, will make it very difficult for him to recover in the third round of debates in September. His votes will go toward other progressives, particularly Buttigieg – the other white male progressive-leaning candidate who is competitive in the Midwest.8 Our 55% base case that Trump is reelected rests on the high historical reelection rate for incumbents, particularly in the event of no recession during the first term – yet discounted due to Trump’s relatively low nationwide popularity, as it is reminiscent of a president in a recessionary environment (Chart 17). Trump has his ideological base more fired up than Obama did (Chart 18), which helps drive voter turnout, although as a result he risks losing support from the rest of the population. Still, Trump’s approval rating is in line with Obama’s at this stage in his first term. As long as the economy holds up and Trump does not suffer a foreign policy humiliation, he should be seen as a slight favorite. A Trump victory is not positive for risk assets, aside from a relief rally on policy continuity. This is because in a second term he cannot reproduce the same magnitude of pro-market effects (huge tax cuts and deregulation) yet, freed from the need for reelection, he has fewer political constraints in producing higher magnitude anti-market effects (tariffs and/or sanctions on China, Iran, Russia, and possibly the EU and Mexico). This view dovetails with the BCA House View which remains overweight equities relative to bonds and cash over a cyclical (12 month) horizon but underweight over the longer run with the expectation that a recession will loom. Bottom Line: The Democratic Primary election should start having an impact on markets – the general election is likely to be too close for market participants to have a high conviction, driving up uncertainty. Uncertainty will be especially pronounced if, and as, leftwing or progressive candidates outperform in the primary races and poll well against Trump in the general election. This dynamic is negative for business sentiment and the profit outlook, especially if Biden’s polling falls further in the wake of the second debate. Investment Conclusions We recommend staying long JPY-USD, long gold, and short CNY-USD. We remain overweight Thai equities within emerging markets, a defensive play. And we would not close our tactical overweight in health care sector and health care equipment sub-sector relative to the S&P 500. The rally in Chinese equities – despite China’s Q2 GDP growth rate of 6.2%, the worst in 27 years – brings full circle the view we initiated in April 2017 that Chinese President Xi Jinping’s consolidation of power would result in a major deleveraging drive that would drag on the global economy. Since February we have argued that the U.S. trade war has pushed Chinese policymakers to favor stimulus over reform – but we have also maintained that the effectiveness of stimulus is declining, especially as a result of the trade war hit to sentiment. Nevertheless, as a result of this turn in Chinese policy – along with the turn in U.S. monetary and fiscal policy – we see the global macroeconomic outlook improving. Combining this view with ongoing tensions in the Persian Gulf and the expectation that oil markets will tighten, we recommend our Commodity & Energy Strategy’s trade of going long Brent crude Q1 2020 versus Q1 2021. Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 See U.S. Department of Treasury, “Secretary Mnuchin Sends Debt Limit Letter to Congress,” July 12, 2019, home.treasury.gov. Jordan LaPier, “New Projection: Debt Limit “X Date” Could Arrive in September,” July 8, 2019, bipartisanpolicy.org. 2 See Jordain Carney and Niv Elis, White House, Congress inch toward debt, budget deal,” July 17, 2019, thehill.com. 3 See the Congressional Budget Office, “The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2019 to 2029,” January 2019; “Final Sequestration Report for Fiscal Year 2019,” February 2019; and Theresa Gullo, “Discretionary Appropriations Under the Budget Control Act,” Testimony before the Committee on the Budget, United States Senate, February 27, 2019, www.cbo.gov. 4 See James L. Pierce, “The Political Economy of Arthur Burns,” The Journal of Finance 34: 2 (1979), pp. 485-96, esp p. 489 regarding a congressional testimony: “Interestingly, no questions were raised or innuendo offered that monetary expansion would be excessive to support Richard Nixon’s reelection efforts. Instead, Burns was urged by the Democrats to follow an expansionary monetary policy in order to reduce the level of unemployment.” See also Athanasios Orphanides and John C. Williams, “Monetary Policy Mistakes and the Evolution of Inflation Expectations,” Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Working Paper 2010-12 (2011), www.frbsf.org. 5 An analogy might be drawn with the Supreme Court, whose independence as one of three constitutional branches is much more firmly grounded in U.S. law than the Fed’s, but nevertheless cannot make decisions in an ivory tower. It must consider the effects of its judgments on popular opinion, since universally deplored decisions would reduce the court’s credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of the public over time and ultimately the other government branches’ adherence to those decisions. 