Geopolitics
Highlights The protectionist option in U.S. policy is here to stay; President Trump is likely to impose punitive measures on China before the U.S. midterm elections; The U.S. Section 301 investigation into China's intellectual property theft is about national security more than trade; China's NPC session suggests the Communist Party is downshifting growth rates; The North Korean diplomatic breakthrough is real ... stay focused on U.S.-China tensions. Feature "I won't rule out direct talks with Kim Jong Un. I just won't ... As far as the risk of dealing with a madman is concerned, that's his problem, not mine." - U.S. President Donald J. Trump, March 4, 2018 Two of our key 2018 views came to the fore over the past two weeks. First, U.S. President Donald Trump took protectionist action that rattled the markets.1 Second, North Korean diplomacy surprised to the upside, with Trump accepting an invitation to meet with Kim Jong Un by this May.2 The nuclear program is allegedly up for discussion. Markets recovered quickly from Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs, with the VIX falling and American and global equities continuing to rally (Chart 1). Trump's formal tariff proclamation was not as disruptive as some had feared. He provided exemptions for entire countries - rather than merely companies - based on an appeals process that will include economic as well as geopolitical criteria. But while he struck an optimistic note on NAFTA (on which Canada's and Mexico's exemptions will depend), he struck a pessimistic note on trade talks with China. Chart 1Markets Shrugged Off Protectionism China is quickly becoming the foremost political and geopolitical risk of the year, as we discuss in this report. First, diplomacy with North Korea will not remove the risk of serious U.S. protectionism toward China.3 Second, China's domestic reforms are proceeding, posing downside risks to Chinese imports and hence global growth. We conclude with a brief word on why investors should take the North Korean diplomacy as a hugely positive development. There may be some volatile episodes during the upcoming negotiations, but U.S.-China relations are the real risk and North Korea remains largely a derivative of the emerging "Warm War" between the two global behemoths. "Death By China" In the past few weeks, the Trump administration has moved swiftly to begin implementing its protectionist platform.4 Trump's formal announcement of global tariffs on steel and wrought and unwrought aluminum products marked the shift, although investors got a foreshadowing with the January announcement of washing machine and solar panel tariffs. The latest tariffs are insignificant in macroeconomic terms. They will affect less than 0.3% of global exports and less than 2% of U.S. imports.5 The market has thus far cheered the limited scope of the tariffs and the numerous exemptions that will surely follow. But the danger is that investors are underestimating the political shifts that underpin Trump's move. In fact, there is little reason to think that protectionism will fade when Trump leaves office: Americans are susceptible to it, according to opinion polling (Chart 2). Now that the seal has been broken - and that by a president who hails from the "pro-free trade" Republican Party - the danger is what happens when the next recession occurs. Politicians of all stripes will be more likely to propose protectionist solutions. The long trend of decline in U.S. tariffs since the 1930s may gradually begin to reverse (Chart 3), confirming our key decade theme that globalization has reached its apex. Chart 2Americans Not Immune To Protectionism Chart 3U.S. Tariffs: Nowhere To Go But Up! How far will the protectionist threat go in the short term? Investors should focus on two bellwethers. First, the outcome of NAFTA re-negotiations.6 Second, a decision by the Trump administration on how to respond to the U.S. Trade Representative Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 investigation into China's practices on technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation, discussed below. China is an industrial powerhouse that is becoming more technologically adept, which threatens the core advantage of the United States in what could soon become a "Warm War" between the two global hegemons. Trump was elected on a pledge to get aggressive on China and is relatively unconstrained on trade policy (Table 1). U.S.-China economic interdependency has declined, reducing the two countries' ability to manage tensions.7 Table 1Trump Lacks Legal Constraints On Trade Issues Moreover, Trump is relatively unpopular - which jeopardizes the GOP Congress in November - and he will need to take actions to remain relevant ahead of the November 6 midterm elections (Chart 4). The U.S. and China are currently bickering about the size of the trade imbalance (Chart 5), not to mention the causes and solutions. What will the U.S. demand? This was the question of Xi Jinping's top economic adviser, Politburo member Liu He, when he visited Washington D.C. on March 1-3 for emergency meetings with the U.S. administration. He was rebuffed with the announcement on tariffs. Washington has been arguing that high-level dialogues with China - that investors cheered after the Mar-a-Lago Summit - have failed and that punitive measures will go forward unless China makes quick and concrete improvements to the trade balance, starting with $100 billion worth of new imports.8 Chart 4Trump's Low Approval Jeopardizes Control Of Congress In November Chart 5U.S.-China: Disagreeing Even On The Facts In response, Liu has promised that China will redouble its economic "reform and opening up" process and has asked the United States for an official list of demands. Our sense is that there are broadly two types of demands: Cyclical demands: Beijing often does one-off purchases of big-ticket items to ally Washington's ire over trade. This time, it would have the added benefit for Trump of coming right ahead of the midterm election. Trump's request on March 8 for an immediate $100 billion reduction in the trade deficit could fall in this category. Structural demands: If Trump seeks to be a game changer in the U.S.-China relationship, then he will demand accelerated structural reforms: for instance, a lasting decrease in the deficit due to a permanent opening of market access. He could also begin pushing a "mirror tax" on trade (reciprocal tariffs) so as to reduce the gap between the U.S. and China, which is less justifiable now that China is an economic juggernaut (Chart 6). Trump could also demand action on several long-standing U.S. requests: Chart 6Not All That Much Daylight On U.S.-China Tariff Rates Opening foreign investment access to a broad range of sectors (beyond finance), such as transportation, logistics, information technology, or even telecommunications; The right to operate wholly U.S.-owned companies in China; An open capital account and truly free-floating currency; Subsidy cuts for state-owned enterprises (SOEs); Full digital access for U.S. tech companies; An improved arbitration system for legal disputes. Since rapidly implementing many of these demands could threaten China's stability or even undermine the Communist Party, Trump may have to use the threat of sweeping tariffs to try to force them through. The current news flow suggests that Trump is favoring cyclical solutions. At the same time, we expect China to make at least some significant structural compromises: China does not want a trade war. China is more exposed to the U.S. than the U.S. is to China (Chart 7). Moreover, China's political system is rigid and opposed to mass unemployment. The last time China allowed mass layoffs was in 1999, and even then the state controlled the process. A trade war, by contrast, would threaten 223 million manufacturing employees with uncontrolled job losses. The central government is focused on stability; while it will insist on "saving face" internationally through tit-for-tat measures, it will go to great lengths to avoid a negative spiral. This will require compromises. China wants structural reform. Xi Jinping is rebooting a reform agenda that requires transitioning away from old industries. These reforms are long overdue and Xi can parlay many of them to pacify Trump. For instance, China has improved the market-orientation of the renminbi, causing Trump to cease his complaints about currency manipulation (Chart 8). China currently claims it is about to increase imports and open its financial sector further to foreign investment. Chart 7China More Exposed To U.S., But Not By Much Chart 8China: Structural Reform As Trade Concession The jury is still out on the deepest structural issues. We expect Xi's latest reform push to surprise to the upside, but it is not clear how far he will go. For instance, while Beijing might begin to ease capital controls imposed in 2016, it would be a shock if it agreed to rapidly liberalize the capital account. The same goes for granting extensive access to strategic sectors, downgrading state support for SOEs, or moderating cyber controls that punish U.S. companies. Any promises of gradual progress on these issues will likely be seen by the U.S. as no different from past promises to past presidents. Hence everything depends on whether Trump will be satisfied by token Beijing actions that look good ahead of the midterms. It is ominous that China has already drastically cut steel and aluminum overcapacity, and yet Trump imposed tariffs anyway. This kind of delayed retribution could become a pattern. Bottom Line: China has the means to prevent a trade war through significant compromises that Trump can advertise as "wins" to his domestic audience this November. If Trump accepts these concessions, the risk of trade war will effectively be removed until the next major electoral test in 2020. However, Trump lacks constitutional and legal constraints on the use of tariffs, which means that he can override China's offers and instigate a trade war anyway. This risk has a fair probability, given midterm politics and the fact that overall U.S.-China interdependency, the key economic constraint to conflict, has eroded over the past decade. A Bellwether: The Intellectual Property Investigation The immediate bellwether for the Trump administration's appetite for trade war will be Trump's handling of the Section 301 investigation on technology transfer, intellectual property (IP), and innovation. A ruling is due no later than August 18, but reports indicate action could come quickly.9 Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974 is the prime law by which the U.S. seeks to enforce trade agreements, resolve disputes, and open markets. Under this law, the U.S. executive - i.e. the president - can impose trade sanctions against countries deemed to be violating trade agreements or engaging in unreasonable or discriminatory trade practices. The law is specific in addressing intellectual property violations and closed market access, and yet broad in giving the executive leeway to interpret "unjustifiable" practices and mete out punishment. It does, however, require negotiations with the foreign trading partner to remedy the situation before the U.S. imposes duties or other remedies. We expect the U.S. to draw a hard line. A close look reveals that this Section 301 probe is primarily addressing strategic problems, not trade problems. To be fair, the U.S.'s trade grievances have merit. Clearly there is room for China to improve the IP trade balance. The ratio of IP receipts versus IP payments shows that the U.S. is a world-leader, while China is an extreme IP laggard, as one would expect (Chart 9). And yet the U.S. barely runs a trade surplus with China in IP, and far less of a surplus than with Taiwan and Korea, which are more advanced than China and thus ought to be more competitive with the U.S. than China (Chart 10). The U.S. appears particularly disadvantaged in the Chinese market when it comes to computer software and trademarks (Chart 11), judging by its IP exports to similar Asian partners. Chart 9China Is An Innovation Laggard... Chart 10... Yet Its IP Deficit With U.S. Is Small Also, in many cases Chinese companies have gained a dominant share of new markets, like e-commerce, where the U.S. would have a larger share if it had been allowed to compete fairly in the nascent stages. The U.S. wants to prevent this from happening again. The "Made In China 2025" program, for example, combines ambitious goals in supercomputers, robotics, medical devices, and smart cars, while setting domestic localization targets that would favor Chinese companies over foreigners (Chart 12). China will have to compromise on this program to stave off tariffs. Chart 11China Skirting Fees On U.S. Software? Chart 12China's High-Tech Protectionism Nevertheless, China is a large and growing market for U.S. high-tech goods, intellectual property, and services exports (Chart 13). A comparison with Taiwan and South Korea suggests that China could open up greater access to these U.S. exports (Chart 14). The truth is that, unlike with staunch ally Japan, the U.S. harbors deep misgivings about China's strategic intentions. This is why it limits high-tech exports to China - which, as Beijing often points out, creates an abnormal imbalance in this column of the trade book (Chart 15). Chart 13U.S. Tech And IP Exports To China Growing Chart 14China Could Give U.S. More Market Share Chart 15U.S. Deficit Due To Security Concerns Thus while the trade concerns above are not to be scoffed at, the Section 301 probe is clearly about U.S. security. The main practices under investigation are: Forced technology transfer by means of joint-venture (JV) requirements, ownership caps, government procurement, and administrative or regulatory interventions; Unfair licensing and contracting pricing, and abuses of proprietary technology; State-backed investment and/or acquisitions in the U.S. to acquire cutting-edge tech and IP; Cyber-espionage and intrusion to acquire tech and IP. Only one of these is about market pricing. The others speak to the U.S. belief that the Communist Party has orchestrated a "techno-nationalist" agenda that combines aggressive and illegal acquisitions with domestic protectionism. In particular, Chinese companies have made strategic acquisitions in the U.S. through shell companies with state funds or state guidance to access critical technologies and IP, while forcing American companies operating in China to transfer over the same as a precondition to operate there.10 Washington fears that if Beijing' strategy continues unabated, high-tech Chinese companies will be able to gain the best western technology, grow uninhibited in the massive domestic market with state financial support, and then launch competitive operations on a global scale. Moreover, the lack of division between China's ruling party, state apparatus, and corporate sector means that technologies acquired by Chinese companies can be directly appropriated by the country's military and intelligence apparatus to the detriment of the strategic balance with the U.S. How will the U.S. retaliate? We are unsure, and therein lies the risk for the market.11 Trump has floated the idea of levying a large "fine" or indemnity on China for past IP violations. The U.S. believes that IP theft amounts to a "second trade deficit" with China, with estimates of annual losses ranging from $200 billion to nearly $600 billion.12 U.S. remedies will become clearer when the USTR offers its recommendations. Bottom Line: The Section 301 probe is not about the trade deficit alone. It is about the growing tension between U.S. and China in a broader strategic context. We would expect the USTR to propose trade remedies that are more significant than the recent steel and aluminum tariffs. And we would expect Trump to impose some punitive measures. This is a source of near-term risk to markets, as the U.S. and China are less likely to manage their disputes smoothly than in the past. We are short China-exposed U.S. stocks relative to their domestic-oriented peers. China's NPC Session: On Track For Downside Risk Surprises Chart 16Downward Revisions In Chinese Growth China's NPC session is not yet over but some preliminary takeaways are in order. The headlines focused on Xi Jinping's power grab, but for us the real relevance was economic policy. Signs of economic policy tightening are not as hawkish as we expected, but the bias remains in favor of slower growth and tighter monetary, fiscal, and financial policy. The 6.5% GDP growth target was not a surprise. China has various economic targets to meet in 2020 under existing economic plans; only after that does it say it will scrap GDP targets altogether. The GDP target is a fabrication but the point is that the direction is down. Local government GDP targets suggest downward revision as well (Chart 16). To put a point on it, there is no evidence that China's cyclical slowdown is on the cusp of reversing (Table 2).13 Table 2No Convincing Signs Of An Impending Upturn In China's Economy In this context, it is notable that the government got rid of official targets for monetary growth (M2). This confirms the view of our colleagues at BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy that China has been targeting interest rates instead of the quantity of money since 2015 (Chart 17).14 This means that M2 growth can rise or fall as high or as low as necessary to meet the PBoC's interest rate targets. The takeaway for now is that M2 growth can go lower than the recent 8%-9% range in which it has been moving, since the current policy is to "control" money growth and avoid systemic risk. The new leadership at the People's Bank of China will have a challenge to establish its credibility, which means that accommodative compromises may not come as quickly as some expect. Chart 17A New Monetary Policy Regime On the fiscal front, China implied some tightening by lowering its official budget deficit target to 2.6%. Past reports show that China always meets its budget deficit targets perfectly (Chart 18), suggesting that the target is either meaningless or Beijing has a steely discipline unseen in the rest of the world. The IMF publishes an augmented budget deficit which, at 12% of GDP, gives a better indication of why authorities want to maintain control, if not outright tighten the reins (Chart 19).15 The Finance Ministry rushed to dampen speculation that this budget deficit reduction would amount to austerity. Approximately 550 billion yuan of additional "special purpose bonds" - issued by local governments to finance infrastructure projects - will be issued in 2018. This could amount to new spending worth 2% of last year's total spending, i.e. not a negligible sum. The purpose may be to smooth over the conclusion of the local government debt swap program that began in 2014. The debt swap program was a "game changer" by allowing local governments to exchange high-interest or short-term debt for low-interest, long-term, government-backed debt. Now Beijing is winding down the program and telling local governments that new bond issuance will not have the implicit guarantee of the central government, and will face higher interest rates. Chart 18China's Budget Deficit Target Is Meaningless Chart 19China's Real Budget Deficit Is Large Similarly, Beijing has been attempting to provide formal banks more freedom to lend to offset its crackdown on shadow banks. Pursuant to this goal, it announced that required provisions for non-performing loans (NPLs) will be reduced from 150% of NPLs to 120%. Banks are already holding excess provisions, and provisions have been trending upwards. Meanwhile China's official NPL count is unbelievably low, warranting higher provisions. So it is not clear to what extent banks will lend more as a result of lower requirements. January and February credit numbers imply that credit policy remains tight even aside from the wind-down of the local government debt swap (Chart 20). The dust has not yet settled on the NPC session and we will soon examine some of the other policy announcements, like tax cuts for small businesses and infrastructure spending reductions. However, the implication so far is that the Communist Party wants to keep the fiscal deficit and total social financing flat this year. If this policy were executed faithfully, the fiscal and credit impulse would be zero this year. Simultaneously, new data revealed that, in keeping with the reform reboot, the Xi administration is allowing creative destruction to improve efficiency in the corporate sector. Bankruptcies rocketed upward in 2017 and this trend should continue (Chart 21). This is a notable development given the widespread perception that China does not know how to deal with social consequences of structural reforms. It suggests that policymakers have a higher threshold for economic pain. Chart 20Credit Growth Is Slowing Chart 21Creative Destruction Is Rising Finally, the new anti-corruption super-ministry, the National Supervisory Commission, has now received legislative clearance. It is still unclear how the new body will operate in practice. We maintain that on the margin it should be negative for economic growth due to the micro-level impact of corruption probes on local government officials and local state enterprises. Notably, some of the provinces whose GDP-weighted economic growth targets were the most aggressively revised downwards (Tianjin, Chongqing, Inner Mongolia) are also provinces that have been hit heavily with anti-corruption probes, accusations of falsifying data, and canceled infrastructure projects over the past year. The anti-corruption campaign is a tool for enforcing central party dictates more effectively, and at present those dictates call for minimizing systemic financial risk, including misallocation of capital by local authorities (Chart 22). Chart 22Anti-Corruption Campaign Encourages Downward GDP Revisions? Bottom Line: Policy settings in China will continue to constrain growth this year. Now that the policy shift toward accelerated reform is more evident, the downside risks of that move will become apparent. We are closing our long China H-shares versus EM trade for a gain of 3%. North Korea: This Time Is Different A brief concluding word on North Korea. While we did not expect that Trump and Kim would arrange to meet so soon, we are not surprised by the fact that the diplomatic track is moving forward. As we wrote in January, Trump demonstrated a credible military threat, forcing China to implement sanctions, which subsequently caused North Korea to stop testing missiles. Trump effectively called Kim Jong Un's bluff, daring him to go beyond missile and nuclear device tests. Instead of ratcheting up tensions, Kim declared victory on the nuclear deterrent and proclaimed the end of the crisis. This is the "Arc of Diplomacy" about which we have written (Chart 23).16 We reject the view in the media that Trump's policy has been erratic and that China is getting left on the sidelines of a Trump-Kim meet-up. China has cut off exports to North Korea (Chart 24), which in turn has cut off the regime's access to hard currency. Because of China, Kim literally cannot afford not to negotiate. Chart 23Credible Threat Cycle: North Korea Mirrors Iran Chart 24China Gives Kim To Trump For the same reason, Kim is not likely to be bluffing or stalling: with limited conventional military capabilities, Kim cannot dial up and dial down the level of tensions at will. If he provokes the U.S. anew, he risks provoking a war that would destroy his regime. Moreover, from the moment he came to power, Supreme Leader Kim established a desire to elevate the importance of economic reforms within state policy, which is impossible without dealing with China and the U.S. to create a favorable international setting. From the U.S. side, Trump has likely notched up a major national security victory that will enhance his credibility in the 2018 midterms and especially 2020 elections. A clear risk to our view that Trump will take protectionist action toward China this year is that he will need China's continued cooperation, as it could relax sanctions enforcement. However, the strategic significance of the Section 301 investigation means that Trump cannot afford to sacrifice his trade agenda so soon. While bad news from North Korea seldom has a substantial impact on markets, our South Korean curve steepener benefited. So far it has returned 2.9%. The JPY/EUR has fallen back from a strong February rally, but we remain long. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, Weekly Report, "Geopolitics - From Overstated To Understated Risks," dated November 22, 2017, and Special Report, "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 In September we highlighted that the North Korean threat cycle had peaked. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, and Special Report, "BCA Geopolitical Strategy 2017 Report Card," dated December 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 The Apprentice-style personnel reshuffle that has seen Peter Navarro, director of the National Trade Council, elevated above the departed Gary Cohn, has signaled the return of the protectionist agenda. 5 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump's Tariffs: A Q&A," dated March 9, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II," dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Not $1 billion, as Trump erroneously tweeted! 9 One year after the date of initiation is likely August 18, the date used in the USTR's description in the Federal Register, although President Trump signed off on August 14 which could mark an earlier deadline. Please see Andrew Restuccia and Adam Behsudi, "Trump Eyes Another Trade Crackdown," Politico, March 7, 2018, available at www.politico.com. Note that according to the text of the law, by late May, the U.S. Trade Representative could report that China is making sufficient progress and further action unnecessary (but this is unlikely). The recent handling of the Section 232 investigation into steel and aluminum suggests that punitive measures will be foreshadowed by public statements from U.S. officials. 10 For detailed assessments, please see USTR, "2017 Special 301 Report," which puts China at the top of the priority watch list; USTR, "2017 Report To Congress On China's WTO Compliance," January 2018; U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, "2017 Report To Congress," November 2017. 11 As a frame of reference, in the dispute over U.S. beef exports to the EU, a prominent Section 301 case, the U.S. imposed 100% ad valorem tariffs on 34 products from the EU in 1999 until 2009. However, Trump's actions are likely to go well beyond this due to the strategic nature of the dispute. Not only can he impose tariffs on 100 or more specific goods - since Chinese IP violations run the gamut - but also he can impose restrictions on Chinese investment through the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS), which is tightening scrutiny on China in general. 12 The $600 billion "high water mark" estimate comes from the former Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair and former director of the National Security Agency Keith Alexander. They also emphasize that the U.S. has additional retaliatory options (outside of the 1974 trade law) under the Economic Espionage Act, Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the National Defense Authorization Act. Please see "China's Intellectual Property Theft Must Stop," The New York Times, August 15, 2017, available at www.nytimes.com. 13 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China And The Risk Of Escalation," dated March 7, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB," dated November 23, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 15 At the same time, the government issued guidelines suggesting that scrutiny of local government budgets, and specifically expenditures, will get stricter. The cancellation of subway/metro projects is already a trend that is well underway, but other inefficient projects and capital misallocation could be targeted next. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar
Dear Client, Following up on last week's report, my colleagues Caroline Miller, Mathieu Savary, and I held a webcast on Wednesday to discuss the outlook for the dollar along with recent events. If you haven't already, I hope you find the time to listen in. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Protectionism is popular with the American public in general, and Trump's base specifically. The sabre-rattling will persist, but an all-out trade war is unlikely. Trump is focused on the stock market, and equities would suffer mightily if a trade war broke out. The Pentagon has also warned of the dangers of across-the-board tariffs that penalize America's military allies. The rationale for protectionism made a lot more sense when there were masses of unemployed workers. That's not the case today. The equity bull market will eventually end, but chances are that this will happen due to an overheated U.S. economy and rising financial imbalances, not because of escalating trade protectionism. Investors should remain overweight global equities for now, but look to pare back exposure later this year. Feature Q: What prompted Trump's announcement? A: Last week began with President Trump proclaiming that he would seek re-election in 2020. Then came a slew of negative news, including the resignation of Hope Hicks, Trump's White House communications director, and the downgrading of Jared Kushner's security clearance. All this happened against the backdrop of the ever-widening Mueller probe. Trump needed to change the subject. Fast. However, it would be a mistake to think that the tariff announcement was simply a distractionary tactic. Turmoil in the White House might have been the immediate trigger, but events had been building towards this outcome for some time. The Trump administration had imposed tariffs on washing machines and solar panels in January. Hiking tariffs on steel and aluminum - two industries that had suffered heavy job losses over the past two decades - was a logical next step. In fact, the 25% tariff on steel and 10% tariff on aluminum were similar to the 24% and 7.7% tariff rates, respectively, that the Commerce Department proposed as one of three options on February 16th.1 Protectionism is popular with the American public. This is especially true for Trump's base (Chart 1). Indeed, it is safe to say that Trump's unorthodox views on trade are what handed him the Republican nomination and what allowed him to win key swing (and manufacturing) states such as Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Trump made a promise to his voters. He is trying to keep it. Q: Wouldn't raising trade barriers hurt the U.S. economy, thereby harming the same workers Trump is trying to help? A: That's the line coming from the financial press and most of the political establishment, but it's not as clear cut as it may seem. An all-out trade war would undoubtedly hurt the U.S., but a minor skirmish probably would not. The U.S. does run a large trade deficit. Economists Katharine Abraham and Melissa Kearney recently estimated that increased competition from Chinese imports cost the U.S. economy 2.65 million jobs between 1999 and 2016, almost double the 1.4 million jobs lost to automation.2 This accords with other studies, such as the one by David Autor and his colleagues, which found that increased trade with China has led to large job losses in the U.S. manufacturing sector (Chart 2).3 Chart 1Trump Is Catering ##br##To His Protectionist Base Chart 2China's Ascent Has Reduced##br## U.S. Manufacturing Employment Granted, China does not even make it into the top ten list of countries that export steel to the United States. But that is somewhat beside the point. As with most commodities, there is a fairly well-integrated global market for steel. Due to its proximity to Asian markets, China exports most of its steel to the rest of the region (Chart 3). That does not stop Chinese overcapacity from dragging down prices around the world. Chart 3Most Of China's Steel Exports Don't Travel That Far Q: Wouldn't steel and aluminum tariffs simply raise prices for American consumers, thereby reducing real wages? A: That depends. If Trump's gambit reduces the U.S. trade deficit, this will increase domestic spending, putting more upward pressure on wages. As far as prices are concerned, the U.S. imported $39 billion of iron and steel in 2017, and an additional $18 billion of aluminum. That's only 2% of total imports and less than 0.3% of GDP. If import prices went up by the full amount of the tariff, this would add less than five basis points to inflation. And even that would be a one-off hit to the price level, rather than a permanent increase in the inflation rate. In practice, it is doubtful that prices would rise by the full amount of the tariff (if they did, what would be the purpose of retaliatory measures?). Most econometric studies suggest that producers will absorb about half of the tariff in the form of lower profit margins. To the extent that this reduces the pre-tariff price of imported goods, it would shift the terms of trade in America's favor. Chart 4Does Trade Retaliation Make Sense ##br## When Most Trade Is In Intermediate Goods? There is an old economic theory, first elucidated by Robert Torrens in the 19th century, which says that the optimal tariff is always positive for countries such as the U.S. that are price-makers rather than price-takers in international markets. Put more formally, Torrens showed that an increase in tariffs from very low levels was likely to raise government revenue and producer surplus by more than the loss in consumer surplus. So, in theory, the U.S. could actually benefit at the expense of the rest of the world by imposing higher tariffs.4 Q: This assumes that there is no trade retaliation. How realistic is that? A: That's the key. As noted above, a breakdown of the global trading system would hurt the U.S., but a trade spat could help it. Trump was trying to scare the opposition by tweeting "trade wars are good, and easy to win." In a game of chicken, it helps to convince your opponent that you are reckless and nuts. Trump's detractors would say he is both, so that works in his favor. Trump has another thing working for him. Most trade these days is in intermediate goods (Chart 4). It does not pay for Mexico to slap tariffs on imported U.S. intermediate goods when those very same goods are assembled into final goods in Mexico - creating jobs for Mexican workers in the process - and re-exported to the U.S. or the rest of the world. The same is true for China and many other countries. This does not preclude the imposition of targeted retaliatory tariffs. The EU has threatened to raise tariffs on Levi's jeans and Harley Davidson motorcycles (whose headquarters, not coincidently, is located in Paul Ryan's Wisconsin district). We would not be surprised if high-end foreign-owned golf courses were also subject to additional scrutiny! But if this is all that happens, markets won't care. The fact that the United States imports much more than it exports also gives Trump a lot of leverage. Take the case of China. Chinese imports of goods and services are 2.65% of U.S. GDP, but exports to China are only 0.96% of GDP. And nearly half of U.S. goods exports to China are agricultural products and raw materials (Chart 5). Taxing them would be difficult without raising Chinese consumer prices. Simply put, the U.S. stands to lose less from a trade war than most other countries. Chart 5China Stands To Lose More From A Trade War With The U.S. Q: Couldn't China and other countries punish the U.S. by dumping Treasurys? A: They could, but why would they? Such an action would only drive down the value of the dollar, giving U.S. exporters an even greater advantage. The smart, strategic response would be to intervene in currency markets with the aim of bidding up the dollar. Chart 6Slowing Global Growth Is Bullish##br## For The Dollar Q: So the dollar could strengthen as a result of rising protectionism? A: Yes, it could. This is a point that even Mario Draghi made at yesterday's ECB press conference. If higher tariffs lead to a smaller trade deficit, this will increase U.S. aggregate demand. The boost to demand would be amplified if more companies decide to relocate production back to the U.S. for fear of being shut out of the lucrative U.S. market. The U.S. economy is now operating close to full employment. Anything that adds to demand is likely to prompt the Fed to raise rates more aggressively than it otherwise would. That could lead to a stronger greenback. Considering that the U.S. is a fairly closed economy which runs a trade deficit, it would suffer less than other economies in the event of a trade war. A scenario where global growth slows because of rising trade tensions, while the composition of that growth shifts towards the U.S., would be bullish for the dollar (Chart 6). Q: What are the implications for stocks and bonds? A: Wall Street will dictate what happens to stocks, but Main Street will dictate what happens to bonds. The stock market hates protectionism, so it is no surprise that equities sold off last week. It is this fact that ultimately got Trump to soften his position. Trump is used to taking credit for a rising stock market. If stocks flounder, this could make him think twice about pushing for higher trade barriers. As far as bonds are concerned, they will react to whatever happens to growth and inflation. As noted above, a trade skirmish could actually boost growth and inflation. Given that the economy is near full capacity, the latter is likely to rise more than the former. This, too, could cause Trump to cool his heels. After all, if higher inflation pushes up bond yields, this will hurt highly-levered sectors such as, you guessed it, real estate. Q: In conclusion, where do you see things going from here? A: Trade frictions will continue. As my colleague Marko Papic highlighted in a report published earlier this week, NAFTA negotiations are likely to remain on the ropes for some time.5 The Trump administration is also investigating allegations of Chinese IP theft. The U.S. is a major exporter of intellectual property, but these exports would be much larger if U.S. companies were properly compensated for their ingenuity. Chinese