6 This is both because Biden is more electable (thus more likely to bring a vice president who can break a tie vote in the senate) and because his candidacy can help Democrats in all of the senate swing races – for example, Arizona as well as Colorado and Maine. Harris is not as helpful in Maine while Warren and Sanders are not as helpful in Arizona. 7 Biden would return to the 39.6% top marginal individual tax rate and double the capital gains tax on those earning incomes of more than $1 million. See Biden For President, “Health Care,” joebiden.com. 8 Conversely, if Biden somehow collapses, Buttigieg unlike Sanders has the option of moving toward the political center to absorb Biden’s large reservoir of support.
The term, coined by Harvard political scientist Graham Allison, refers to the ancient Greek historian Thucydides (460-400 BC), author of the seminal History of the Peloponnesian War. The “trap” is the armed conflict that most often develops when a dominant…
Rising polarization could prevent the U.S. from responding coherently to China. The Thucydides Trap could be avoided, or delayed, simply because the U.S. is distracted elsewhere. The most likely candidate is Iran. A lesser known Greek historian – who was…
Highlights The breakout in financial asset prices stands at odds with a deteriorating profit outlook. This suggests a high probability of a coiled-spring reversal in one of the two variables as we enter the thin summer trading months. We are maintaining a pro-cyclical currency stance, but are making a few portfolio tweaks in case we are caught offside during what could be a volatile summer. Maintain very tight stops on cable at 1.25, but look to sell EUR/GBP between 0.92 and 0.94. Our top pick for long positions are petrocurrencies, as geopolitical support is unlikely to ebb anytime soon. Buy a speculative basket of the Norwegian krone, Russian ruble, Mexican peso, and Colombian peso versus the euro. The latest RBA interest rate cut might be the ultimate insurance backstop needed to jumpstart the Australian economy. Remain long the Aussie dollar versus both the greenback and the kiwi, but with tight stops on the former. Any “flash crashes” are likely to favor the currencies of countries where tradeable bonds are in short supply. Remain short USD/JPY. Also, tactically sell gold bullion versus the yen. Feature Chart I-1The Markets And Data Diverge Financial markets are at an important crossroads as we head into the thin summer trading months. Asset prices have been reflated by plunging bond yields, with the S&P 500 hitting fresh highs this week. On the other hand, incoming manufacturing data across the major economies continue to deteriorate, suggesting the profit cycle remains in a downtrend. Either markets get better visibility into an improving profit outlook, or stock prices will succumb to the pressure of incoming data weakness (Chart I-1). For currency strategy, this means fundamentals could be temporarily put to the wayside, as markets flip the switch towards risk aversion. Our recommendations this week are threefold. First, maintain tight stops on tactical positions, especially those susceptible to summer volatility. Topping this list is our long position in the British pound. Second, our top pick for long positions are petrocurrencies, as geopolitical support is unlikely to ebb anytime soon. Finally, maintain portfolio insurance by being short the USD/JPY. Also, sell gold against the yen, given that relative sentiment has shifted in extreme favor of the former. A Summer Attack On The Pound? The episodes leading to the collapse of the pound in 1992 have important lessons for today.1 Britain entered the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) in October of 1990 in an attempt to find a stable nominal anchor. In the years preceding entry into the ERM, inflation in the U.K. had been high and rising, leading to an appreciation in the real exchange rate. The rationale was that by adopting German interest rates, inflation would finally be tempered, and the real exchange rate would eventually be realigned. Most of the adjustment in the pound happened quickly, but a key difference from today is that exit from the ERM was unanticipated, unlike Brexit. During the ensuing years, pressure on the pound was relatively short-lived and could be quickly reversed by foreign exchange interventions or modest increases in interest rates. Meanwhile, the prospect of a European Monetary Union (EMU) also provided an anchor for expectations, since it would allow for more sound domestic policies. Problems began to surface in June 1992, when the Danes voted no in a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty that included a chapter on the EMU. This led to severe doubts about the progress made towards a union, especially as the outcome of the French referendum in September was expected to be close. Investors began to question where the shadow exchange rate for ERM currencies lay, especially where the Italian lira or the Spanish peseta were concerned. In August of that year, Britain began to massively step up interventions in the foreign exchange market, having to borrow excessively through the Very Short Term Financing facility (VSTF) to increase reserves. It also promised to raise interest rates from 10% to 12%, and later to 15%. But as an overvalued exchange rate had generated extremely sluggish GDP growth going into the 1990s, markets were not convinced the U.K. would tap into its unlimited borrowing facility or raise interest rates sufficiently to defend the pound. On black Wednesday in September 1992, Britain suspended membership to the ERM. There are a few important lessons that stand in stark contrast to a hard Brexit: Most of the adjustment in the pound happened quickly, but a key difference from today is that exit from the ERM was unanticipated, unlike Brexit. Foreign exchange markets are extremely fluid and adjust to expectations quite quickly, usually with overshoots or undershoots. From its peak, GBP/USD depreciated by 24% by the end of October 1992. It subsequently fell to a low of 1.418 in February 1993 (Chart I-2). Peak to trough, cable has already fallen by 28%. Judging from the real effective exchange rate adjusted for consumer prices, the pound was overvalued as the U.K. entered the ERM. A persistent inflation differential between the U.K. and Germany had led to significant appreciation in the real rate. That gap is much narrower today (Chart I-3). Chart I-2The Pound Drop During ERM Was Quick And Violent Chart I-3Not Much Misalignment In##br## U.K. Prices Today The overvaluation of the pound meant that domestic growth was under tremendous pressure. Growth was already at recessionary levels entering into the ERM. Meanwhile, a bursting real estate bubble necessitated lower, not higher interest rates. This put to test the credibility of the peg. Today, U.K. growth is outpacing that of Germany, and will only improve if the pound drops further (Chart I-4). Productivity in the U.K. has kept pace with that of Germany over the last several years, suggesting the fall in the pound has been unwarranted. The Tory government runs a balanced budget and the Bank of England has much foreign exchange reserves to intervene in the market should confidence in the pound collapse. More importantly, the British currency is freely floating meaning there are less “hidden sins” compared to the fixed exchange rate period when it had to use the VSTF facility to boost reserves (Chart I-5). Chart I-4The U.K. Is Growing Faster Than The Eurozone's Engine Chart I-5Britain Has Lots Of ##br##FX Reserves A new conservative leadership is, at the margin, more negative for the pound (the assessment of our geopolitical strategists is that the odds of a hard Brexit have risen to 21% from 14%). However, our simple observation is that the pound is below where it was after the 2016 referendum results, yet more people are now in favor of staying in the union (Chart I-6). The pound is below where it was after the 2016 referendum results, yet more people are now in favor of staying in the union. This dichotomy might be the reason why in a speech this week, BoE Governor Mark Carney continued to highlight the growing divergence between market interest rate expectations (almost a 50% probability of a cut this year) and the central bank’s more hawkish bias. The experience of the ERM suggests it will be extremely destabilizing for the pound if the BoE is unable to anchor market interest rate expectations. This is especially true since the second quarter is likely to be a very weak one, leaving little time for data improvement until the October 31st Brexit deadline. Chart I-6More People In Favour Of The Union Chart I-7Cable Valuation Reflects Brexit Risk Putting it all together, our bias is that if there is a hard Brexit, the pound could easily drop to the 1.10-1.15 zone. Part of this move will