imports of U.S. intellectual property were less than 0.1% of Chinese GDP in 2017, an implausibly small number (Chart 7). If China is found to have acted unfairly, this could lead the U.S. to impose across-the-board tariffs on Chinese goods and restrictions on inbound foreign direct investment. Nevertheless, as noted above, worries about a plunging stock market will constrain Trump from acting too aggressively. The rationale for protectionism made a lot more sense when there were masses of unemployed workers. Today, firms are struggling to find qualified staff (Chart 8). This suggest that Trump will stick to doing what he does best, which is taking credit for everything good that happens under the sun. Chart 7China Is Importing More IP From The U.S., ##br##But The "True" Number Is Probably Higher Chart 8Protectionism Makes Less Sense ##br##When The Labor Market Is Strong Ironically, the latest trade skirmish is occurring at a time when the Chinese government is taking concerted steps to reduce excess capacity in the steel sector, and the profits of U.S. steel producers are rebounding smartly (Chart 9). In fact, the latest Fed Beige Book released earlier this week highlighted that "steel producers reported raising selling prices because of a decline in market share for foreign steel ..."6 Chart 9Chinese Steel Exports Falling, U.S. Steel Profits Rising Meanwile, German automakers already produce nearly 900,000 vehicles in the U.S., 62% of which are exported. In fact, European automakers have a smaller share of the U.S. market than U.S. automakers have of the European one.7 A lot of what Trump wants he already has. The Pentagon has also warned that trade barriers imposed against Canada and other U.S. military allies could undermine America's standing abroad. This is an important point, considering that Trump invoked the rarely used Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which gives the President broad control over trade policy in matters of national security, to justify raising tariffs. Trump tends to listen to his generals, if not his other advisors. He probably was not expecting their reaction. All this suggests that a major trade war is unlikely to occur. As we go to press, it appears that the White House will temporarily exclude Canada and Mexico from the list of countries subject to tariffs. We suspect that the EU, Australia, South Korea, and a number of other economies will get some relief as well. White House National Trade Council Director Peter Navarro has also said that some "exemptions" may be granted for specific categories of steel and aluminum products that are deemed necessary to U.S. businesses. That is a potentially very broad basket. The bottom line is that the equity bull market will end, but chances are that this will happen due to an overheated U.S. economy and rising financial imbalances met with restrictive monetary policy, not because of escalating trade protectionism. Investors should remain overweight global equities for now, but look to pare back exposure later this year. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Secretary Ross Releases Steel and Aluminum 232 Reports in Coordination with White House," U.S. Department of Commerce, February 16, 2018. 2 Katharine G. Abraham, and Kearney, Melissa S., "Explaining the Decline in the U.S. Employment-to-Population Ratio: A Review of the Evidence," NBER Working Paper No. 24333, (February 2018). 3 David H. Autor, Dorn, David and Hanson, Gordon H., "The China Shock: Learning from Labor-Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade," Annual Reviews of Economics, dated August 8, 2016, available at annualreviews.org. 4 A graphical illustration of this point is provided here. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War," dated March 6, 2018. 6 Please see "The Beige Book: Summary of Commentary on Current Economic Conditions By Federal Reserve District,"Federal Reserve, dated March 7, 2018. 7 Please see Erik F. Nielsen, "Chief Economist's Comment: Sunday Wrap," UniCredit Research, dated March 4, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Highlights Risk assets find themselves in a precarious equilibrium. Record high valuations are fully justified if bond yields remain at current levels or fall, but valuations become increasingly hard to justify if bond yields march much higher. If the average of the German 10-year bund yield and U.S. 10-year T-bond yield breaks through 2%, we would downgrade equities and upgrade bonds. Stay long Italian BTPs versus French OATs. The Italian election result is not an investment game changer... ...but stay underweight the Italian equity market (MIB) on a 6-9 month horizon. Our sector stance to underweight banks necessarily implies underweighting the bank-heavy MIB. Feature "Even yet we may draw back, but once cross yon little bridge, and the whole issue is with the sword." - Julius Caesar, contemplating whether to cross the Rubicon River in 49 BC World GDP amounts to $80 trillion. But the combined value of equities and correlated risk assets such as high yield and EM debt is worth double that, around $160 trillion. Real estate is worth $220 trillion. Hence, global risk assets are worth around five times world GDP. With the value of risk assets dwarfing the world economy by a factor of five, it perplexes us that many commentators insist that causality must always run from the economy to financial markets. In fact, in major downturns, the causality usually runs the other way. Rather than economic downturns causing financial instabilities, it is more common for financial instabilities to cause economic downturns. Specifically, the last three economic downturns had their geneses in the financial markets. The bursting of the dot com bubble triggered the downturn of 2001; the large-scale mispricing of U.S. mortgages caused the Great Recession of 2008; and the explosive widening of euro area sovereign credit spreads resulted in the euro area recession of 2011. This raises a crucial question: is there a major vulnerability in financial markets right now? Risk Assets Are As Expensive As In 2000... For at least five decades, the ratio of global equity market capitalization to world GDP (effectively, the price to sales ratio) has proved to be an excellent predictor of subsequent 10-year global equity returns (Chart I-2). Chart of the WeekWorld Equities As Highly-Valued As In 2000 On Price To Sales Chart I-2Price To Sales Has Been An Excellent Predictor Of World Equity Returns Today's extreme ratio of global equity market capitalization to world GDP has been seen only once before in modern history - at the peak of the dot com boom in 2000. In the subsequent decade global equities went on to return a paltry 2% a year. Using the particularly tight predictive relationship in recent decades, we can infer that global equities are now priced to generate 2% a year in the coming decade too (Chart of the Week). Still, equities are not as extremely valued relative to government bonds as they were in 2000. Today, the global 10-year bond yield stands near 2%, implying a broadly equal prospective 10-year return from equities and bonds. In 2000, the global 10-year bond yield stood at 5%, implying that equities would return 3% less than bonds, which they duly did (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Relative To Government Bonds, Equities Were More Expensive In 2000 On the other hand, high yield credit is more extremely valued relative to government bonds than it was in 2000. Today, the global high yield credit spread stands at a very tight 4%: in 2000, it stood at 8% (Chart I-4). So taking the combination of equities and high yield credit, we can say that risk assets are as highly valued today as they were in 2000. Chart I-4Relative To Government Bonds, High Yield Credit Was Less Expensive In 2000 ...But Risk Assets Should Be Very Expensive When Bond Yields Are Ultra-Low The record high valuation of risk assets is fully justified when government bond yields are ultra-low. This is because bond returns take on the same unattractive asymmetry - known as 'negative skew' - that equity and high yield credit returns possess. For a detailed explanation, please revisit our report Are Bonds A Greater Risk Than Equities? 1 But in a nutshell, as bond risk becomes 'equity-like' it diminishes the requirement for a superior return on equities and other risk-assets, lifting their valuations exponentially. Consider what happens to valuations when bond yields decline from 4% to 2%. At a 4% bond yield, equities possess significantly more negative skew than 10-year bonds. So investors will demand a comparatively higher return from equities, let's say 8% a year. Whereas, at a 2% bond yield, equities and 10-year bonds possess the same negative skew. So investors will demand the same return from equities as they can get from bonds, 2% a year (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Below A 2% Yield, 10-Year Bonds Are Riskier Than Equities At the lower bond yield, the bond must deliver 2% a year less for ten years, meaning its price must rise by 22%.2 But equities must deliver 6% a year less for ten years, so the equity market must surge by 80%.3 All well and good, except if bond yields go back up to 4%. In which case, bond and equity prices must fall again - in proportion to their preceding rise. Hence, risk assets find themselves in a precarious equilibrium. Record high valuations are fully justified if bond yields remain at current levels or fall, but valuations become increasingly hard to justify if bond yields march much higher. However, a setback to $380 trillion of global risk assets means that yields can't march much higher without at least a temporary reversal. Unfortunately, the exact point at which the precarious equilibrium becomes threatened is hard to define. Still, we might define crossing the Rubicon as follows. If the average of the German 10-year bund yield and U.S. 10-year T-bond yield - now standing at 1.8% - breaks through 2%, we would downgrade equities and upgrade bonds. Italy: Banks More Important Than Politics On Sunday, Italy's electorate punished the establishment centre-left and centre-right parties - the Democratic Party and Forza Italia - whose combined vote share collapsed to just 33%. Italians gravitated to parties offering populist, anti-establishment and anti-migration bromides. Sound familiar? This is just a continuation of the pattern seen in recent elections in France, Germany and Austria - as well as the victories for Brexit and President Trump. Begging the question, does the Italian election result change anything for investors? Political change disrupts markets if it dislocates the long-term expectations embedded in economic agents and financial prices. The vote for Brexit changed expectations about the U.K.'s long-term trading relationships; the election of Trump changed expectations about fiscal stimulus, the tax structure, and protectionism; and the election of Macron exorcised the potential chaos of a Le Pen presidency. On this basis, the Italian election result is not an investment game changer. The one exception would be if M5S and Lega joined forces to govern, as it could throw EU integration into reverse. But the likelihood of this unholy alliance seems very low. Many people - including some of the more populist Italian politicians - claim that Italy's long-standing economic underperformance is because it is shackled to the euro. But membership of the single currency cannot be the main cause of Italy's underperformance. After all, through 1999-2007, Italian real GDP per head performed more or less in line with the U.S., Canada and France, even without a private sector credit boom. Italy's underperformance really started after the 2008 financial crisis (Chart I-6). And the most plausible explanation is that its dysfunctional banking system has been left broken for close to a decade (Chart I-7). Italy procrastinated because its government is more indebted than other sovereigns and its banking problems did not cause an outright crisis. Chart I-6Italy Has Underperformed##br## Since The Great Recession... Chart I-7...Because The Banks ##br##Were Left Unfixed But now the banking system is finally recuperating. In the past year, banks have raised almost €50 billion in much needed equity capital, the share of non-performing loans (NPLs) is down sharply having peaked at the same level as in Spain in 2013 (Chart I-8), and bank solvency is much healthier (Chart I-9). Chart I-8Italy's NPLs Are Finally Declining... Chart I-9...And Bank Solvency Is Getting Better In effect, Italy is where Spain was in 2014. So could Italy in 2018-21 repeat Spain's turnaround in 2014-17? Italy has more work to do, but on balance we remain cautiously optimistic, and express this optimism through a relative trade in bonds: long Italian BTPs versus French OATs. The connection with the Italian equity market (MIB) is more tenuous. The market's outsize exposure to banks means that sustained outperformance of the MIB requires sustained outperformance of banks. On a 6-9 month horizon, our sector stance is to underweight banks. Necessarily, this means our country stance must be to underweight Italy. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Are Bonds A Greater Risk Than Equities?" published on January 25, 2018 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com 2 1.02^10 3 1.06^10 Fractal Trading Model* The rally in the Chilean peso appears technically extended. Hence, this week's trade recommendation is to short the Chilean peso versus the U.S. dollar setting a profit target of 2.7% with a symmetrical stop-loss. 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. Chart 10 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 Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions 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 ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations
Highlights The political path of least resistance leads to fiscal profligacy - in the U.S. and beyond. The response to populism is underway. The U.S. midterm election is market-relevant. Gridlock between the White House and Congress does, in fact, weigh on equity returns, after controlling for macro variables. The Democratic Party's chances of taking over Congress have fallen, but remain 50% in the House of Representatives. A divided House and Senate is the worst combination for equities, but macro factors matter most. China is clearly rebooting its "reform" agenda as Xi Jinping becomes an irresistible force. We remain long H-shares relative to EM, for now. Emerging markets - including an improved South Africa - will suffer as politics become a tailwind for U.S. growth and a headwind for Chinese growth. Feature The bond market has been shocked into action this month by the twin realizations that the Republican-held Congress is not as incompetent as believed and that the Republican Party is not as fiscally conservative as professed. When combined with steady U.S. wage growth and rising inflation expectations (Chart 1), our core 2018 theme - that U.S. politics would act as an accelerant to growth - has been priced in by the bond market with impressive urgency.1 The tax cuts alone were not enough to wake the bond market. First, the realization that a tax cut would pass Congress struck markets in late October, when it became increasingly clear that the $1.5 trillion Tax Cuts And Jobs Act would indeed pass the Senate. Second, the bill's passage along strict party lines - including the slimmest of margins in the Senate thanks to reconciliation rules - convinced investors that there would be no further compromises down the pipeline. The real game changer was the realization that the political path of least resistance leads towards profligacy. This happened with the signing into law of the February 9 two-year budget compromise (the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018) that will see fiscal spending raised by around $380 billion.2 The deal failed to gain the support of a majority of Republicans in the House, despite House Speaker Paul Ryan's support, but 73 Democrats crossed the aisle to ensure its passage. They did so despite a lack of formal assurances that the House would consider an immigration bill. The three-day shutdown in late January has forced Democrats, who largely took the blame, to assess whether they care more about preserving their liberal credentials on fiscal policy or immigration policy. The two-year budget agreement is a testament to their concern for the former. The deal will see the budget deficit most likely rise to about 5.5% of GDP in FY2019, up from 3.3% in last year's CBO baseline forecast (Chart 2). Chart 1Rising U.S. Inflation Expectations Chart 2Fiscal Policy Gets Expansive Adding to the newly authorized fiscal spending could be a congressional rule-change that reintroduces earmarks - leading to a potential $20 billion additional spending per year. There is also a 10-year infrastructure plan that could see spending increase by another ~$200 billion over the next decade. The new budget compromise, combined with last year's tax cuts, will massively increase U.S. fiscal thrust beyond the IMF's baseline (Chart 3). The IMF's forecast, done before the tax cuts were passed, suggested that fiscal thrust would contract by about 0.5% of GDP this year, and would only slightly expand in 2019. Now we estimate that fiscal thrust will be a positive 0.8% of GDP in 2018 and 1.3% in 2019. These figures are tentative because it is not clear exactly how much of the spending will take place this year versus 2019 and 2020. Our colleague Mark McClellan, author of BCA's flagship The Bank Credit Analyst, has stressed that the impact on GDP growth will be less than these figures suggest because the economic multipliers related to tax cuts are less than those for spending.3 Our theme that the political path of least resistance will lead to profligacy is not exclusive to the U.S. After all, populism is not exclusive to the U.S, with non-centrist parties consistently capturing around 16% of the electoral vote in Europe (Chart 4). Chart 3The Budget Deal And Tax Cuts##br## Will Expand U.S. Fiscal Thrust Chart 4Populism Will Fuel Fiscal##br##Spending Beyond The U.S. Policymakers are not price-setters in the political marketplace, but price-takers. The price-setter is the median voter, who we believe has swung to the left when it comes to economic policy in developed markets after a multi-year, low-growth, economic recovery.4 Broadly speaking, investors should prepare for higher fiscal spending globally on the back of this dynamic. Aside from the U.S., the populist dynamic is evident in the world's third (Japan), fourth (Germany), and sixth (the U.K.) largest economies. Japan may have started it all, as a political paradigm shift in 2011-12 spurred a historic reflationary effort.5 Geopolitical pressure from China and domestic political pressures on the back of an extraordinary rise in income inequality, and natural and national disasters, combined to create the political context that made Abenomics possible. While the fiscal arrow has somewhat disappointed - particularly when PM Shinzo Abe authorized the 2014 increase in the consumption tax - Japan has still surprised to the upside on fiscal thrust (Chart 5). On average, the IMF has underestimated Japan's fiscal impulse by 0.84% since the beginning of 2012. Investors often understate the ability of centrist, establishment policymakers to rebrand anti-establishment policies - whether on fiscal spending or immigration - as their own. In January 2015, we asked whether "Abenomics Is The Future?"6 We concluded that rising populism in Europe would require a policy response not unlike the policy mix favored by Tokyo. Today, the details of the latest German coalition deal between the formally fiscally conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the center-left Social Democratic Party (SDP) means that even Germany has now succumbed to the political pressure to reflate. The CDU has agreed to fork over the influential ministry of finance to the profligate SPD and apparently spend an additional 46 billion euros, over the duration of the Grand Coalition, on public investment and tax cuts. Finally, in the U.K., the end of austerity came quickly on the heels of the Brexit referendum, the ultimate populist shot-across-the-bow. The new Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond, announced a shift away from austerity almost immediately, scrapping targets for balancing the budget by the end of the decade. The change in rhetoric has carried over to the new government, especially after the Labour Party pummeled the Tories on austerity in the lead up to the June 2017 election. The bond market action over the past several weeks suggests that investors have not fully appreciated the political shifts underway over the past several years. Bond yields had to "catch up" to the political reality essentially over the course of February. However, the structural upward trajectory is now in place. The end of stimulative monetary policy will accelerate the rise in bond yields. Quantitative easing programs have soaked up more than the net government issuance of the major economies. Chart 6 shows that the flow of the major economies' government bonds available for the private sector to purchase was negative from 2015-2017. This flow will now swing to the positive side as fiscal spending necessitates greater issuance and as central banks withdraw demand. Real interest rates may therefore be higher to the extent that government bonds will have to compete with private-sector issuance for available savings. Chart 5Japan's Abenomics Leads The Way To More Spending Chart 6Lots Of Bonds Hitting The Private Market Bottom Line: The U.S. electorate chose the populist, anti-establishment Donald Trump as president with unemployment at a multi-decade low of 4.6%. The message from the U.S. election, and the rise of anti-establishment parties in Europe, is that the electorate is restless, even with the post-Great Financial Crisis recovery now in its ninth year. Policymakers have heard the message, loud and clear, and are adjusting fiscal policy accordingly. Over the course of the next quarter, BCA's Global Investment Strategy expects the rapid rise in bond yields to peter out, but investors should use any bond rallies as an opportunity to reduce duration risk. BCA's House View calls for the 10-year Treasury yield to finish the year at about 3.25%.7 Our U.S. bond strategists expect the end-of-cycle level of the nominal 10-year Treasury yield to be between 3.3% and 3.5%.8 Does The U.S. Midterm Election Matter? The three-day government shutdown that ended on January 22 has hurt the chances of the Democratic Party in the upcoming midterm election. The Democrats' lead in the generic congressional ballot has gone from a high of 13% at the end of 2017 to just 9% today (Chart 7). As Chart 8 illustrates, this generic ballot has some predictive quality. However, it also suggests that for Democrats, the lead needs to be considerably larger than for Republicans to generate the type of seat-swing needed to win a majority in the House of Representatives in 2018. Chart 7Democrats Have Lost Some Steam Chart 8Democrats Need Big Polling Lead To Win Majority There are three reasons for this built-in advantage for the Republican Party in recent midterm elections. First, the Republicans dominate the rural vote, which tends to be overrepresented in any electoral system that draws electoral districts geographically. Second, redistricting - or gerrymandering - has tended to favor the Republican Party in the past several elections. While the Supreme Court has recently struck down some of the most egregiously drawn electoral districts, the overall impact of gerrymandering since 2010 overwhelmingly favors the GOP. Third, midterm elections tend to have a lot lower voter turnout than general elections, which hurts the Democrats who rely on the youth and minority vote. Both constituencies tend to shy away from participation in the midterm election. Does the market care who wins the House and Senate? On the margin, yes. If the current GOP control of the White House, House of Representatives, and Senate were to be broken, markets might react negatively. It is often stated that gridlock has a positive effect on stock prices, as it reduces the probability of harmful government involvement in the economy and financial markets. However, research by our colleague Jonathan LaBerge, which we have recently updated, suggests otherwise. After controlling for the macro environment, gridlock between the White House and Congress is actually associated with modestly lower equity market returns.9 This conclusion is based on the past century of data. For most of that period, polarization has steadily risen to today's record-setting levels (Chart 9). As such, the negative impact of gridlock could be higher today. Table 1 illustrates the impact of four factors on monthly S&P 500 price returns. The first two columns demonstrate the effect on returns of recessions and tightening monetary policy, respectively, whereas the last two columns measure the effects of executive/legislative disunity and reduced uncertainty in the 12-months following presidential and midterm elections.10 The table presents the beta of a simple regression based on dummy variables for each of the four components (t-statistics are shown in parentheses). Chart 9U.S. Polarization Has Risen For 60 Years Table 1Divided Government Is, In Fact, Bad For Stocks As expected, the macro context has a much larger impact on stock returns than politically driven effects. The impact of political gridlock is shown to be negative regardless of timeframe. The takeaway for equity investors is that, contrary to popular belief, political gridlock is not positive for stock prices after controlling for important macro factors. Absolute results are similarly negative, with the average monthly S&P 500 returns considerably larger during periods of unified executive and legislative branches (Chart 10). Intriguingly, the less negative constellation of forces is when the president faces a unified Congress ruled by the opposing party. We would reason that such periods force the president to compromise with the legislature, which constitutionally has a lot of authority over domestic policy. The worst outcome for equity markets, by far, is when the president faces a split legislature. In these cases, we suspect that uncertainty rises as neither party has to take responsibility for negative policy outcomes, making them more likely. Chart 10A Unified Congress Is A Boon For Stocks In the current context, gridlock could lead to greater political volatility. For example, a Democratic House of Representatives would begin several investigations into the Trump White House and could potentially initiate impeachment proceedings against the president. But as we pointed out last year, impeachment alone is no reason to sell stocks.11 The Democrats would not have the ability to alter President Trump's deregulatory trajectory - which remains under the purview of the executive - nor would they be likely to gain enough seats to repeal the tax cut legislation. Yet given President Trump's populist bias, center-left Democrats could find much in common with the president on spending. This would only reinforce our adage that the political path of least resistance will tend towards profligacy. The only thing that President Trump and the Democrats in Congress will find in common, in other words, will be to blow out the U.S. budget deficit. Bottom Line: The chances of a Democratic takeover following the midterm elections have fallen, but remain at 50% for the House of Representatives. A gridlocked Congress is mildly negative for equity markets, taking into consideration that macro variables still dominate. Nonetheless, investors should ignore the likely higher political volatility and focus on the fact that President Trump and the Democrats are not that far apart when it comes to spending. China: The Reform Reboot Is Here And It Is Still Winter He told us not to believe the people who say it's spring in China again. It's still winter. - Anonymous Chinese government official referring to Liu He, the top economic adviser.12 The one risk to the BCA House View of a structural bond bear market - at least in the near term - is a peaking of global growth and a slowdown in emerging markets. The EM economies, which normally magnify booms in advanced economies, particularly in latter stages of the economic cycle, are currently experiencing a relative contraction in their PMIs (Chart 11). BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy's "carry canary" indicator - which shows that EM/JPY carry trades tend to lead global industrial activity - is similarly flashing warning signs (Chart 12).13 Chart 11EM Economies Underperforming Chart 12Yen Carry Trades Signal Distress At the heart of the divergence in growth between EM and DM is China. Beijing has been tightening monetary conditions as part of overall structural reform efforts, causing a sharp deceleration in the Li Keqiang index (Chart 13). In addition, the orders-to-inventories ratio has begun to contract, import volumes are weak, and export price growth is slowing sharply (Chart 14). Chart 13Li Keqiang Index Surprises Downward Chart 14China's Economy Weakens... The Chinese slowdown is fundamentally driven by politics. Last April we introduced a checklist for determining whether Chinese President Xi Jinping would "reboot" his reform agenda during his second term in office. We define "reform" as policies that accelerate the transition of China's growth model away from investment-driven, resource-intensive growth. Since then, political and economic events have supported our thesis. Most recently, interbank lending rates have spiked due to China's new macro-prudential regulations and monetary policy (Chart 15), and January's total credit growth clocked in at an uninspiring 11.2% (Chart 16). Tight credit control in the first calendar month typically implies that credit expansion will be limited for the rest of the year (Chart 17). A strong grip on money and credit growth is entirely in keeping with the three-year "battle" that Xi Jinping has declared against systemic financial risk.14 Chart 15...While Policy Drives Up Interbank Rates Chart 16January Credit Growth Disappoints... Chart 17... And January Credit Is The Biggest In short, we have just crossed the 50% threshold on our checklist, confirming that China is indeed rebooting its reform agenda (Table 2). Going forward, what matters is the intensity and duration of the reform push. Three events at the start of the Chinese New Year suggest that the market will be surprised by both. Table 2How Do We Know China Is Reforming? First, the National People's Congress (NPC), which convenes March 5, is reportedly planning to remove term limits for the president and vice-president, thus enabling Xi Jinping to remain as president well beyond March 2023. Xi was already set up to be the most powerful man in China's politics through the 2020s,15 so we do not consider this a material change in circumstances: the material change occurred last October when "Xi Thought" received the status of "Mao Zedong Thought" in the Communist Party's constitution and reshaped the Politburo to his liking. The point is that Xi's position is irresistible which means that his policies will have greater, not lesser, effectiveness as party and state bureaucrats scramble to enact them faithfully.16 Chart 18Crackdown On Shadow Lending Has Teeth Second, the Communist Party is reportedly convening its "Third Plenum" half a year early this year - that is, in late February and early March, just before the annual legislative meeting that begins March 5. This is a symbolic move. The third plenum is known as the "reform plenum," and this year is the fortieth anniversary of the 1978 third plenum that launched China's market reform and opening up to the global economy under Deng Xiaoping. However, the last time China convened a third plenum - in 2013 when Xi first announced his agenda - the excitement fizzled as implementation proved to be slow.17 As we have repeatedly warned clients, China's political environment has changed dramatically since 2013: the constraints to painful structural reforms have fallen.18 If the third plenum is indeed held early, some key decisions on reform initiatives will be made as we go to press, and any that require legislative approval will receive it instantly when the National People's Congress convenes on March 5.19 This will be a "double punch" that will supercharge the reform agenda this year. It is precisely the kind of ambition that we have been expecting. Third, one of the most important administrative vehicles of this new reform push, the Financial Stability and Development Commission (FSDC), has just made its first serious move.20 On February 23, China's top insurance regulator announced that it is taking control of Anbang Insurance Group for one year, possibly two, in order to restructure it amid insolvency and systemic risks. Anbang's troubles are idiosyncratic and have received ample media attention since June 2017.21 Nevertheless, China's government has just seized a company with assets over $300bn. Clearly the crackdown on the shadow financial sector has teeth (Chart 18). Anbang's case will reverberate beyond the handful of private companies involved in shadow banking and highly leveraged foreign acquisitions abroad. Beijing's focus is systemic risk, not merely innovative insurance products. The central government is scrutinizing state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and local governments as well as a range of financial companies and products. We provide a list of reform initiatives in Table 3. Table 3China Is Rebooting Economic Reforms What is the cumulative effect of these three developments? Basically, they raise the stakes for Xi's policies dramatically this year. If Xi makes himself president for life, and yet this year's third plenum is as over-hyped and under-delivered as in 2013, then we would expect China's economic future to darken rapidly. China will lose any pretext of reform just as the United States goes on the offensive against Beijing's mercantilism. It would be time to short China on a long-term time line. However, it would also spell doom for our positive U.S. dollar outlook and bearish EM view. If, on the other hand, Xi Jinping couples his power grab with renewed efforts to restructure China's economy and improve market access for foreigners, then he has a chance of deleveraging, improving China's productivity, and managing tensions with the U.S. This is the best outcome for investors, although it would still be negative for Chinese growth and imports, and hence EM assets, this year. The next political indicator to watch is the March 5 NPC session. This legislative meeting will be critical in determining what precise reforms the Xi administration will prioritize this year. The NPC occurs annually but is more important this year than usual because it installs a new government for the 2018-23 period and will kick off the new agenda. In terms of personnel, there is much speculation (Table 4).22 Investors should stay focused on the big picture: four months ago, the news media focused on Xi Jinping's Maoist thirst for power and declared that all reform efforts were dead in the water. Now the press is filled with speculation about which key reformer will get which key economic/financial position. The big picture is that Xi is using his Mao-like authority in the Communist Party to rein in the country's economic and financial imbalances. His new economic team will have to establish their credibility this year by remaining firm when the market and vested interests push back, which means more policy-induced volatility should be expected. Table 4China's New Government Takes Shape At National People's Congress The risk is that Beijing overcorrects, not that reforms languish like they did in 2015-16. Our subjective probability of a policy mistake remains at 30%, but we expect that the market will start to price in this higher probability of risk as the March political events unfold. As Liu He declared at Davos, China's reforms this year will "exceed the international community's expectations."23 The anti-corruption campaign is another important factor to monitor. In addition to any major economic legislation, the most important law that the NPC may pass is one that would create a new nationwide National Supervisory Commission, which will expand the Communist Party's anti-corruption campaign into every level of the state bureaucracy. In other words, an anti-corruption component is sharpening the policy effectiveness of the economic and financial agenda. In the aforementioned Anbang case, for instance, corporate chief Wu Xiaohui was stung by a corruption probe in June 2017 and is being tried for "economic crimes" - now his company and its counterparty risks are being restructured. The combination of anti-corruption campaign and regulatory crackdown has the potential to cause significant risk aversion among financial institutions, SOEs, and local governments. Add in the ongoing pollution curbs, and any significant SOE restructuring, and Chinese policy becomes a clear source of volatility and economic policy uncertainty this year that the market is not, as yet, pricing (Chart 19). On cue, perhaps in anticipation of rising domestic volatility, China has stopped updating its home-grown version of the VIX (Chart 20). Chart 19Market Expects No Political Volatility Yet Chart 20Has China Halted Its Version Of The VIX? We would not expect anything more than a whiff, at best, of policy easing at the NPC this March. For instance, poverty alleviation efforts will require some fiscal spending. But even then, the point of fiscal spending will be to offset credit tightness, not to stimulate the economy in any remarkable way. Monetary policy may not get much tighter from here, as inflation is rolling over amid the slowdown (Chart 21),24 but anything suggesting a substantial shift back to easy policy would be contrary to our view. More accommodative policy at this point in time would suggest that Xi has no real intention of fighting systemic risk and - further - that global growth faces no significant impediment from China this year. In such a scenario, the dollar could fall further and EM would outperform. We expect the contrary. We are long DXY and short EUR/JPY. We remain overweight Chinese H-shares within emerging markets, but we will close this trade if we suspect either that reform is a fig leaf or that authorities have moved into overcorrection territory. Otherwise, reform is a good thing for Chinese firms relative to EM counterparts that have come to rely on China's longstanding commodity- and capital-intensive growth model (Chart 22). Chart 21Monetary Policy May Not Tighten From Here Chart 22Tighter-Fisted China Will Hit EM Bottom Line: Xi Jinping has rebooted China's economic reforms. The new government being assembled is likely to intensify the crackdown on systemic financial risk. Reforms will surprise to the upside, which means that Chinese growth is likely to surprise to the downside amidst the current slowdown, thus weighing on global growth at a time when populism provides a tailwind to U.S. growth. What It All Means For South Africa And Emerging Markets We spent a full week in South Africa last June and came back with these thoughts about the country's economy and the markets:25 The main driving force behind EM risk assets, year-to-date, has been U.S. TIPS yields and the greenback (Chart 23). Weak inflation data and policy disappointments as the pro-growth, populist, economic policy of the Trump Administration stalled have supported the ongoing EM carry trade. The actual emerging market growth fundamentals and politics are therefore unimportant. Chart 23Weak Inflation And Dollar Drove EM Assets Chart 24Market Likes Ramaphosa, Unlike Zuma In the near term, South African politics obviously do matter. Markets have cheered the election of Cyril Ramaphosa to the presidency of the African National Congress (ANC), a stark contrast to the market reaction following his predecessor's ascendancy to the same position (Chart 24). However, the now President Ramaphosa's defeat of ex-President Jacob Zuma's former cabinet minister and ex-wife, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma was narrow and has split the ANC down the middle. On one side is Ramaphosa's pragmatic wing, on the other is Dlamini-Zuma's side, focused on racial inequality and social justice. Chart 25Chronic Youth Unemployment Chart 26Few Gains In Middle Class Population For now, the ANC bureaucracy has served as an important circuit-breaker that will limit electoral choices in the 2019 election to the pro-market Ramaphosa, centrist Democratic Alliance, and radical Economic Freedom Fighters. From investors' perspective, this is a good thing. After all, it is clear that if the South African median voter had her way, she would probably not vote for Ramaphosa, given that the country is facing chronic unemployment (Chart 25), endemic corruption, poor healthcare infrastructure, and a desire for aggressive, and targeted, redistributive economic policies. South Africa stands alone amongst its EM peers when it comes to its tepid rise in the middle class as a percent of the population (Chart 26) and persistently high income inequality (Chart 27). We see no evidence that the electorate will welcome pro-market structural reforms. Chart 27Inequality Remains Very High Nonetheless, Ramaphosa's presidency is a positive given the recent deterioration of South Africa's governance, which should improve as the new regime focuses on fighting corruption and restructuring SOEs. Whether Ramaphosa will similarly have the maneuvering room to correct the country's endemically low productivity (Chart 28) and still large twin deficits (Chart 29) is another question altogether. Chart 28A Distant Laggard In Productivity Chart 29Twin Deficits A Structural Weakness Will investors have time to find out the answer to those latter questions? Not if our core thesis for this year - that politics is a tailwind to U.S. growth and a headwind to Chinese growth - is right. In an environment where the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield is rising, DXY stabilizes, and Chinese economy slows down, commodities and thus South African assets will come under pressure. As our colleague Arthur Budaghyan, BCA's chief EM strategist, recently put it: positive political developments are magnified amid a benign external backdrop. Conversely, in a negative external environment, positive political transformations can have limited impact on the direction of financial markets. Bottom Line: Markets are cheering Ramaphosa's ascendancy to the South African presidency. We agree that the development is, all other things being equal, bullish for South Africa's economy and assets. However, the structural challenges are vast and we do not see enough political unity in the ANC to resolve them. Furthermore, we are not sure that the global macro environment will remain sanguine for long enough to give policymakers the time for preemptive structural reforms. To reflect the potential for a positive political change and forthcoming orthodox macro policies, we are closing our recommendation to bet on yield curve steepening in South Africa, which has been flat since initiation on June 28, 2017. However, we will maintain our recommendation to buy South African 5-year CDS protection and sell Russian, even though it has returned a loss of 17.08 bps thus far. We expect that Russia will prove to be a low-beta EM play in the next downturn, whereas South Africa will not be so lucky. On a different note, we are booking gains of 2525bps on our short Venezeulan vs. EM 10-yr sovereign bonds, as our commodity team upgrades its oil-price forecast for this year. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see the Congressional Budget Office, "Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018," February 8, 2018, available at www.cbo.gov. 3 Please see BCA The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report, "March 2018," dated February 22, 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Japan's Political Paradigm Shift: Investment Implications," dated December 21, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Is Abenomics The Future?" dated February 11, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Structural Bear Market In Bonds," dated February 16, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Two-Stage Bear Market In Bonds," dated February 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Party On The QE2," dated November 8, 2010, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 10 We include the last factor in the regression because it could be that the market responds positively in the post-election period, irrespective of the election outcome, simply because political uncertainty is diminished. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see Tom Mitchell, "Xi's China: The Rise Of Party Politics," Financial Times, July 25, 2016, available at ft.com. See also BCA Geopolitical Strategy and China Strategy Special Report, "Five Myths About Chinese Politics," dated August 10, 2016, available at www.bcaresearch.com. 13 "Carry Canary" indicator tracks the performance of EM/JPY carry trades. These trades short the Japanese Yen and long an emerging market currency with a high interest rate (Brazilian real, Russian ruble, or South African rand), and as such they are highly geared to a positive global growth back-drop. Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "The Yen's Mighty Rise Continues ... For Now," dated February 16, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 14 The other two battles are against pollution and poverty. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Xi Jinping: Chairman Of Everything," dated October 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Reflections On China's Reforms," in "The Great Risk Rotation - December 2013," dated December 11, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Party Congress Ends ... So What?" dated November 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Consider that the standard political calendar would have called for Xi to make personnel adjustments at the second plenum (which was held in January), then to formalize those personnel changes at the legislature in March, and then to announce reform initiatives at the third plenum in the fall, leaving implementation until late in the year or even March 2019. Instead, all of this will be done by March of this year, leaving the rest of the year for implementation. 20 The Financial Stability and Development Commission was created last July at an important financial gathering that occurs once every five years. We dubbed it a "Preemptive Dodd Frank" at the time because of China's avowed intention to use it to tackle systemic financial risk. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Wrath Of Cohn," dated July 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. The FSDC's purpose is to coordinate the People's Bank of China with the chief financial regulators - the banking, insurance, and securities regulatory commissions (CBRC, CIRC, and CSRC) and the State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE). There is even a possibility under discussion (we think very low probability of happening) that the FSDC will preside above the central bank - though the precise organizational structure will remain unclear until it is formalized, probably during the March legislative session. 21 Anbang is part of a group of companies, including Foresea, Fosun, HNA, Ping An, and Dalian Wanda, that have been targeted over the past year for shady financial doings, corruption, excessive debt, and capital flight. In particular, Anbang was integral to the development of universal life products, which have been highly restricted since last year. These were not standard insurance products but risky short-term, high-yield shadow investment products. Investors could redeem them easily so there was a risk that purchasers could swamp insurance companies with demands for paybacks if investment returns fell short. This would leave insurance companies squeezed for cash, which in turn could shake other financial institutions. The systemic risk not only threatened legitimate insurance customers but also threatened to leave insurance companies unable to make debt payments on huge leveraged buyouts that they had done abroad. Anbang and others had used these and other shadow products to lever up and then go on a global acquisition spree, buying assets like insurance subsidiaries, hotels, and media/entertainment companies. The targeted firms are also in trouble with the central government for trying to divest themselves of China's currency at the height of the RMB depreciation and capital flight of 2015. They were using China's shadow leverage to springboard into Western assets that would be safe from RMB devaluation and Chinese political risk. The government wants outward investment to go into China's strategic goals (such as the Belt and Road Initiative) instead of into high-profile, marquee Western assets and brands. 22 Particularly over whether Xi Jinping's right-hand man, Liu He, will be appointed as the new central bank governor, to replace long-serving Governor Zhou Xiaochuan, and/or whether he will replace Vice Premier Ma Kai as chairman of the FSDC. It is important whether Liu He takes the place of central banker or chief reformer because those roles are so different. Making him PBoC chief would keep a reformer at the helm of a key institution at an important point in its evolution, but will raise questions about who, if anyone, will take charge of structural reform. Giving him the broader and more ad hoc role of Reformer-in-Chief would be reminiscent of Zhu Rongji at the historic NPC session in March 1998, i.e. very optimistic for reforms. Of course, Liu He is not the only person to watch. It is also important to see what role former anti-corruption czar Wang Qishan gets (for instance, leading U.S. negotiations) and whether rising stars like bank regulator Guo Shuqing are given more authority (he is a hawkish reformer). 23 Please see Xie Yu and Frank Tang, "Xi picks team of problem solvers to head China's economic portfolios," South China Morning Post, dated February 21, 2018, available at www.scmp.com. 24 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Seven Questions About Chinese Monetary Policy," dated February 22, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 25 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "South Africa: Crisis Of Expectations," dated June 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.
Highlights The best recession indicators are not flashing red, but volatility is rising as the end of the cycle approaches; U.S. fiscal policy is surprising to the upside, as we expected; The next recession will usher in an inflationary political paradigm shift, with wealth transferred from Baby Boomers to Millennials; Expect a new U.K. election ahead of March 2019, but do not expect a second referendum unless popular opinion swings decisively against Brexit; Stay short U.S. 10-year Treasuries versus German bunds; short Fed Funds Dec 2018 futures; and initiate a short GBP/USD trade. Feature February has been tough for global markets, with the S&P 500 falling by 5.9% since the beginning of the month. Several clients have pointed out that the market may be sniffing out a recession and that the "buy the dip" strategy is therefore no longer applicable. It is true that markets and recessions go together (Chart 1), but it is not clear from the data that the equity market alone predicts recessions correctly. Chart 1Bear Markets & Recessions: Unclear Which One Leads The Other BCA's House View is that a recession is likely at the end of 2019.1 This view is in no small part based on our political analysis.2 President Trump ran on a populist electoral platform and populist policymakers globally have a successful track record of delivering higher nominal GDP growth than their non-populist counterparts (Chart 2). We assume that the Powell Fed will respond to such higher growth and inflation prospects no differently from the Yellen Fed and that it will restrict monetary policy to an extent that will usher in a mild recession by the end of next year. Chart 2Populists Deliver (Nominal) GDP Growth Of course, predicting recessions is extraordinarily difficult. Being six months early or late would still be an achievement, but the implications for the equity market would likely be considerably different. If our "late 2019" call is actually an "early 2019" recession, then equity markets may indeed be at or near their cyclical peaks. A "buy on dips" strategy may work for the next quarter or so, but superior returns over the course of the year may be achieved with a bearish strategy. To help guide clients through the uncertainty, our colleague Doug Peta, chief strategist of BCA's Global ETF Strategy, has recently updated BCA's methodology for identifying the inflection points that usher in a recession.3 In our 70-year history as an investment research house, we have picked up two definitive truths: valuation and technical indicators cannot call a recession. So what can? We encourage clients to pick up a copy of Doug's analysis.4 The report highlights the three BCA Research recession indicators: the orientation of the yield curve, the year-over-year change in the leading economic indicator (LEI),5 and the monetary policy backdrop. Charts 3, 4, and 5 show how successful the three indicators are in calling recessions. In our 50-year sample period, the yield curve has successfully called all seven recessions with just one false positive. However, it tends to be overly eager, preceding the onset of a recession by an average of nearly twelve months. When we combine the yield curve indicator with the LEI, the false positives go away. Chart 3The Yield Curve Has Called Seven Of The Last Eight Recessions... Chart 4... And So Has The Leading Economic Indicator To confirm the recession signal and make it more robust, we also consider the monetary policy backdrop. Over the nearly 60 years for which BCA's equilibrium fed funds rate model has calculated an estimate of the equilibrium policy rate, every recession has occurred when the fed funds rate exceeded our estimate of equilibrium. In other words, recessions only occur when monetary policy settings are restrictive. Today, none of the indicators are even close to pointing to a recession, with the LEI at a cyclical peak. However, the yield curve and monetary policy are directionally moving towards the end of the cycle. Taken together, they suggest that the only controversy about our late 2019 recession call is that it is so early. So why the market volatility? Because wage growth in the U.S. has begun to pick up in earnest (Chart 6), revealing that BCA's concerns about inflation may at last be coming true. Investors, after more than a year of rationalizing weak inflation by means of dubious concepts (Amazon, AI, robots, etc.), may be reassessing their forecasts in real time, causing market turbulence. Chart 5Tight Policy Is A Necessary,##br## If Not Sufficient, Recession Ingredient Chart 6Wages Picking##br## Up In Earnest There is of course a political explanation as well. Our colleague Peter Berezin correctly called the end of the 35-year bond bull market on July 5, 2016.6 The timing of the call - mere days after the U.K. EU membership referendum - was not a coincidence. As Peter mused at the time, "the post-Brexit shock running through policy circles leads to a further easing in fiscal and monetary policy." He was not speaking about the U.K. alone, but in global terms. Indeed, the populists have begun to deliver. Ever since President Trump's election, we have cautioned clients not to doubt the White House's populist credentials.7 After a surge in bond bearishness immediately following the election, investors lost faith in the populist narrative due to the failure of Congress to pass any significant legislation, as if Congress has ever been a nimble institution under previous presidents. But investors are beginning to realize that their collective political analysis was extremely wrong. Not only have profligate tax cuts been passed, as we controversially expected throughout 2017, but Congress is now on the brink of a monumental two-year appropriations bill that will add nearly 1% of GDP worth of fiscal thrust in 2018 higher than what the IMF expected for the U.S. (Chart 7). In addition, Congress has set in motion the process to re-authorize the use of "earmarks" - i.e. legislative tags that direct funding to special interests in representatives' home districts (Chart 8).8 Chart 72018 Fiscal Thrust Was Unexpected Chart 8Here Comes Pork! By our back-of-the-envelope accounting, Congress is about to authorize just shy of $400bn in extra spending over the next two years.9 If earmarks are allowed back into the legislative process, we could see up to another $50bn in spending. An infrastructure deal, which now also looks likely given that the Democrats have realized that their "resistance"/ "outrage" strategy does not work against the Trump White House, could add significantly to that total. We are already positioned for these political developments through two fixed-income recommendations. We are short U.S. 10-year Treasuries vs. German Bunds, a recommendation that has returned 27.7 bps since September 2017. In addition, we are short the Fed Funds December 2018 futures, a recommendation that has returned 43.17 bps since the same initiation date. In addition, we went long the U.S. dollar index (DXY) on January 31, right before the stock market correction and precisely when the greenback appeared to bottom. Should investors prepare for runaway inflation this cycle? Is it time to load up on gold? We do not think so. The fiscal impulse from the two-year budget deal will become negative in 2020. The capex incentives from the tax cut plan are also front-loaded. The paradigm-shifting impact on inflation will require a policy paradigm shift. And we expect such a shift only after the next recession. To put it bluntly, U.S. voters elected a TV game show host due to angst at a time when unemployment stood at 4.6% (the rate on November 2016). Who will they elect with unemployment rising to 6% in the aftermath of the next recession, or God forbid if that next recession is worse than we think it will be? Policymakers are unlikely to sit around and wait for an answer to that question. Extraordinary measures will be taken to prevent the median voter from lashing out against the system when the next recession hits. Inflation, which is a redistributive mechanism, will be employed to transfer wealth from savers (mainly well-to-do retirees) to consumers (their children). In large part, this will be a generational wealth transfer between Baby Boomers (or at least those with some savings) and their Millennial children. Given that Millennials have become the largest voting bloc in the U.S. as of the 2016 election, this will be a populist policy with firm backing in the electorate. The next recession will therefore usher in the inflationary era of the next decade, regardless of how painful the actual recession is. In the meantime, we recommend that clients with a 9-to-12 month horizon continue to "buy on dips," given that a recession is not on the horizon. However, with the U.S. 10-year yield approaching 3%, China moderately slowing down (with considerable risk to the downside), and the U.S. dollar slide arrested, we think that the outperformance of EM equities is over. Brexit: We Can't Work It Out10 The EU agreed on January 29 to its negotiation guidelines for the temporary transition period after the U.K. officially leaves the bloc in March 2019.11 The British press predictably balked at the conditions - the term "vassal state" has been liberally bandied about - which in our view included absolutely nothing out of the expected. The EU conditions for the transition period are not the fundamental problem. Rather, the problem is that the "Vote Leave" campaign was never honest with its promises. Boris Johnson, the most prominent supporter of Brexit ahead of the vote and now the foreign minister in Prime Minister Theresa May's cabinet, famously quipped after the referendum that "there will continue to be free trade and access to the single market."12 The problem with that promise, however, was that it was predicated on using London's "superior negotiating position" vis-à-vis the EU in order to force the Europeans to redefine what membership in the Common Market means. As we pointed out in our net assessment ahead of the Brexit referendum, the problem with exiting the EU but remaining in the Common Market is that the issue of sovereignty is not resolved (Diagram 1).13 As such, Johnson and other Brexit supporters argued that they could change the relationship by forcing the EU to change how the Common Market works. Diagram 1Common Market Membership Is Illogical Except for one problem: the U.K.'s negotiating position is not, never was, nor ever will be, superior. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of how trade works can understand this. For example, the U.K. is a significant market for Germany, at 6% of German exports (right in line with the 6% of total EU exports that go to the U.K.). However, the EU is a far greater destination for British exports, with 47% of all exports going to the bloc.14 As we expected, the EU has surprised the conventional wisdom by remaining united in the face of negotiations. And as we also predicted, the Tories are now completely divided.15 PM May will attempt to hammer out an internal deal on how to approach the transition deal. But her political capital is so drained by the disastrous early election results that there is practically no way that she can produce a set of negotiating guidelines that will not be pilloried in the press. As such, we expect a new election to take place in the U.K. ahead of March 2019, perhaps sooner. We do not see how May's negotiating position will satisfy all wings of the Conservative Party. In addition, we see no scenario by which the ultimate exit deal with the EU gets enough votes in Westminster. Investors betting on that election replacing a second Brexit referendum would be wrong. A Jeremy Corbyn-led, Labour government will only turn against Brexit once the polls definitively turn against it. This has not yet happened, as the gap between supporters and opponents of Brexit in the polls, while widening in favor of opponents, remains within a margin of error (Chart 9). As such, Corbyn would scrap the Tory-led negotiations with the EU and ask Brussels for even more time - and thus more market uncertainty! - in order to produce a Labour-led Brexit deal.16 In order for the probability of Brexit to definitively decline, the polls have to show that "Bregret" or "Bremorse" is setting in. Without a move in the polls, U.K. politicians will continue to pursue Brexit, no matter how flawed their tactics may be. Policymakers are ultimately not the price makers but the price takers. On the issue of Brexit, the U.K. median voter is only slightly miffed regarding the outcome. Current polls suggest that Labour could win the next election, albeit needing to rule with a coalition (Chart 10). This would prolong the uncertainty facing the economy. Not only is Corbyn the most left-leaning politician in a major European economy since François Mitterand, but also his coalition would likely include the Scottish National Party and potentially the Liberal Democrats. Keeping all their priorities aligned could be even more difficult than the balancing act PM May is performing between soft-Brexiters, hard-Brexiters, and the Democratic Unionist Party. Chart 9Bremorse: Rising, But Not Definitive Chart 10Anti-Brexit Forces On The Rise Meanwhile, on the economic front, the situation is not much better. Our colleague Rob Robis, BCA's chief bond strategist, recently penned a critical assessment of the U.K. economy.17 As Rob pointed out, the OECD leading economic indicator is decelerating steadily and pointing to a real GDP growth rate below 2% in 2018 (Chart 11). The biggest factors that will weigh on growth will be a sluggish consumer and softer capex. Household consumer growth has been slowing since early 2017, driven by diminishing consumer confidence (Chart 12, top panel). High realized inflation, which has sapped the purchasing power of U.K. workers who have not seen matching increases in wages, is weighing on confidence (third panel). Consumers were able to maintain a decent pace of spending during a period of stagnant real income growth by drawing on savings, but that looks to be tapped out now with the saving rate down to a 19-year low of 5.5% (bottom panel). Chart 11U.K. Growth Set To Slow Chart 12The U.K. Consumer Looks Tapped Out Making matters worse, U.K. consumers are not seeing much of a wealth effect from the housing market. The January 2018 readings of the year-over-year growth rate of U.K. house prices from the Halifax and Nationwide indexes came in at 1.9% and 3.1% respectively (Chart 13). In addition, the net balance of national house price expectations from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) has steadily declined since mid-2016 and now sits just above zero (i.e. equal number of respondents expecting higher prices and falling prices). The same indicator for London was a staggering -47% in January 2018. Apparently, foreigners are no longer interested in a Brexit discount. Our global bond team goes on to point out that political uncertainty is also weighing on U.K. business investment spending. Capital expenditure growth slowed to 4.3% year-over-year in nominal terms in Q3 2017 and is even lower in real terms (Chart 14). Chart 13No Wealth Effect ##br## From Housing Chart 14Brexit Gloom Trumps ##br##Export Boom For U.K. Companies Putting all of this together, neither our global bond team nor our foreign exchange team expect the Bank of England to raise interest rates, despite the market pricing in 36 bps of rate hikes over the next twelve months. As Chart 15 illustrates, inflation across a broad swath of components is likely to slow sharply in the coming months as the trade-weighted pound has stopped depreciating. Thus, the pass-through from a lower exchange rate is beginning to dissipate.18 In the long-term, we understand why investors are itching to bet on Brexit never happening. But to get from here to there, the market will have to riot. And that means more downside to U.K. assets. Chart 15U.K. Inflation:##br## Less Pass-Through From The Pound Chart 16GBP:##br## Stuck In A Rut Bottom Line: BCA's FX strategist, Mathieu Savary, has pointed out that the trade-weighted pound is testing the upper bound of its post-Brexit trading range (Chart 16). As our FX and bond teams show in their respective research, the economics currently at play make it unlikely that the pound will be able to punch above the ceiling of this range. Our political assessment adds to this view. In fact, we expect that the coming political uncertainty, including an early election prior to March 2019, is likely to take the pound back to the floor of its trading range. As such, we are recommending that clients short cable, GBP/USD. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Timing Of The Next Recession," June 16, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Special Report, "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession," dated March 7, 2017, and "2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course," dated November 20, 2017, available at bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Special Report, "Timing The Next Equity Bear Market," dated January 24, 2014, and "Timing Equity Bear Markets," dated April 6, 2011, available at bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Global ETF Strategy Special Report, "A Guide To Spotting And Weathering Bear Markets," dated August 16, 2017, available at etf.bcaresearch.com. 5 The ten components of leading economic index for the U.S. include: 1. Average weekly hours, manufacturing; 2. Average weekly initial claims for unemployment insurance; 3. Manufacturers' new orders, consumer goods and materials; 4. ISM® Index of New Orders; 5. Manufacturers' new orders, nondefense capital goods excluding aircraft orders; 6. Building permits, new private housing units; 7. Stock prices, 500 common stocks; 8. Leading Credit Index TM; 9. Interest rate spread, 10-year Treasury bonds less federal funds; and 10. Index of consumer expectations. Source: The Conference Board. 6 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Outcomes & Investment Implications," dated November 9, 2016, and "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China," dated January 17, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 We are referring to the Senate deal struck last week to authorize additional military spending ($80bn in FY2018 and $85bn in FY2019) and discretionary spending ($63bn in FY2018 and $68bn in FY2019), as well as to provide disaster relief in the amount of $45bn for both fiscal years. 10 Life is very short, and there's no time ... For fussing and fighting, my friend ... 11 Please see European Council, "Brexit: Council (Article 50) adopts negotiating directives on the transition period," dated January 29, 2018, available at consilium.europa.eu. 12 Please see "UK will retain access to the EU single market: Brexit leader Johnson," Reuters, dated June 26, 2016, available at uk.reuters.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 This is not a coincidence. The whole point of the EU is that it is the world's richest consumer market. As such, it has massive negotiating leverage with all trade partners. As a side note, this throws into doubt the logic that the U.K. can get better trade deals by leaving the bloc. The first test of that premise will be its negotiations with the EU itself. 15 Please see BCA Special Report, "Break Glass To Brexit: A Fact Sheet," dated June 17, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 16 Investors should remember that Westminster voted decisively 319 to 23 to reject the Liberal Democrats' amendment seeking a referendum on the final Brexit agreement. Only nine Labour MPs voted in favor of the amendment after Jeremy Corbyn instructed his party to abstain. 17 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "A Melt-Up In Equities AND Bond Yields?" dated January 23, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "The Euro's Tricky Spot," dated February 2, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com.
Highlights Even though our baseline scenario calls for four rate hikes out of the Fed this year - more than markets have priced in - gold will be supported by increasing inflation and inflation expectations, heightened geopolitical risks, and greater volatility in equity markets. Further out, we expect gold will provide a good hedge against a likely equity downturn, as the bull market turns into a bear market in 2H19. For now, keep gold as a strategic portfolio hedge. Energy: Overweight. After popping above $70 and $66/bbl last week, Brent and WTI prices retreated ~ $2.00/bbl on the back of a stronger USD and increased rig counts in the U.S. shales, particularly in the prolific Permian Basin, where 18 rigs were added. We continue to expect Brent and WTI prices to average $67 and $63/bbl this year. Base Metals: Neutral. Spot copper continues to trade on either side of $3.20/lb on the COMEX. We remain neutral, given our view upside risk - chiefly supply-side disruptions at the mine and refined levels - will be balanced on the downside by a stronger USD and a slowdown in China. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold will draw support from rising inflation and inflation expectations this year and next (see below). Ags/Softs: Underweight. NAFTA negotiations ended this week in Montreal with the U.S. rejecting proposals from Canada to advance the talks. However, the U.S. side stated it would seek "major breakthroughs" at the next round of negotiations in Mexico City beginning February 26, according to agriculture.com. Feature Gold Price Risks Skewed To The Upside Price risk in gold will remain skewed to the upside this year, even as our base case scenario calls for limited gains from here. Higher inflation and inflation expectations, which normally would be bullish for gold, will be countered by Fed policy-rate hikes, which will boost the USD and lift real rates in our base case (Chart of the Week). Inflation's Revival Would Support Gold ... Despite above-trend global growth last year, subdued inflation limited the Fed's willingness to proceed with interest rate normalization in earnest. However, we do not put this down to structural forces, and instead expect core inflation to be near its bottom.1 In fact, inflation's soft readings are typical of the expected 18-month lag between U.S. economic growth and a pick-up in inflation, and as our Global Investment Strategists point out, several key indicators including the ISM manufacturing index, the New York Fed's Inflation Gauge, as well as BCA's proprietary pipeline inflation index are already moving in this direction (Chart 2).2 Chart of the WeekInflation And U.S. Financial Variables Matter Chart 2Signs Of Life In U.S. Inflation Inflation tends to pick up once the unemployment rate falls below the 5% mark. With the latest unemployment reading coming in at 4.1%, the U.S. economy has reached the steep end of the Phillips Curve - a workhorse model used by the Fed, which depicts the trade-off between unemployment and inflation. Indeed, BCA's Global Investment Strategists expect the U.S. unemployment rate to continue falling to a 49-year low of 3.5% by year-end. These further declines in the unemployment rate will push up wages, pressuring service inflation (Chart 3). At the same time, we expect the lagged impact of the weak USD will begin to show up in goods price inflation, along with higher energy prices. While some components of the Fed's preferred inflation gauge may face a slowdown in price pressure - most notably rent - this will likely be mitigated by accelerating prices in other components, such as health care, which we expect will return to its historic trend. In fact, U.S. inflation expectations - supported by higher energy prices and a strong December core CPI reading - have already started to increase (Chart 4). As our U.S. Bond Strategists point out, by the time core inflation returns to the Fed's target, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate will be between 2.4% and 2.5%.3 Chart 3At The Steep End Of The Philips Curve Chart 4A Breakout In Inflation Expectations Thus the 2018 inflation outlook is showing signs that it is in the process of bottoming, and will soon begin its ascent. We expect core PCE inflation, the Fed's preferred gauge, to reach the central bank's 2% target by year-end. This pick-up in inflation and inflation expectations is positive for gold, which we've shown to be an attractive hedge against rising prices. However, inflation's comeback will likely embolden the Fed to proceed more aggressively with its hiking cycle. ... But A Hawkish Fed Counters Inflation ... While our modelling showcases an inverse relationship between real rates and gold prices, what is crucial to our outlook is our expectation of how the Fed will proceed with its interest rate normalization process this year. Given that gold's correlation with inflation is strengthened during periods of low real rates, the ideal condition for gold would be for the Fed to stay behind the inflation curve. But we are not expecting that just yet.4 Rather than waiting to see the "whites of inflation's eyes," our expectation is the Fed will tighten ahead of inflation. This has in fact already materialized with three hikes in 2017 amid muted inflation. Upward surprises in U.S. growth, coupled with an upward trend in inflation will keep the Fed on its normalization path with greater confidence. We expect four rate hikes in 2018 - above both market expectations and what is implied by the "dot plot". Net, the pre-emptive Fed rate hikes we expect will lead to higher real rates, and will limit gold's upside this year. ... As Does A Stronger Greenback An increase in U.S. real rates vis-à-vis other economies, as well as a shift in the composition of global growth to favor the U.S., will support the USD. In addition to higher real rates, this would also limit gold's upside in 2018. Stronger growth ex-U.S. last year weakened the USD. This year, we expect the U.S. economy to outperform. Financial conditions have eased in the U.S. relative to the rest of the world, while fiscal policy is expected to be comparatively more favorable in the U.S. The U.S. surprise index has reflected this shift in comparative growth, outperforming most regions (Chart 5).5 While the Euro has been exceptionally resilient, the fallout from a stronger currency will eventually begin to show up in slower growth. The EUR/USD cross has diverged from the spread in expected policy rates, leaving the euro looking expensive (Chart 6). Since the beginning of the year, spreads have widened in favor of the dollar, while the USD has weakened. Although we do not expect the ECB to hike until mid-2019, our expectation of four Fed rate hikes this year will support the greenback. This will push spreads back in line. Such decoupling is not the norm, and we expect a 5% appreciation in the dollar in broad trade weighted terms.6 Chart 5Economic Surprises Favor The U.S. Chart 6EUR Looks Expensive Still, The Fed Could Surprise, And Tilt Dovish Chart 7A Policy Change Would##BR##Tolerate Higher Inflation A risk to our base case outlook is a change in the Fed's monetary policy framework. Here we note an increasing number of statements advocating the exploration of an alternative policy framework have been emerging from the Fed. This line of attack observes the Fed's current 2% inflation target is unsatisfactory, as it is too close to the zero-lower bound on interest rates, thus constraining the Fed's ability to exercise expansionary monetary policy when rates are low.7 Alternative policy proposals include price-level targeting, as well as an increase in the inflation target. Additionally, former Fed Chair Bernanke recently proposed a temporary price level target be implemented during low-rate periods.8 The net effect of these alternatives would be a higher inflation rate - above the current 2% target (Chart 7). If the Fed were to adopt a new monetary policy framework, it will likely occur before the next recession - in order to allow it to better respond to economic weakness. While we do not expect a regime change this year, these discussions and an eventual shift, may make the Fed more dovish this year, and more likely to tolerate higher inflation in the future. This would be an upside risk to gold, as it would assume its role as a store-of-value against higher inflation. The net effect of such a policy change - were it to occur - would be higher inflation expectations, lower real rates, and a weaker USD, all of which would bid up the gold market. Bottom Line: The revival of U.S. inflation and inflation expectations will bolster gold. However, our expectation that the Fed will continue hiking ahead of a realized uptick in inflation, and more aggressively than is currently priced in the market, will increase real rates and limit gold's upside potential. A stronger USD on the back of higher real rates, as well as a shift in global growth in favor of the U.S., will work against gold this year. Geopolitical Risks: Understated In 2018 We expect geopolitical risks to support gold prices this year. Gold's safe-haven attributes will be highlighted by a combination of events spread across the calendar year, which we believe will put a floor under the metal's price (Chart 8).9 Political and economic policy uncertainty will remain elevated this year (Chart 9). Our Geopolitical Strategists see this year's gold-relevant risks stemming from two main factors: (1) U.S. political risks, and (2) Exogenous tail risks. The former is likely to be a more significant source of upside pressure. Chart 8Gold Outperforms During##BR##Geopolitical Crises Chart 9Elevated Policy Uncertainty##BR##Supports Gold U.S. Foreign Strategy Risks Will Keep Gold Bid U.S. political risks are rooted in President Trump's strategic decisions, and boil down to two mutually exclusive schemes ahead of the midterm elections: Domestic Strategy or Foreign Strategy (Table 1). Our Geopolitical strategists note: "... policymakers often play "two-level games," with the domestic arena influencing what is possible in the international one. As Donald Trump loses political capital on the domestic front, his options for affecting policy will become constrained. However, the U.S. constitution places almost no constraints on the president when it comes to foreign policy."10 Trump's propensity to take on a more aggressive stance in foreign policy - which would be boosted by an unfavorable outcome in the immigration bill - will set the stage for a volatile year, supporting gold via its ability to hedge against geopolitical risks (Chart 10). Table 1Trump's Two-Level Game Chart 10Trump Will Look To Revive His Political Capital In addition to the U.S. political risks, many low-probability high-impact risks will keep volatility elevated this year and could support gold as a strategic portfolio hedge in 2018. Most notable are the following: A meaningful slowdown in China would have a negative impact on the global economy, as well as increase the risk of a monetary policy mistake in the U.S. The Fed's monetary policy decision is important for EM growth, while EM growth contributes to U.S. inflation, this feedback system makes the expected slowdown in Chinese growth relevant to the U.S. monetary stance. If China slows more than expected, this would reduce the global demand for commodities and goods, diminishing U.S. inflation expectations, potentially forcing the Fed to reassess its rate hike pace. If no adjustments are made, the Fed risks overshooting the equilibrium interest rate, increasing the risk of an equity correction. A downward rate hike adjustment, would keep the USD and real rates at low levels. A global oil-supply disruption caused by a collapse of the Venezuelan economy would lead to a short-lived spike in oil prices (Chart 11). In low-spare-capacity environments - as we are in today - oil prices become more responsive to supply shocks. Based on our simulations, a 600k b/d drop in Venezuelan oil supply in 2018 could spike oil prices by ~$10/bbl, leading to higher cost-push inflation. Our modelling shows U.S. CPI is highly responsive to oil price variation. This spike in headline inflation would push gold prices higher. Chart 11Cost-Push Inflation Risk From Venezuela Collapse In addition to U.S.-Iran tensions, we see other potential catalysts to instability in the Middle East - mainly regarding a severe deterioration of the U.S.-Turkish relationship, and Iraqi-Kurdish clashes ahead of Iraqi elections. Lastly, Europe: Italian elections and Euro-skepticism are a longer-term risk; however, news around the Italian elections in March has the potential to fuel talk of a potential breakup, which could lift gold.11 Bottom Line: Increased tensions due to Trump's controversial foreign strategy (China and Iran), as well as exogenous tail risks throughout the year will keep risks elevated in 2018, supporting gold prices. In fact our geopolitical strategists believe risks are understated this year, increasing the utility of gold's ability to hedge against political turmoil. Gold Outperforms In Equity Bear Markets In addition to its ability to hedge against rising inflation and increased geopolitical risks, gold outperforms during equity downturns and amid market volatility.12 Specifically, during periods of negative equity returns, gold outperformed the S&P500 79% of the time, with an average excess return of 3.7%. Furthermore, gold outperforms equities 60% of the time in periods of rising VIX with an average excess monthly return of 1.6% in these periods, and only 30% of the time in decreasing VIX periods with an average monthly excess return of -1.8% (Chart 12).13 We expect the equity bull market to remain intact throughout 2018. An equity downturn is not expected before 2H19. Nevertheless, we expect volatility to increase this year as investors fret about the sustainability of the bull market, and amid heightened geopolitical tensions. Moreover, domestic U.S. developments - e.g., the evolution of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation; a larger-than-expected Democrat win in the midterm elections or a Fed policy mistake - could affect investor sentiment and trigger a rise in volatility and a temporary sell-off in S&P 500. In our view, consumer confidence is a key contributor to the current equity bull market and currently stands at very elevated levels (Chart 13). Thus, any meaningful disappointment could derail this high-confidence environment. Chart 12Gold Outperforms Amid##BR##Volatility & Equity Downturns Chart 13High Confidence##BR##Environment At Risk Therefore, we believe the larger-than-expected tail risks and the monetary and political risks in the U.S. are not fully reflected in the gold market (Chart 14). The above risks assessment would suggest a fatter right tail in out-of-the-money gold options. Chart 14Rising Volatility Will Support Gold Chart 15Understated Geopolitical Risks This Year Bottom Line: While geopolitical risks were overstated in 2017, they are understated this year (Chart 15). Thus we do not expect a repeat of last year's low-VIX high-confidence environment. Rather gold will gain support from increased equity volatility this year. Roukaya Ibrahim, Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Analyst HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report titled "The Impact of Robots on Inflation," dated January 25, 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled "Three Tantalizing Trades - Four Months On," dated January 19, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report titled "It's Still All About Inflation," dated January 16, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Go Long Gold As A Strategic Portfolio Hedge," dated May 4, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled "Four Key Questions On The 2018 Global Growth Outlook," dated January 5, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Research Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled "The Indefatigable Euro," dated January 26, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see "Fed Officials See Benefits In Letting Inflation Run Above Target," dated January 19, 2018, available at Bloomberg.com. 8 Please see https://www.brookings.edu/blog/ben-bernanke/2017/10/12/temporary-price-level-targeting-an-alternative-framework-for-monetary-policy/ 9 Please see BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Balance Of Risks Favors Holding Gold," dated October 12, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report titled "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 For a comprehensive analysis of this issue, please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Special Report titled "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Go Long Gold As A Strategic Portfolio Hedge," dated May 4, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 13 Excess returns = (Gold - S&P 500) monthly returns. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017
Highlights The U.S.'s twin deficits do not explain the drop in the USD; Global growth is the biggest factor for the USD, and growth depends on China's economic reforms; The U.S. is turning more hawkish on China trade despite Beijing's reform-induced vulnerability; U.S. and Chinese political dynamics suggest upside risks in the former and downside in the latter; Go long DXY. Feature American policymakers scrambled to walk back Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin's "weak dollar" comments last week. Investors were left to wonder why Mnuchin broke with the long-held official position of favoring a strong dollar. Was it a "shot across the bow" of China, warning Beijing that the U.S. would engage in currency manipulation if it was not given concessions on trade? Or was it an admission that the U.S. would run large "twin deficits" - a budget deficit and a current account deficit - going forward? We don't have a good explanation for what Mnuchin said in Davos.1 But we can say with some conviction that the "twin deficit" explanation, which has been brought up in almost every client conversation so far this year, is wrong. Chart 1Twin Deficits: Why The Panic? Chart 2Because The Narrative Is Scary First, who says that the U.S. is about to widen its twin deficit (Chart 1)? The concern arises periodically in the marketplace but is often grossly off the mark in predicting the path of deficits or the dollar (Chart 2). We expect the budget deficit to hold steady in 2018, if not contract. Why? Because the fiscal deficit almost always contracts in the eight quarters before a recession, barring, in some cases, one or two quarters just before the recession hits (Chart 3). Unless investors have a high-conviction view that a recession is afoot in the next two quarters, they should ignore the dire predictions about the U.S. budget deficit. Chart 3The Deficit Is Not A Problem... Yet Chart 4Bond Market Not Sniffing Out Any Twin Deficit Crisis If the risk to the U.S. economy is to the upside, as we believe due to the tax cuts and unleashing of animal spirits, then deficits will come down regardless of additional tax or spending policy.2 In the long term, yes, the budget deficit will almost certainly expand due to entitlement spending, the impact of automatic stabilizers during a recession, and the loss of revenue from tax cuts. But long-term deficit concerns are the purview of the bond market, not currency traders. So what is the bond market telling us? Chart 4 shows that the yield curve tends to steepen as the twin deficit widens; both tend to occur during and after recessions. Today, however, the curve continues to flatten. Another fixed-income market indicator that tends to track budget deficits is the 30-year swap spread, which falls during recessions as budget deficits expand. But today the swap spread is not falling, it is increasing and doing so at the fastest pace since the 2008 recession (Chart 5). This may be a sign of resurgent animal spirits as banks throw caution - and concerns over Obama-era overregulation - to the wind. Credit demand is rising in the economy, which should increase both the velocity of money and growth. Concerns over the widening fiscal deficit are not being reflected in this indicator. Finally, our currency strategist, Mathieu Savary, has pointed out that a widening twin deficit only impacts developed economies' currencies about 50% of the time over 12 month periods. In other words, expansion of the twin deficit predicts currency moves about as well as flipping a coin. What really matters is how central banks respond to the causes and economic effects of the twin deficits. Protectionism, on the other hand, ought to be bullish for the dollar.3 As such, a potential trade war between China and the U.S. should not be the reason for the dollar's deepening doldrums. And while we are generally open to alarmism on trade protectionism - due to the fact that President Trump has few constitutional or political constraints holding him back on this issue - there is still not enough evidence to say whether the Trump administration will impose across-the-board tariffs on China. (See next section.) Could dollar weakness, conversely, be the result of a Plaza Accord 2.0 orchestrated between Chinese and American policymakers to depreciate the greenback in order to avert the need for protectionist policies? We doubt it. First, the U.S. and China economic dialogue has faltered. Second, the dollar would not have declined following the Plaza Accord had the Fed not aggressively cut rates from 1984 to 1985 by 423 basis points (Chart 6). And the Fed is obviously not cutting rates today, it is hiking them. Chart 5No Sign Of Deficit Here Chart 6The Fed Is More Important Than Politics... So, what matters for the U.S. dollar? Higher domestic inflation would matter as it would incentivize the Fed to tighten more than the market expects. Even here, however, recent history warrants caution on this view. Between 2004 and 2006, the Fed tightened 440 basis points and yet the dollar declined 11% from the start of the tightening cycle to its end (Chart 7). This is because the rest of the world's growth outpaced U.S. growth, particularly that of emerging markets, which grew at an annual 19%. We therefore come full circle to the single biggest issue on our forecasting horizon: Chinese policy. China is the most important variable for the U.S. dollar at the moment as it can single-handedly tip the global growth balance back towards the U.S., given its expected contribution to global growth (Chart 8). Chart 7...But Not More Important Than Global Growth Chart 8China Really Matters For Global Growth Our view is that Chinese policymakers are acting as an accelerant to BCA's House View that the Chinese economy will experience a benign slowdown. Risks are skewed towards the downside. We recently dedicated our monthly Crow's Nest Webcast solely to this issue and we highly encourage our clients to listen to it on replay.4 In today's weekly, we briefly assess where our Chinese view stands and then turn to U.S. politics. News Flash: Chimerica Has Been Dead Since 2012 Two critical aspects of our China view are coming together. The first is U.S. policy, which is becoming more aggressive after a year in which Trump showed restraint for the sake of North Korean negotiations.5 The second is China's renewed focus on domestic economic reforms.6 The "symbiotic" relationship between the U.S. and China is in decay, as we have argued since 2012.7 As China's economy grows, so grows its capacity for challenging the United States in the strategic sphere (Chart 9). Meanwhile the two economies have diverged markedly since U.S. households began to deleverage in 2008 (Chart 10). Chart 9China's Capabilities Are Growing Chart 10China No Longer Addicted To U.S. Demand The mainstream media is about to become more attuned to this reality now that the Trump administration has published a series of high-level reports declaring that U.S. strategy toward China is changing. Here are a few choice quotations: "China is a strategic competitor using predatory economics to intimidate its neighbors while militarizing features in the South China Sea." (Department of Defense, National Defense Strategy, 2018) "Long-term strategic competitions with China and Russia are the principal priorities for the Department." (Department of Defense, National Defense Strategy, 2018) "[High-level bilateral dialogues] largely have been unsuccessful - not because of failures by U.S. policymakers, but because Chinese policymakers were not interested in moving toward a true market economy." (U.S. Trade Representative, 2017 Report to Congress On China's WTO Compliance, 2018) "The United States also will take all other steps necessary to rein in harmful state-led, mercantilist policies and practices pursued by China, even when they do not fall squarely within WTO disciplines." (U.S. Trade Representative, 2017 Report to Congress On China's WTO Compliance, 2018) "The United States ... is seeking fundamental changes to China's trade regime, including the overarching industrial policies that have continued to dominate China's state-led economy." (U.S. Trade Representative, 2017 Report to Congress On China's WTO Compliance, 2018) "China and Russia want to shape a world antithetical to U.S. values and interests. China seeks to displace the United States in the Indo-Pacific region, expand the reaches of its state-driven economic model, and reorder the region in its favor." (President Trump, National Security Strategy of the United States of America, 2017) We expect to find echoes of this tough rhetoric in Trump's State of the Union Address on January 30, which will air as we go to press. Already commentators have declared that the U.S. is entering a "post-engagement" phase in the U.S.-China relationship.8 The U.S. and China will continue to engage. What is important is the Trump administration's shift toward more aggressive economic statecraft. Trump's view, made amply clear on the campaign trail, and now officially U.S. policy, holds that China is a mercantilist as well as a revisionist power and that it has initiated a trade war against the U.S. Thus the real policy change lies not in naming China a "strategic competitor" antithetical to U.S. values, but in declaring that normal "WTO consistent" remedies are no longer sufficient and the U.S. will have to resort to "all other steps necessary." The question is whether the U.S., in adopting unilateral measures, will pursue trade remedies on an item-by-item basis, as it has done so far, or break out of the mold and levy broader tariffs to try to achieve "fundamental changes" as quoted above. Trump's recent tariffs on solar panels and washing machines adhered closely to U.S. institutional procedures and penalized U.S. ally South Korea as well as China: if this is the trajectory that the U.S. intends to take, then markets can breathe a sigh of relief.9 The basic trade data show that the U.S. has continued to expand imports from China despite past incidents of presidents slapping on tariffs (Chart 11). Chart 11China And U.S.: Ships Passing In The Night However, the U.S. is likely to draw a harder line than that. The same data also show that the U.S. is not gaining much access to the Chinese market over time, while China has greatly diminished its exposure both to exports and to U.S. trade as a whole. Furthermore, the Trump administration is accusing China of trying to gain superior technology from the U.S. in a way that jeopardizes its security and sovereignty in the pursuit of a better strategic position. This is said to include coercion and corruption of U.S. firms in China, favoring the manufacturing sector by squeezing out competition, preferring domestic-sourced goods over foreign goods, and jeopardizing U.S. companies' intellectual property and network security. The key grievances are forced technology transfer, the "Made in China 2025" industrial strategy, "indigenous innovation" rules, and the new Cyber-Security Law.10 A test case for the U.S.'s harder line will be the ongoing investigation into China's intellectual property theft, which is due by August but is expected to elicit action by Trump sooner. Trump has a range of actions he can take either within or without the WTO. Going outside the WTO would give him greater flexibility, for instance, to impose a "fine," as he called it, for the cumulative "big damages" of China's intellectual property theft - but it would also enable China to claim that the U.S. itself is violating WTO trade rules.11 How will China respond to this turn in U.S. policy? It will continue to focus on rebooting its economic reforms. Reform is both necessary for its own interests, as we have outlined in the past, and expedient in that it enables China to try to deflect and delay U.S. pressure.12 This is not to say that China will not retaliate to particular U.S. moves, but simply that it will prefer to minimize conflict unless and until the Trump administration demonstrates via broad and sweeping trade measures that Beijing has no choice but to engage in open trade war. China's recent declarations that it will accelerate economic reforms aimed at trade and investment openness - particularly in financial services but also more generally - are geared toward allaying Washington. Xi Jinping's right-hand economist, Liu He, who is a key figure, made this clear at the World Economic Forum in Davos, where he said that China's reform and opening up this year would "exceed international expectations." Politburo Standing Committee member Wang Yang made a similar point late last year, saying that the "Made in China 2025" program would not discriminate against foreign or private firms.13 Simultaneously, leading technocrats are calling attention to China's vulnerability as it attempts delicate financial reforms. Guo Shuqing of the China Banking Regulatory Commission has warned of "black swan" or "gray rhino" events as he continues with his financial regulatory crackdown, and he has been echoed by the vice-secretary general of the National Development and Reform Commission.14 These statements are prudent - as it is always risky for highly leveraged countries to tinker with financial tightening - and useful because Beijing wants to warn the U.S. against pushing too hard since it is both "making progress" and vulnerable to instability. We certainly expect the reforms to have a significant, adverse impact on China's economic growth this year. In the latest developments, the policy crackdown is spreading to local governments, where fiscal tightening could ensue (Chart 12). Local governments lack stable sources of revenue, have large hidden debts, face an intensifying debt repayment schedule over the next three years, and have recently begun to cancel infrastructure projects under central government scrutiny (in Inner Mongolia, Gansu, and other provinces, and reportedly even in Xi's favored province of Zhejiang). Furthermore, the reforms have involved a crackdown on shadow lending that has sent non-bank credit into a steep decline (Chart 13). While some market estimates suggest that bank loans could grow by 13%-15% in 2018, such estimates cut against the policy grain. Assuming that non-bank credit does not grow any faster in 2018 than it did in 2017 (9.7%), China can afford to let new bank loans grow at 9.7% and still keep its total social financing (TSF) at its five-year annual average growth rate of 14.5%. Policymakers will not be able to soften their line easily, as several key players are newly appointed and must establish their credibility from the outset. Chart 12Local Government Finances Under Scrutiny Chart 13Shadow Bank Crackdown To Weigh On Credit Growth Our view is that Trump will harden the line despite China's promises both of deeper internal reforms and greater opening up. But the timing is impossible to predict. The real fireworks may be reserved until closer to the U.S. midterm election, as campaigning heats up in the fall. That would be the time for Trump to try to rally his voters by means of a clash of economic nationalisms with China. Beyond the top U.S. grievances cited above, we would highlight the U.S. approach toward China's state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Preferential policies for SOEs are a structural issue that the U.S. is now criticizing. At the party congress in October, President Xi Jinping pledged not only to reform the SOEs but also to make them bigger and stronger. Hence there is a potential collision course. The precise implementation of China's reforms could determine whether the U.S. pursues the issue further. China's State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission has so far reaffirmed Xi's comments at the party congress but, in keeping with the subtlety of Xi's policies, has also suggested there may be room to intensify reforms. The combination of Trump's economic policies, and China's intensifying reforms, will result in the U.S. economy outperforming expectations relative to China while U.S. corporations will outperform their Chinese counterparts (Chart 14). China will experience higher volatility, both in general and in relation to the U.S., and Chinese companies that suffer from reforms will underperform U.S. companies that benefit most from tax cuts (Chart 15). This is ironic given the popular narrative that the U.S. is suffering from chaotic democratic politics while China's centralized authoritarian model reigns triumphant. Of course, we do think Xi has key capabilities to drive reforms further in his second term than in his first, so these U.S.-China divergences will continue for the next 6-to-12 months at least. China's slowdown and increase in equity volatility should create a policy response: more fiscal spending and credit expansion. The comparison of relative U.S. and Chinese credit impulses suggests that China extends more credit as relative volatility rises (Chart 16). Our view, however, is that China's credit impulse will continue disappointing this year as Beijing prioritizes reform over growth. The credit numbers in January are the next data set to watch, in addition to the aforementioned local government spending. Investors should brace for more uncertainty as the Lunar New Year approaches (Feb. 16). Chart 14U.S. Earnings Surprise Relative To China Chart 15Xi Adds Volatility Relative To Trump Bump Chart 16China's Credit Impulse Disappoints Bottom Line: The Trump administration has issued an ultimatum of sorts on trade. Yet China claims to be redoubling its efforts at reforming and opening up its economy - party to deflect the pressure. We are almost certain that Trump will take further punitive actions, but it is too soon to say when or if he will engage in sweeping measures that threaten to destabilize China and thus initiate a trade war. The political context heading into the U.S. midterm vote will be crucial. Is America Having A Macron Moment? It is unfortunate when one's forecast is challenged only weeks after it is conceived. But that appears to be happening to our view, articulated in late December, that investors should expect no significant legislation to come out of Congress following the passage of the tax cuts.15 Bad news for our forecast is perhaps good news for U.S. policy initiatives and the overall quality of U.S. governance. President Trump has softened his stance on immigration, stating that he would be willing to grant citizenship to roughly 1.8 million "Dreamers" - young adults who came to the U.S. as illegal immigrants.16 Clearing the immigration hurdle would mean that Congress can focus on passing a budget for FY2018 that would see both defense and discretionary spending levels significantly raised. It would also relegate the never-ending saga of the debt ceiling to the dustbin, at least for the duration of this political cycle. Trump also followed up his immigration proposal by sketching a $1.7 trillion infrastructure investment plan (albeit a vague one). Chart 17Bipartisanship = Steeper Bull Market? Could we be approaching a "Macron moment" in U.S. politics? A moment when the "silent majority" rises up and sends a message to politicians that it has had enough of polarizing extremes? Previous such moments have included President Reagan's collaboration with congressional Democrats and President Clinton's with Republicans, which underpinned that glorious stock market run between August 12, 1982 and March 24, 2000 (Chart 17). Both presidents passed significant economic and social reforms during that time. Chart 18Peak Partisanship? Chart 19Independents On The Rise Yes, polarization remains at extreme levels (Chart 18), but that could also mean that it is reaching its natural limits. Rather than dwell on the high levels of polarization, which are baked into the "expectations cake," we would point out that the percentage of Americans who identify as independents is now fast approaching the combined total who identify as either Republican or Democrat (Chart 19). Ominously for Republicans - who hold both the House and the Senate - midterm electoral sweeps have almost always occurred along with the share of independents crossing the 40% mark (Table 1). Table 1Sweep Elections Coincide With High Independent Affiliation Meanwhile, President Trump's conciliatory tone on immigration was met with howls of protest from conservative activists. This is despite the fact that his proposal essentially exchanges leniency for Dreamers for considerably tougher immigration laws in general, which would align the U.S. with its developed market peers.17 Conservative activists are, however, massively out of step with the rest of America. Polls show that immigration is not high on the list of priorities for most Americans, and that most Americans continue to believe both that immigration is a positive and that immigration intake should remain at current levels (Chart 20). Chart 20Americans Are Neither Anti-Immigrant Nor All That Concerned About Immigration Our gut call that President Trump was itching to move to the political middle appears to be correct.18 Whether this becomes investment relevant will ultimately depend on whether the Democrats reciprocate. If Democrats go by data, they will. The government shutdown imbroglio has cost them a double-digit lead in the generic congressional ballot (Chart 21). As a political strategy, the shutdown was a miserable failure. Furthermore, the 2016 election stands as clear evidence that "outrage" does not work. Clinton picked up almost a million more voters in California than President Obama yet failed to beat his performance where it mattered: the Midwest. If Democrats continue to run on a "resistance" platform in order to satisfy their activist base, they will fail to win the House. Chart 21Government Shutdown An 'Own Goal' For Dems Ironically, the best strategy for Democrats ahead of the midterm election is to cooperate with Trump. The swelling ranks of independent voters will reward them if they do so. That same strategy, however, will paradoxically boost Trump's chances in 2020. Bottom Line: The market is, of course, ideologically nihilist. But a move to the middle - which benefits everyone involved except House Republicans - would be positive for stocks and the economy. Key bellwethers going forward are how Democrats react to Trump's immigration proposal and whether Trump moves to the middle on trade deals, starting with NAFTA, whose sixth round of negotiations just ended inconclusively (although not negatively) in Montreal. Investment Implications From the perspective of global asset allocation, the most important issue today is Chinese economic and regulatory policy. Yes, U.S. inflation is important, but whether it moves the dollar - and therefore commodities and EM assets - will depend on the pace of the current Chinese slowdown. China is therefore the most "diagnostic variable" in 2018. If our House View that inflation is coming back in the U.S. is right and our Geopolitical Strategy view that risks to growth in China are to the downside is also right, then investors should go long the U.S. dollar and underweight EM and EM-leveraged assets. If, on the other hand, we are wrong, then investors should load up with EM risk assets to the hilt right now. It is that simple. For what it is worth, we are putting our moderate-conviction view to the test and opening a long DXY trade. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com 1 But on a completely unrelated note we would like to remind our clients that, over the past 24 months, Mr. Mnuchin was the executive producer of How to Be Single, Midnight Special, Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, Keanu, The Conjuring 2, Central Intelligence, The Legend of Tarzan, Lights Out, Suicide Squad, Sully, Storks, The Accountant, Rules Don't Apply, The Lego Batman Movie, Fist Fight, CHiPs, Going in Style, Unforgettable, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, Wonder Woman, The House, Annabelle: Creation, The Lego Ninjago Movie, and The Disaster Artist. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China," dated January 17, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017," dated January 20, 2017, and Weekly Reports, "Trump and Trade," December 9, 2016, and "The Elusive Gains From Globalization," dated November 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research Webcasts, Geopolitical Strategy Crow's Nest, "China: How Is Our View Working Out?" dated January 25, 2018. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "BCA Geopolitical Strategy 2017 Report Card," dated December 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, and "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?" dated September 25, 2012, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think," dated October 4, 2013, and "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II," dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see Daniel H. Rosen, "A Post-Engagement US-China Relationship," Rhodium Group, January 19, 2018, available at rhg.com. 9 In fact, in the case of washing machines, the U.S.-based GE Appliances stands to gain from the tariff and has been owned by China's Haier Electronics Group since 2016. 10 Several clients have asked us about China's Cyber-Security Law, which has been in the process of implementation since July 2017 and will go fully into effect by the end of 2018. The law is meant to give the Chinese government the option of exercising control over all networks in the country. State security agencies are deeply involved in its enforcement and oversight. Foreign business interests fear that the law's new obligations will be onerous and potentially damaging - including potential violations of corporate security over intellectual property, source code, supply chain details, and data storage and transmission. 11 Please see Stephen E. Becker, Nancy Fischer, and Sahar Hafeez, "Update on US Investigation of China's IP Practices," Lexology, January 8, 2018, available at www.lexology.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "How To Read Xi Jinping's Party Congress Speech," dated October 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Wang has served as the top interlocutor with the U.S. in the U.S.-China Comprehensive Economic Dialogue. 14 Please see "China eyes black swans, gray rhinos as 2018 growth seen slowing to 6.5-6.8 percent: media," Reuters, January 28, 2018, available at www.reuters.com. "Gray rhinos," coined by author Michele Wucker, refer to high-probability, high-impact risks, whereas the proverbial "black swan" is a low-probability, high-impact risk. These terms have both been making the rounds more frequently in Chinese policymaking circles since last year. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 What is fascinating about Trump's statement is that he cited the 1.8 million figure. There are actually only about 800,000 people who officially participated in President Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. But estimates suggest that another 1,000,000 young adults are in the U.S. illegally, yet did not register. Trump has come under criticism from conservative, anti-immigration groups for essentially moving the goalposts beyond what even the Democrats had wanted. 17 Canada, for example, has a purely merit-based immigration system that is considerably tough on family reunification. (Reunification has even been suspended because of a large backlog.) In Europe, family reunification laws are extremely strict. Even spouses are not automatically allowed residency status in several major European countries unless they fulfill various conditions. 18 Please see footnote 2 above.