be an undershoot. The real effective exchange rate of the pound is now lower than where it was after the U.K. exited the ERM in 1992, with a drawdown that has been of similar magnitude (24% in both episodes) (Chart I-7). In the case of a soft Brexit (or no Brexit), the pound should converge toward the mid-point of its (or above) historical real effective exchange rate range, which will pin it 15-20% higher, or at around 1.50. As for EUR/GBP, U.K. gilt yields stand at 108-basis-point over German bunds, an attractive spread should carry trades return in favor. Historically, such a spread has usually pinned the EUR/GBP much lower (Chart I-8). Yes, incoming data in the U.K. has softened, but employment growth has been holding up, wages are inflecting higher and the average U.K. consumer appears in decent shape. Investment and construction have been the weak spot in the U.K. economy, but may marginally improve on lower rates. Meanwhile, from a technical perspective, the pound is also oversold versus the euro (Chart I-9). Chart I-8EUR/GBP Is A Sell Long-Term Chart I-9EUR/GBP Is Overbought Bottom Line: Stay long the pound as we enter volatile summer trading, but maintain tight stops at 1.25. Sell EUR/GBP if 0.94 is touched. Buy A Speculative Basket Of Petrocurrencies Rising geopolitical tensions between the U.S. and Iran continue to support oil prices. Meanwhile, at its latest meeting, OPEC agreed to extend its production cuts to the first half of 2020. This will put upward pressure on forward curves, nudging oil near our Commodity & Energy Strategy service’s target of $75 per barrel.2 Should demand pick up later this year, it will supercharge the uptrend. More importantly, the risk of escalation between Iran and the U.S. is high, given that the former has been backed up into a corner on falling oil exports. Together with a weakening U.S. dollar, this will be categorically bullish for petrocurrencies. In our currency portfolio, we are long the NOK versus both the SEK and CAD as exposure to both crude oil prices and the Brent premium. This week, we are adding a speculative basket of the Colombian peso, Mexican peso and Russian ruble to benefit from any surge in the oil geopolitical risk premium. This basket is attractive for two reasons. First, the currencies are trading at a discount to what is implied by the oil price (Chart I-10). This discount could rapidly close if it becomes evident that oil supplies are at major risk. It is also beneficial that the shipping routes these supplies take categorically avoids the Straits of Hormuz, or the epicenter of the conflict. Second, the carry from the trade is attractive at 5%, which provides some cushion against downside risks. The risk of escalation between Iran and the U.S. is high. Together with a weakening U.S. dollar, this will be categorically bullish for petrocurrencies. The positive correlation between petrocurrencies and oil has been gradually eroded as the U.S. economy has become less and less of an oil importer. Meanwhile, Norwegian production has been falling for a few years. This is why it may be increasingly more profitable to be long a basket of petrocurrencies versus oil-consuming nations rather than the U.S. Going long versus the euro is also a cushion against a knee-jerk rally in the dollar. Also going long a basket of higher-yielding EM petrocurrencies versus DM ones is a good bet (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Petrocurrencies Are Attractive Chart I-11EM Versus DM Oil Basket Bottom Line: Buy a speculative basket of the Norwegian krone, Russian ruble, Mexican peso and Colombian peso versus the euro. Investors should also consider a basket of EM petrocurrencies versus DM ones. A Final Note On Gold The short-term technical picture for gold has become unfavorable. This suggests that investors could be caught offside in the interim holding gold as a hedge. We recommend swapping some gold bullion for yen to insure against this risk for three reasons: As both are safe-haven proxies, yen in gold terms has tended to mean revert since 2012, so as to maintain a stable ratio of 138,000 JPY per ounce of gold. Today, the yen is sitting at two standard deviations below this range (Chart I-12). Open interest for gold is surging towards new highs, while that of the yen is making fresh lows. In the case of a rush towards safe havens, the liquidity squeeze is likely to favor appreciation in the yen (Chart I-13). Chart I-12Sell Some Bullion For Yen Paper Chart I-13A Liquidity Squeeze Could Favor The Yen Speculators are long gold but short the yen, which is attractive from a contrarian standpoint (Chart I-14). Chart I-14Speculators Are Long Gold And Short Yen Bottom Line: Remain short USD/JPY and sell a basket of gold versus some yen. Chester Ntonifor, Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Mathias Zurlinden, “The Vulnerability of Pegged Exchange Rates: The British Pound in the ERM,” Economic Research, Vol. 75, No. 5 (September/October 1993). 2 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, titled “Oil Volatility Will Abate As Financial Conditions Ease,” dated July 4, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.S. have been soft: Headline PCE fell to 1.5% year-on-year in May. Core PCE was unchanged at 1.6% year-on-year. Personal income growth was unchanged at 0.5% month-on-month in May, while personal spending fell to 0.4% month-on-month. Markit composite and manufacturing PMI both increased to 51.5 and 50.6 in June. However, ISM manufacturing and non-manufacturing PMI both decreased to 51.7 and 55.1 in June. Chicago purchasing managers’ index fell to 49.7 in June. Trade deficit widened to $55.5 billion in May. Factory orders contracted by 0.7% month-on-month in May. Also, durable goods orders fell by 1.3% month-on-month in May. DXY index increased by 0.4% this week. Our bond-to-gold indicator continues to point towards a weaker dollar. We believe that the combination of Chinese stimulus and the lagged effects from easing financial conditions should lift the global growth later this year, which would be a headwind for the dollar. Report Links: On Gold, Oil And Cryptocurrencies - June 28, 2019 Battle Of The Central Banks - June 21, 2019 EUR/USD And The Neutral Rate Of Interest - June 14, 2019 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Recent data in the euro area have been mixed: Headline inflation was unchanged at 1.2% year-on-year in June, while core inflation increased to 1.1% year-on-year in June. Money supply (M3) grew by 4.8% year-on-year in May. Markit composite PMI increased to 52.2 in June. Manufacturing PMI fell to 47.6, while services PMI increased to 53.6. Unemployment rate fell to 7.5% in May. Producer price inflation fell to 1.6% year-on-year in May. Retail sales growth fell to 1.3% year-on-year in May. EUR/USD fell by 0.8% this week. IMF managing director Christine Lagarde was nominated to replace Mario Draghi as European Central Bank president this week. Analysts believe that she will likely maintain the ECB’s accommodative stance. This was confirmed by the plunge in 10-year bund yields to -40bps. Report Links: Battle Of The Central Banks - June 21, 2019 EUR/USD And The Neutral Rate Of Interest - June 14, 2019 Take Out Some Insurance - May 3, 2019 Japanese Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan have been mixed: The Tankan survey for Q2 was a mixed bag. The index for large manufacturers fell from 12 to 7. That for non-manufacturers increased from 21 to 23. Importantly, capex intentions rose from 1.2% to 7.4%. Housing starts contracted by 8.7% year-on-year in May. Construction orders continue to fall by 16.9% year-on-year in May. Nikkei composite PMI increased to 50.8 in June. Manufacturing PMI fell to 49.3, while services PMI increased to 51.9. Consumer confidence fell to 38.7 in June. USD/JPY has been flat this week. While Trump and Xi agreed to delay the trade talks during the G20 summit last weekend, there is no real progress toward a final trade agreement that could alleviate the tariffs. We continue to recommend the yen as a safe-haven hedge. Report Links: Battle Of The Central Banks - June 21, 2019 Short USD/JPY: Heads I Win, Tails I Don’t Lose Too Much - May 31, 2019 Beware Of Diminishing Marginal Returns - April 19, 2019 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. have been negative: GDP growth was unchanged at 1.8% year-on-year in Q1. Current account deficit widened to £30 billion in Q1. Markit composite PMI fell to 49.7 in June. Manufacturing PMI decreased to 48; Construction PMI fell to 43.1; Services PMI fell to 50.2. Mortgage approvals fell to 65.4 thousand in May, while the Nationwide house price index was up 0.5% year-on-year. GBP/USD fell by 1% this week. BoE governor Carney warned in a speech this week that “a global trade war and a no deal Brexit remain growing possibilities not certainties.” Moreover, he stated that monetary policy must address the consequences of such uncertainty for the behavior of business, household, and financial markets. The probability of a BoE rate cut by the end of this year has thus increased from 21% to 46% following his speech. Report Links: Battle Of The Central Banks - June 21, 2019 A Contrarian View On The Australian Dollar - May 24, 2019 Take Out Some Insurance - May 3, 2019 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Recent data in Australia have been mostly positive: The Markit manufacturing PMI increased from 51.7 to 52.0 Terms of trade remain in a powerful uptrend. HIA new home sales increased by 28.8% month-on-month in May. This is beginning to put a floor under building approvals. Trade surplus increased to A$5.8 billion in May, the highest on record. Retail sales increased by 0.1% month-on-month in May. AUD/USD increased by 0.3% this week. Following the rate cut last month, the RBA again cut interest rates by another 25 basis points to a historical low of 1% this week. During the policy statement, Governor Philip Lowe stated that this should support employment growth and provide greater confidence to achieve the inflation target. We continue to favor the Australian dollar from a contrarian perspective. Report Links: A Contrarian View On The Australian Dollar - May 24, 2019 Beware Of Diminishing Marginal Returns- April 19, 2019 Not Out Of The Woods Yet - April 5, 2019 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand have been positive: Consumer confidence increased by 2.8% month-on-month in June. Building permits increased by 13.2% month-on-month in May. NZD/USD fell by 0.3% this week. With its policy rate 50 basis points higher than its antipodean counterpart, the RBNZ is now under pressure to cut rates in the coming weeks. The market is currently pricing an 84% probability of a rate cut for the next policy meeting in August, and 94% chance rates will be cut before year-end. Should data disappoint in the interim, additional cuts could be priced in. Hold on to our long AUD/NZD and SEK/NZD positions. Report Links: Where To Next For The U.S. Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Not Out Of The Woods Yet - April 5, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Recent data in Canada have been positive: GDP growth increased to 1.5% year-on-year in Q1. Bloomberg Nanos confidence continues to rise to 58.3 last week. This tends to lead GDP growth by a quarter or two. Markit manufacturing PMI increased to 49.2 in June. Exports and imports both increased to C$53.1 billion and C$52.3 billion in May. The trade balance turned positive to C$0.8 billion on surging exports to the U.S. USD/CAD fell by 0.5% this week. The BoC Business Outlook Survey published last Friday highlighted that business sentiment has slightly improved, and that hiring intentions continue to be healthy. This should underpin the loonie in the near-term. Report Links: On Gold, Oil And Cryptocurrencies - June 28, 2019 Currency Complacency Amid A Global Dovish Shift - April 26, 2019 A Shifting Landscape For Petrocurrencies - March 22, 2019 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland have been negative: KOF leading indicator fell to 93.6 in June. Real retail sales contracted by 1.7% year-on-year in May. Manufacturing PMI fell to 47.7 in June. Headline inflation was unchanged at 0.6% year-on-year in June, while core inflation increased to 0.7% year-on-year in June. USD/CHF increased by 0.4% this week. The CHF/NZD cross has been correcting in recent weeks, and could eventually trigger our limit buy order at 1.45. Stay tuned. Report Links: What To Do About The Swiss Franc? - May 17, 2019 Beware Of Diminishing Marginal Returns - April 19, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway have been mixed: Manufacturing PMI fell from 54.1 to 51.9 in June. Registered unemployment was unchanged at 2.1% in June. House prices are inflecting higher, to the tune of 2.6% year-on-year in June. USD/NOK fell by 0.5% this week. This week’s OPEC meeting extended the production cuts into 1Q20. Easing global financial conditions and Chinese stimulus should help revive oil demand. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy team continues to expect Brent to average $75/bbl by the end of this year. Stay long NOK/SEK and short CAD/NOK. Report Links: On Gold, Oil And Cryptocurrencies - June 28, 2019 Currency Complacency Amid A Global Dovish Shift - April 26, 2019 A Shifting Landscape For Petrocurrencies - March 22, 2019 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Recent data in Sweden have been negative: Retail sales fell by 0.5% year-on-year in May. Composite PMI fell to 50.5 in June. Manufacturing and services PMI both fell to 52 and 49.9. USD/SEK increased by 0.4% this week. The Riksbank held its interest rate unchanged at -0.25% this week as widely expected. However, the tone in the communique was hawkish. That said, the trade disputes between U.S. and China, and the Brexit chaos remain downside risks to the European economy, and the Riksbank might push the planned rate hike further down the road. Report Links: Where To Next For The U.S. Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 A Simple Attractiveness Ranking For Currencies - February 8, 2019 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades