Geopolitics

Special Report

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

Highlights Globalization is recovering to its pre-pandemic trajectory. But it will fail to live up to potential, as the “hyper-globalization” trends of the 1990s are long gone. China was the biggest winner of hyper-globalization. It now faces unprecedented risks in the context of hypo-globalization. Global investors woke up to China’s domestic political risks this year, which include arbitrary regulatory crackdowns on tech and private business. While Chinese officials will ease policy to soothe markets, the cyclical and structural outlook is still negative for this economy. Growth and stimulus have peaked. Political risk will stay high through the national party congress in fall 2022. US-China relations have not stabilized. India, the clearest EM alternative for global investors, is high-priced relative to China and faces troubles of its own. It is too soon to call a bottom for EM relative to DM. Feature Global investors woke up to China’s domestic political risk over the past week, as Beijing extended its regulatory crackdown to private education companies. Our GeoRisk Indicator shows Chinese political risk reaching late 2017 levels while the broad Chinese stock market continued this year’s slide against emerging market peers (Chart 1). Chart 1China: Domestic Political Risk Takes Investors By Surprise A technical bounce in Chinese tech stocks will very likely occur but we would not recommend playing it. The first of our three key views for 2021 is the confluence of internal and external headwinds for China. True, today’s regulatory blitz will pass over like previous ones and the fast money will snap up Chinese tech firms on the cheap. The Communist Party is making a show of force, not destroying its crown jewels in the tech sector. However, the negative factors weighing on China are both cyclical and structural. Until Chinese President Xi Jinping adjusts his strategy and US-China relations stabilize, investors do not have a solid foundation for putting more capital at risk in China. Globalization is in retreat and this is negative for China, the big winner of the past 40 years. Hypo-Globalization Globalization in the truest sense has expanded over millenia. It will only reverse amid civilizational disasters. But the post-Cold War era of “hyper-globalization” is long gone.1 The 2010s saw the emergence of de-globalization. In the wake of COVID-19, global trade is recovering to its post-2008 trend but it is nowhere near recovering the post-1990 trend (Chart 2). Trade exposure has even fallen within the major free trade blocs, like the EU and USMCA (Chart 3). Chart 2Hypo-Globalization Chart 3Trade Intensity Slows Even Within Trade Blocs Of course, with vaccines and stimulus, global trade will recover in the coming decade. We coined the term “hypo-globalization” to capture this predicament, in which globalization is set to rebound but not to its previous trajectory.2 We now inhabit a world that is under-globalized and under-globalizing, i.e. not as open and free as it could be. A major factor is the US-China economic divorce, which is proceeding apace. China’s latest state actions – in diplomacy, finance, and business – underscore its ongoing disengagement from the US-led global architecture. The US, for its part, is now on its third presidency with protectionist leanings. American and European fiscal stimulus are increasingly protectionist in nature, including rising climate protectionism. Bottom Line: The stimulus-fueled recovery from the global pandemic is not leading to re-globalization so much as hypo-globalization. A cyclical reboot of cross-border trade and investment is occurring but will fall short of global potential due to a darkening geopolitical backdrop. Still No Stabilization In US-China Relations Chart 4Do Nations Prefer Growth? Or Security? A giant window of opportunity is closing for China and Russia – they will look back fondly on the days when the US was bogged down in the Middle East. The US current withdrawal from “forever wars” incentivizes Beijing and Moscow to act aggressively now, whether at home or abroad. Investors tend to overrate the Chinese people’s desire for economic prosperity relative to their fear of insecurity and domination by foreign powers. China today is more desirous of strong national defense than faster economic growth (Chart 4). The rise of Chinese nationalism is pronounced since the Great Recession. President Xi Jinping confirmed this trend in his speech for the Communist Party’s first centenary on July 1, 2021. Xi was notably more concerned with foreign threats than his predecessors in 2001 and 2011 (Chart 5).3 China has arrived as a Great Power on the global stage and will resist being foisted into a subsidiary role by western nations. Chart 5Xi Jinping’s Centenary Speech Signaled Nationalist Turn Meanwhile US-China relations have not stabilized. The latest negotiations did not produce agreed upon terms for managing tensions in the relationship. A bilateral summit between Presidents Biden and Xi Jinping has not been agreed to or scheduled, though it could still come together by the end of October. Foreign Minister Wang Yi produced a set of three major demands: that the US not subvert “socialism with Chinese characteristics,” obstruct China’s development, or infringe on China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity (Table 1). The US’s opposition to China’s state-backed economic model, export controls on advanced technology, and attempts to negotiate a trade deal with the province of Taiwan all violate these demands.4 Table 1China’s Three Demands From The United States (July 2021) The removal of US support for China’s economic, development – recently confirmed by the Biden administration – will take a substantial toll on sentiment within China and among global investors. US President Joe Biden and four executive departments have explicitly warned investors not to invest in Hong Kong or in companies with ties to China’s military-industrial complex and human rights abuses. The US now formally accuses China of genocide in the Xinjiang region.5 Bottom Line: There is no stabilization in US-China relations yet. This will keep the risk premium in Chinese currency and equities elevated. The Sino-American divorce is a major driver of hypo-globalization. China’s Regulatory Crackdown President Xi Jinping’s strategy is consistent. He does not want last year’s stimulus splurge to create destabilizing asset bubbles and he wants to continue converting American antagonism into domestic power consolidation, particularly over the private economy. Now China’s sweeping “anti-trust” regulatory crackdown on tech, education, and other sectors is driving a major rethink among investors, ranging from Ark-founder Cathie Wood to perma-bulls like Stephen Roach. The driver of the latest regulatory crackdown is the administration’s reassertion of central party control. The Chinese economy’s potential growth is slowing, putting pressure on the legitimacy of single-party rule. The Communist Party is responding by trying to improve quality of life while promoting nationalism and “socialism with Chinese characteristics,” i.e. strong central government control and guidance over a market economy. Beijing is also using state power and industrial policy to attempt a great leap forward in science and technology in a bid to secure a place in the sun. Fintech, social media, and other innovative platforms have the potential to create networks of information, wealth, and power beyond the party’s control. Their rise can generate social upheaval at home and increase vulnerability to capital markets abroad. They may even divert resources from core technologies that would do more to increase China’s military-industrial capabilities. Beijing’s goal is to guide economic development, break up the concentration of power outside of the party, prevent systemic risks, and increase popular support in an era of falling income growth. Sociopolitical Risks: Social media has demonstrably exacerbated factionalism and social unrest in the United States, while silencing a sitting president. This extent of corporate power is intolerable for China. Economic And Financial Risks: Innovative fintech companies like Ant Group, via platforms like Alipay, were threatening to disrupt one of the Communist Party’s most important levers of power: the banking and financial system. The People’s Bank of China and other regulators insisted that Ant be treated more like a bank if it were to dabble in lending and wealth management. Hence the PBoC imposed capital adequacy and credit reporting requirements.6 Data Security Risks: Didi Chuxing, the ride-sharing company partly owned by Uber, whose business model it copied and elaborated on, defied authorities by attempting to conduct its initial public offering in the United States in June. The Communist Party cracked down on the company after the IPO to show who was in charge. Even more, Beijing wanted to protect its national data and prevent the US from gaining insights into its future technologies such as electric and autonomous vehicles. Foreign Policy Risks: Beijing is also preempting the American financial authorities, who will likely take action to kick Chinese companies that do not conform to common accounting and transparency standards off US stock exchanges. Better to inflict the first blow (and drive Chinese companies to Hong Kong and Shanghai for IPOs) than to allow free-wheeling capitalism to continue, giving Americans both data and leverage. Thus Beijing is continuing the “self-sufficiency” drive, divorcing itself from the US economy and capital markets, while curbing high-flying tech entrepreneurs and companies. The party’s muscle-flexing will culminate in Xi Jinping’s consolidation of power over the Politburo and Central Committee at the twentieth national party congress in fall 2022, where he is expected to take the title of “Chairman” that only Mao Zedong has held before him. The implication is that the regulatory crackdown can easily last for another six-to-12 more months. True, investors will become desensitized to the tech crackdown. But health care and medical technology are said to be in the Chinese government’s sights. So are various mergers and acquisitions. Both regulatory and political risk premia in different sectors can persist. The current administration has waged several sweeping regulatory campaigns against monopolies, corruption, pollution, overcapacity, leverage, and non-governmental organizations. The time between the initial launch of one of these campaigns and their peak intensity ranges from two to five years (Chart 6). Often, but not always, central policy campaigns have an express, three-year plan associated with them. Chart 6ABeijing Cracked Down On Monopolies, Corruption, Pollution... Chart 6B...NGOs, Overcapacity, And Leverage Chart 7China Tech: Buyer Beware The first and second year mark the peak impact. The negative profile of Chinese tech stocks relative to their global peers suggests that the current crackdown is stretched, although there is little sign of bottom formation yet (Chart 7). The crackdown began with Alibaba founder Jack Ma, and Alibaba stocks have yet to arrest their fall either in absolute terms or relative to the Hang Seng tech index. Bottom Line: A technical bounce is highly likely for Chinese stocks, especially tech, but we would not recommend playing it because of the negative structural factors. For instance, we fully expect the US to delist Chinese companies that do not meet accounting standards. The Chinese Government’s Pain Threshold? The government is not all-powerful – it faces financial and economic constraints, even if political checks and balances are missing. Beijing does not have an interest in destroying its most innovative companies and sectors. Its goal is to maintain the regime’s survival and power. China’s crackdown on private companies goes against its strategic interest of promoting innovation and therefore it cannot continue indefinitely. The hurried meeting of the China Securities Regulatory Commission with top bankers on July 28 suggests policymakers are already feeling the heat.7 In the case of Ant Group, the company ultimately paid a roughly $3 billion fine (which is 18% of its annual revenues) and was forced to restructure. Ant learned that if it wants to behave more like a bank athen it will be regulated more like a bank. Yet investors will still have to wrestle with the long-term implications of China’s arbitrary use of state power to crack down on various companies and IPOs. This is negative for entrepreneurship and innovation, regardless of the government’s intentions. Chart 8China's Pain Threshold = Property Sector Ultimately the property sector is the critical bellwether: it is a prime target of the government’s measures against speculative asset bubbles. It is also an area where authorities hope to ease the cost of living for Chinese households, whose birth rates and fertility rates are collapsing. While there is no risk of China’s entire economy crumbling because of a crackdown on ride-hailing apps or tutoring services, there is a risk of the economy crumbling if over-zealous regulators crush animal spirits in the $52 trillion property sector, as estimated by Goldman Sachs in 2019. Property is the primary store of wealth for Chinese households and businesses and falling property prices could well lead to an unsustainable rise in debt burdens, a nationwide debt-deflation spiral, and a Japanese-style liquidity trap. Judging by residential floor space started, China is rapidly approaching its overall economic pain threshold, meaning that property sector restrictions should ease, while monetary and credit policy should get easier as necessary to preserve the economic recovery (Chart 8). The economy should improve just in time for the party congress in late 2022. Bottom Line: China will be forced to maintain relatively easy monetary and fiscal policy and avoid pricking the property bubble, which should lend some support to the global recovery and emerging markets economies over the cyclical (12-month) time frame. China’s Regulation And Demographic Pressures Is the Chinese government not acting in the public interest by tamping down financial excesses, discouraging anti-competitive corporate practices, and combating social ills? Yes, there is truth to this. But arbitrary administrative controls will not increase the birth rate, corporate productivity, or potential GDP growth. First, it is true that Chinese households cite high prices for education, housing, and medicine as reasons not to have children (Chart 9). However, price caps do not attack the root causes of these problems. The lack of financial security and investment options has long fueled high house prices. The rabid desire to get ahead in life and the exam-oriented education system have long fueled high education prices. Monetary and fiscal authorities are forced to maintain an accommodative environment to maintain minimum levels of economic growth amid high indebtedness – and yet easy money policies fuel asset price inflation. In Japan, fertility rates began falling with economic development, the entrance of women in the work force, and the rise of consumer society. The fertility rate kept falling even when the country slipped into deflation. It perked up when prices started rising again! But it relapsed after the Great Recession and Fukushima nuclear crisis (Chart 10, top panel). Chart 9China: Concerns About Having Children China’s fertility rate bottomed in the 1990s and has gradually recovered despite the historic surge in property prices (Chart 10, second panel), though it is still well below the replacement rate needed to reverse China’s demographic decline in the absence of immigration. A lower cost of living and a higher quality of life will be positive for fertility but will require deeper reforms.8 Chart 10Fertility Fell In Japan Despite Falling Prices At the same time, arbitrary regulatory crackdowns that punish entrepreneurs are not likely to boost productivity. Anti-trust actions could increase competition, which would be positive for productivity, but China’s anti-trust actions are not conducted according to rule of law, or due process, so they increase uncertainty rather than providing a more stable investment environment. China’s tech crackdown is also aimed at limiting vulnerability to foreign (American) authorities. Yet disengagement with the global economy will reduce competition, innovation, and productivity in China. Bottom Line: China’s demographic decline will require larger structural changes. It will not be reversed by an arbitrary game of whack-a-mole against the prices of housing, education, and health. India And South Asia Chart 11China Will Ease Policy... Or India Will Break Out Global investors have turned to Indian equities over the course of the year and they are now reaching a major technical top relative to Chinese stocks (Chart 11). Assuming that China pulls back on its policy tightening, this relationship should revert to mean. India faces tactical geopolitical and macroeconomic headwinds that will hit her sails and slow her down. In other words, there is no great option for emerging markets at the moment. Over the long run, India benefits if China falters. Following the peak of the second COVID-19 wave in May 2021, some high frequency indicators have showed an improvement in India’s economy. However, activity levels appear weaker than of other emerging markets (Chart 12). Given the stringency levels of India’s first lockdown last spring, year-on-year growth will look faster than it really is. As the base effect wanes, underlying weak demand will become evident. Moreover India is still vulnerable to COVID-19. Only 25% of the population has received one or more vaccine shots which is lower than the global level of 28%. The result will be a larger than expected budget deficit. India refrained from administering a large dose of government spending in 2020 (Chart 13). With key state elections due from early 2022 onwards, the government could opt for larger stimulus. This could assume the form of excise duty cuts on petroleum products or an increase in revenue expenditure. These kinds of measures will not enhance India’s productivity but will add to its fiscal deficit. Chart 12Weak Post-COVID Rebound In India – And Losing Steam Chart 13India Likely To Expand Fiscal Spending Soon Such an unexpected increase in India’s fiscal deficit could be viewed adversely by markets. India’s fiscal discipline tends to be poorer than that of peers (see Chart 13 above). Meanwhile India’s north views Pakistan unfavorably and key state elections are due in this region. Consequently, Indian policy makers may be forced to adopt a far more aggressive foreign policy response to any terrorist strikes from Pakistan or territorial incursions by China over August 2021. The US withdrawal from Afghanistan poses risks for India as it has revived the Taliban’s influence. India has a long history of being targeted by Afghani terrorist groups. And its diplomatic footprint in Afghanistan has been diminishing. Earlier in July, India decided temporarily to close its consulate in Kandahar and evacuated about 50 diplomats and security personnel. As August marks the last month of formal US presence in Afghanistan, negative surprises emanating from Afghanistan should be expected. Bottom Line: Pare exposure to Indian assets on a tactical basis. Our Emerging Markets Strategy takes a more optimistic view but geopolitical changes could act as a negative catalyst in the short term. We urge clients to stay short Indian banks. Investment Takeaways US stimulus contrasts with China’s turmoil. The US Biden administration and congressional negotiators of both parties have tentatively agreed on a $1 trillion infrastructure deal over eight years. Even if this bipartisan deal falls through, Democrats alone can and will pass another $1.3-$2.5 trillion in net deficit spending by the end of the year. Stay short the renminbi. Prefer a balance of investments in the dollar and the euro, given the cross-currents of global recovery yet mounting risks to the reflation trade. A technical bounce in Chinese stocks and tech stocks is nigh. China’s policymakers are starting to respond to immediate financial pressures. However, growth has peaked and structural factors are still negative. The geopolitical outlook is still gloomy and China’s domestic political clock is a headwind for at least 12 more months. Prefer developed market equities over emerging markets (Chart 14). Emerging markets failed to outperform in the first half of the year, contrary to our expectation that the global reflation trade would lift them. China/EM will benefit when Beijing eases policy and growth rebounds. Chart 14Emerging Markets: Not Out Of The Woods Yet Stay short Indian banks and strongman EM currencies, including the Turkish lira, the Brazilian real, and the Philippine peso. The biggest driver of EM underperformance this year is the divergence between the US and China. But until China’s policy corrects, the rest of EM faces downside risks.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Ritika Mankar, CFA Editor/Strategist ritika.mankar@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Dani Rodrik, The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy (New York: Norton, 2011). 2 See my "Nationalism And Globalization After COVID-19," Investments & Wealth Monitor (Jan/Feb 2021), pp13-21, investmentsandwealth.org. 3 Our study of Xi’s speech is not limited to this quantitative, word-count analysis. A fuller comparison of his speech with that of his predecessors on the same occasion reveals that Xi was fundamentally more favorable toward Marx, less favorable toward Deng Xiaoping and the pro-market Third Plenum, utterly silent on notions of political reform or liberal reform, more harsh in his rhetoric toward the outside world, and hawkish about the mission of reunifying with Taiwan. 4 The Chinese side also insisted that the US stop revoking visas, punishing companies and institutes, treating the press as foreign agents, and detaining executives. It warned that cooperation – which the US seeks on the environment, Iran, North Korea, and other areas – cannot be achieved while the US imposes punitive measures. 5 See US Department of State, "Xinjiang Supply Chain Business Advisory," July 13, 2021, and "Risks and Considerations for Businesses Operating in Hong Kong," July 16, 2021, state.gov. 6 Top business executives are also subject to these displays of state power. For example, Alibaba founder Jack Ma caricatured China’s traditional banks as “pawn shops” and criticized regulators for stifling innovation. He is now lying low and has taken to painting! 7 See Emily Tan and Evelyn Cheng, "China will still allow IPOs in the United States, securities regulator tells brokerages," CNBC, July 28, 2021, cnbc.com. Officials are sensitive to the market blowback but the fact remains that IPOs in the US have been discouraged and arbitrary regulatory crackdowns are possible at any time. 8 Increasing social spending also requires local governments to raise more revenue but the central government had been cracking down on the major source of revenues for local government: land sales and local government financing vehicles. With the threat of punishment for local excesses and lack of revenue source, local governments have no choice but to cut social services, pushing affluent residents towards private services, while leaving the less fortunate with fewer services. As with financial regulations, the central government may backpedal from too tough regulation of local governments, but more economic and financial pain will be required to make it happen. The Geopolitics Of The Olympics The 2020 Summer Olympics are currently underway in Tokyo, even though it is 2021. The arenas are mostly empty given the global pandemic and economic slowdown. Every four years the Summer Olympics create a golden opportunity for the host nation to showcase its achievements, infrastructure, culture, and beauty. But the Olympics also have a long history of geopolitical significance: terrorist acts, war protests, social demonstrations, and boycotts. In 1906 an Irish athlete climbed a flag pole to wave the Irish flag in protest of his selection to the British team instead of the Irish one. In 1968 two African American athletes raised their fists as an act of protest against racial discrimination in the US after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. In 1972, the Palestinian terrorist group Black September massacred eleven Israeli Olympians in Munich, Germany. In 1980 the US led the western bloc to boycott the Moscow Olympics while the Soviet Union and its allies retaliated by boycotting the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics. In 2008, Russia used the Olympics as a convenient distraction from its invasion of Georgia, a major step in its geopolitical resurgence. So far, thankfully, the Tokyo Olympics have gone without incident. However, looking forward, geopolitics is already looming over the upcoming 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing. How the world has changed. The 2008 Summer Olympics marked China’s global coming-of-age celebration. The breathtaking opening ceremony featured 15,000 performers and cost $100 million. The $350 million Bird’s Nest Stadium showcased to the world China’s long history, economic prowess, and various other triumphs. All of this took place while the western democratic capitalist economies grappled with what would become the worst financial and economic crisis since the Great Depression. In 2008, global elites spoke of China as a “responsible stakeholder” that was conducting a “peaceful rise” in international affairs. The world welcomed its roughly $600 billion stimulus. Now elites speak of China as primarily a threat and a competitor, a “revisionist” state challenging the liberal world order. China is blamed for a lack of transparency (if not virological malfeasance) in handling the COVID-19 pandemic. It is blamed for breaking governance promises and violating human rights in Hong Kong, for alleged genocide in Xinjiang, and for a list of other wrongdoings, including tough “Wolf Warrior” diplomacy, cyber-crime and cyber-sabotage, and revanchist maritime-territorial claims. Even aside from these accusations it is clear that China is suffering greater financial volatility as a result of its conflicting economic goals. Talk of a diplomatic or even full boycott of Beijing’s winter games is already brewing. Sponsors are also second-guessing their involvement. More than half of Canadians support boycotting the winter games. Germany is another bellwether to watch. In 2014, Germany’s president (not chancellor) boycotted the Sochi Olympics; in 2021, the EU and China are witnessing a major deterioration of relations. Parliamentarians in the UK, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, and Norway have asked their governments to outline their official stance on the winter games. In the age of “woke capitalism,” a sponsorship boycott of the games is a possibility. This is especially true given the recent Chinese backlash against European multinational corporations for violating China’s own rules of political correctness. A boycott which includes any members of the US, Norway, Canada, Sweden, Germany, or the Netherlands would be substantial as these are the top performers in the Winter Olympics. Even if there is no boycott, there is bound to be some political protests and social demonstrations, and China will not be able to censor anything said by Western broadcasters televising the events. Athletes usually suffer backlash at home if they make critical statements about their country, but they run very little risk of a backlash for criticizing China. If anything, protests against China’s handling of human rights will be tacitly encouraged. Beijing, for its part, will likely overreact, as these days it not only controls the message at home but also attempts more actively to export censorship. This is precisely what the western governments are now trying to counteract, for their own political purposes. The bottom line is that the 2008 Beijing Olympics reflected China’s strengths in stark contrast with the failures of democratic capitalism, while the 2022 Olympics are likely to highlight the opposite: China’s weaknesses, even as the liberal democracies attempt a revival of their global leadership.   Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor Jesse.Kuri@bcaresearch.com Section II: GeoRisk Indicator China Russia United Kingdom Germany France Italy Canada Spain Taiwan Korea Turkey Brazil Australia Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Special Report

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

Highlights The Delta variant will continue causing jitters but there is much greater evidence today than there was in early 2020 that humanity can curb the virus, both with vaccines and government stimulus. Delta jitters will reinforce the Fed’s dovishness and will, if anything, increase the odds that President Biden passes his mammoth spending package this fall. The very near term could easily see more volatility but by the end of the year the reflationary cast of global policy will have won the day. Tax hikes and rate hikes lurk beyond 2021. There is still no stabilization in US-China policy and the US and its allies have called out China for cyber aggression, signaling a new front of open competition. A cyber event is one of the leading contenders for the next negative shock to the global economy. Structural factors strongly support rising concerns among the global elite about cyber insecurity. Stick to this year’s key themes and views: long gold, long value over growth, long international stocks, long Mexico, long aerospace and defense, and short emerging market “strongmen” regimes. Feature Global equities sank and rose over the past week as investors struggled with “peak growth” in the US and China, the prospect of monetary policy normalization, and other risks on the horizon, including immediate concerns over the Delta variant of COVID-19. The rapid rebound, including for cyclicals like European stocks, suggested that investors are still buying the dip given a very supportive macro and policy backdrop (Chart 1). The BCA House View consists of accommodative policy, economic recovery, a weakening dollar, and the outperformance of cyclical risk assets. We largely agree, with the caveat that there will be “No Return To Normalcy” in the geopolitical realm. Meaning that over the medium and long term the US dollar will remain firmer than expected and cyclical economies and sectors will face headwinds.   Chart 1Equity Market Hits Wall Of Worry The pandemic will have unforeseen consequences, such as social unrest and regime failures, while China’s secular slowdown and the Great Power competition between the US and its rivals will intensify. Not only is China slowing but also President Joe Biden has been confirmed as a China hawk, coopting President Trump’s aggressive stance and courting US allies to pile the pressure on Beijing.    For most of this year the “normalcy” narrative has prevailed. Now investors are becoming fearful of the “abnormalcy” narrative. The US dollar has surprised its doubters on the basis of relative growth and interest rate differentials (Chart 2). Chart 2Dollar Remains Firm, Reflation Indicator Abates Over the next six months, the key point is that until these geopolitical risks boil over and explode, they reinforce the bullish macro view, since government spending will surge to address national challenges. The rich democracies have awoken to the threat posed by malaise at home and autocracy abroad. They have reactivated fiscal policy to rebuild their states and expand the social safety net. They are increasing investments in infrastructure, renewables, and defense. This trend is especially positive for US allied economies, global manufacturers ex-China, commodity prices, and commodity producing emerging markets, at least until the next shock erupts. We discuss the risk of a cyber shock as well as the points above in this report. Policy Responses To The Delta Variant The Delta variant began in India and has now swept the world. So far the variants respond to COVID vaccines, which are being rolled out globally. National and local political leaders will promote vaccination campaigns first – only if hospital systems are clogged will they resort to social restrictions. New infections have risen much faster than hospitalizations and deaths, although the latter are lagging indicators and will eventually follow cases (Chart 3). But financial markets will largely look past the scare, as they looked past the various waves of the original virus over the past 15 months. Today investors have greater evidence of humanity’s ability to curb the virus and can expect government spending to tide over the economy if new restrictions are necessary. New social restrictions should not be ruled out. They are not politically impossible. Public opinion in the developed countries shows that about 77% of people believe restrictions were about right or should have been tighter, while only 23% believe there should have been fewer restrictions (Chart 4). About 40% of Germans oppose the lifting of restrictions even for the vaccinated! Chart 3Delta Variant: A Limited Risk Unless Hospitals Clog Chart 4ANew Lockdowns Not Impossible Chart 4BNew Lockdowns Not Impossible Any financial or economic distress from virus variants will reinforce ultra-accommodative monetary policy. The European Central Bank adopted a symmetric inflation target of 2% as it completed its strategic review, up from a previous goal which simply aimed at inflation just under 2%. It is likely to expand rather than taper asset purchases (Chart 5). At the Fed, the balance of power between hawks and doves on the Federal Open Market Committee reflects the political and geopolitical trends of the day. In the wake of the Great Recession, the doves overwhelmed the hawks (Chart 6). The institution has fully transitioned today – it now aims to generate an inflation overshoot – and it will not jeopardize its new average inflation targeting regime by tightening policy too soon this year or next. Chart 5Central Banks Will Delay Normalization If COVID Crisis Persists Chart 6Doves Firmly In Ascendancy At Federal Reserve The Delta variant makes it more likely that governments will increase fiscal support. The European Union’s Recovery Fund has a modest impact but the EU Commission is not patrolling budget deficits anymore, in the event that new social restrictions set back the recovery. The Democratic Party will pass President Biden’s $3.5-$4.1 trillion American Jobs and Families Plan through Congress by Christmas (with a net deficit increase of $1.3-$2.5 trillion over eight years). Support rates among independents and Democrats suggest Biden will come up with the votes (Chart 7). A renewed sense of crisis will compel any straggling senators. Chart 7ADelta Variant Makes Biden Stimulus Even More Likely To Pass Chart 7BDelta Variant Makes Biden Stimulus Even More Likely To Pass Markets will cheer more government spending as they have done throughout the vast surge in budget deficits across the world, not least in the developed markets, where austerity stunted the recovery in the wake of the Great Recession (Chart 8). Beyond Delta jitters and reactive stimulus, there are clouds forming on the horizon over the medium and long term. Budget deficits will start contracting, central banks will start hiking rates, and taxes will go up (and not only in the US). Geopolitical risks that are suppressed today will erupt later. Bottom Line: The very near term could easily see more volatility but by the end of the year the reflationary cast of global economic policy will have won the day. The bigger problems come clearly into review after the ink dries on the last installment of the great Biden budget blowout. Chart 8Market Will Cheer Another Round Of Government Spending China Policy And Cyber War What might the next major negative shock be? A leading candidate is China, with its confluence of internal and external risks. China’s policymakers opened the floodgates of credit-and-fiscal stimulus to combat the global pandemic in 2020. They quickly shifted to tightening policy to prevent destabilizing asset bubbles. Now they are easing again. Stimulus and growth have both peaked. Authorities are on the verge of overtightening policy but tactical shifts in economic policy often occur in July. Right on cue the State Council ordered across-the-board cuts to bank reserve requirements on July 9. The Politburo’s July meeting on economic policy will bring an even more important policy signal. The concrete impact of the RRR cut should not be overstated. China has been lowering RRRs since late 2011 as its broad money growth has continually declined. The trend is indicative of China’s secular slowdown. A new series of RRR cuts is often attended by a global equity selloff (Chart 9). Chart 9China Blinked - But One RRR Cut Will Not Prevent A Global Selloff Our China Investment Strategy highlights that policy remains restrictive in other areas. Local governments have been told not to borrow if they have hidden debts. Moreover the crackdown on China’s tech sector also continues apace. These regulatory crackdowns are characteristic of the Xi Jinping administration and can continue for a while as it further consolidates power in advance of the twentieth National Party Congress in fall 2022. The US-China conflict is getting worse. The Biden administration took several punitive actions over the past month. It warned businesses against investing in Hong Kong and Xinjiang. It rejected a restart of the strategic and economic dialogue. While a bilateral summit between Biden and Xi Jinping is possible on October 30-31, it is not yet scheduled and would only temporarily improve relations. One of Biden’s more significant recent moves was to orchestrate a joint statement with allies condemning China for aggressive behavior in cyber space.1 A massive cyber attack should be high up on any investor’s list of “gray rhino” events (high-probability, high-impact events). The world has suffered large shocks from global terrorism, financial crisis, and pandemic. Lightning rarely strikes the same place twice. Of course, nobody knows what will cause the next upset. But a devastating cyber event has been underrated in the investment community and that is changing (Table 1). Fed Chair Powell, asked by a reporter what was the chief risk to the global financial system, said “cyber risk.” To quote in full: So you would worry about a cyber event. That's something that many, many government agencies, including the Fed and all large private businesses and all large private financial companies in particular, monitor very carefully, invest heavily in. And that's really where the risk I would say is now, rather than something that looked like the global financial crisis.2 Table 1Cyber Event Underrated In Consensus View Of Global Risks Here are six structural reasons that cyber risk will continue to escalate: Cyber space is one of the truly ungoverned spaces. The US is the preponderant power in cyber space, as elsewhere, but there is no regular order or code of conduct. The US cyber bureaucracy is decentralized and uncoordinated while its opponents are centrally commanded, aggressive, and sophisticated. Great power competition is escalating. The US is struggling with China, Russia, and Iran and all sides seek to intimidate enemies and gain allies. Cyber capabilities enhance essential tasks like spying, sabotage, and information warfare. The tech race is intensifying, with companies and governments investing heavily in innovation and industry, while US export controls exacerbate China’s frantic efforts to obtain advanced tech by any means. The pandemic boosted digital dependency across industry and commerce, creating a “perfect storm” for cyber attacks and hacking.3 The US and its allies are threatening to retaliate more actively against cyber attacks, which may initially lead to an increase in the total number of attacks. In addition, Israel will need to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program if it is not halted by diplomacy. The US is polarized and war-weary yet claiming greater commitment to its allies, a paradox that encourages foreign rivals to use cyber tools to foment US divisions; strike at regional opponents that lack US security guarantees; and test the US commitment to its allies. The current US-Russia negotiations toward a truce against cyber attacks on critical infrastructure are the sole example of a potential structural improvement. The US and Russia could conceivably lay down some rules of the road in cyber space. There may be a basis for an agreement in that already this year the US refrained from blocking the Nordstream II pipeline with Germany while Russia refrained from re-invading Ukraine. However, a Russo-American truce would not dispel the risk of a global cyber surprise. It could even increase the odds. Russia this year alone showed with the Colonial Pipeline hack and the JBS meat-packing hack that its proxies can disrupt critical US infrastructure. It would make sense to agree to a truce so that the US does not demonstrate the same capability against Russia. Even without a truce, Russia does not benefit from provoking massive US cyber attacks. The US is the world’s leading cyber power and has pledged that it will retaliate. Rather Russia will concentrate its efforts closer to home: suppressing dissent, intimidating the former Soviet Union, and testing the US’s willingness to defend its allies. It would be useful for Russia to use cyber attacks to undermine NATO unity and demonstrate that the US is reluctant to defend NATO members’ critical infrastructure. Remember the cyber strike against Estonia in 2007. Hence huge shocks could still emerge in Europe or elsewhere even if the US and Russia make a ceasefire regarding their own critical infrastructure.  The same can be said for China, Iran, and North Korea. Attacks in their neighborhood are even more likely than direct provocations against the United States now that the US is threatening graver consequences. Beijing is concentrating its cyber power on technological acquisition. But it will also try to intimidate its neighbors into neutrality and test America’s commitment to its allies. This applies to markets like Taiwan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Vietnam. Not all cyber attacks would cause a global shock but the danger of Biden’s emphasis on alliances and multilateralism is that the US will be tested and its commitments will expand. Local cyber attacks could escalate if the US believes it must prove its resolve.   Bottom Line: Cyber firms’ share prices have risen since we made our contrarian buy call back in March. True, fundamentals are poor despite the strong geopolitical tailwind. The BCA Equity Analyzer shows that valuations, debt, liquidity, and return on equity have deteriorated relative to the global large cap equity universe (Chart 10). Still, as long as liquidity is ample and geopolitical risk is high we expect cyber firms’ share prices to keep grinding upward. Chart 10Cyber Stocks: Poor Fundamentals But Geopolitics A Secular Driver Investment Takeaways We are sticking with our key themes and views: long gold; long value over growth; long DM-ex-US stocks such as FTSE100 (Chart 11) and European industrials; long US neighbors Mexico and Canada; long defense and cyber stocks; and short the assets of emerging market “strongman” regimes from China and Russia to Brazil, Turkey, and the Philippines. Taking several of our trade recommendations alongside the copper-to-gold ratio, a key measure of global reflation, there could be more near-term downside (Chart 12). Nevertheless these are strategic trades designed to bear rewards over 12 months and beyond. Mainland Chinese investors should book gains on long Chinese 10-year government bonds. We would not rule out a bigger bond rally later given China’s risks at home and abroad, but RRR cuts often lead to a selloff and the signal is that the socialist policy “put” remains in place. Book gains on long Italian / short Spanish equities. This tactical trade is now hitting the top of its range and will likely mean revert. We are still optimistic on European stocks and the euro as a whole and view the German election as a positive catalyst almost regardless of outcome. Chart 11Stay The Course: Long Value Over Growth   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Chart 12Stick To Cyclical Trades Over Near-Term Volatility   Footnotes 1     White House, “The United States, Joined by Allies and Partners, Attributes Malicious Cyber Activity and Irresponsible State Behavior to the People’s Republic of China,” July 19, 2021, whitehouse.gov. 2     “Jerome Powell: Full 2021 60 Minutes Interview Transcript,” CBS News, April 11, 2021, cbsnews.com. 3    Connor Fairman, “2020: Cybercrime’s Perfect Storm,” Council on Foreign Relations, January 20, 2021, cfr.org.

Special Report

Highlights With geopolitical risks increasing around China, India is attracting greater attention from global investors. India’s youthful demographics also mark a stark contrast with China. While this demographic dividend is real, its benefits should not be overstated. India is young but socially complex, which will create unique social conflicts and policy risks. In particular, the country faces structurally large budget deficits. Regional political differences could slow down reforms. Lastly, competition with China will increase India’s own geopolitical risks. Macroeconomic and (geo)political factors, not youth alone, will determine India’s equity market returns. The bullish long-term view faces near-term challenges. Feature Map 1 PreviewIndia’s Demographic Dividend Can Be Overstated “Independence had come to India like a kind of revolution; now there were many revolutions within that revolution … All over India scores of particularities that had been frozen by foreign rule, or by poverty or lack of opportunity or abjectness, had begun to flow again.” – Sir VS Naipaul, India: A Million Mutinies Now (Vintage, 1990) What is well known is that India is populous, young, and boasts a high GDP growth rate. India is also largely free of internal conflicts. Its democratic framework is seen as a pressure valve that can release social tensions. India’s hefty 58% cross-cycle premium to Emerging Markets (EM) is often attributed to the fact that India is younger than its peers, especially China. In this report we highlight that India’s demographic advantage is real but should not be overstated. For instance, India’s northern region can be likened to a demographic tinderbox. It accounts for about 45% of India’s population and is also younger than the national average. However, per capita incomes in this region are lower than the national average and to complicate matters, this region is crisscrossed by several social fault lines. This heterogeneity and economic backwardness in India’s population is the reason why the trend-line of India’s demographic dividend will not be linear. Its diverse population’s attempt to break out of its poverty will spawn unique policy risks. The North Is A Demographic Tinderbox, The South Is Prosperous But Ageing India will soon be the most populous country in the world (Chart 1). India’s median age is a decade lower than that of China to boot (Chart 2). Some emerging market investors fret about India’s low per capita income but India holds the promise of lifting individual incomes over time. This is because its GDP growth rate has been higher than that of its peers (Chart 3). Chart 1India Will Soon Be The Most Populous Country Chart 2India Is A Decade Younger Than China Chart 3India’s Per Capita Income Is Low, But GDP Growth Rate Is High However, the “demographic dividend” narrative oversimplifies India’s investment case. India is young but also socially heterogenous and its median voter is poor. This complicates India’s development process and makes its demographic dividend trend-line non-linear. India’s social complexity is best understood if India is characterized as an amalgamation of three major regions: the North, the South (which we define to include the western region), and the East. Each of these parts are unique and have distinctive socio-demographic identities. India hence is more comparable to a continent like Europe than a country like the US. Like the European Union, India is a union of multiple social, religious, and ethnic groups. It straddles a vast geography and represents a very wide spectrum of interests. India’s South is more like a middle-income Asian country such as Sri Lanka or Vietnam whilst India’s East is more like a poor Latin American economy with latent social unrest. Understanding the heterogeneity of India’s vast populace is key to get a better sense of why an investment strategy for India must be nuanced and tactical in its approach, even if the overarching strategic view is constructive. The key features of each of these three regions can be summarized as follows: Region #1: The North This region comprises the triangular area between Jammu & Kashmir, Rajasthan and Jharkhand. This is the largest landmass in India stretching from the Himalayas to the fertile Gangetic plains of central India. Ethnically most of the population here is of Indo-Aryan descent. A lion’s share of this region’s population remains engaged in agriculture and allied activities. The North accounts for about 45% of the nation’s total population and is a demographic tinderbox. Per capita incomes are low and one in five persons falls in the age group of 15-24 years. To complicate matters, wage inflation in the farm sector, which employs a large majority of the populace in this region, has been slowing. If job creation in the non-farm sector stays insufficient then it will fan fires of social instability. The North includes states like Uttar Pradesh and Punjab which have seen a steady increase in small but notable socio-political conflicts in the recent past. Issues that triggered social conflict ranged from inter-religious marriages to resistance to amending farmer-friendly laws. Region #2: The South India’s South constitutes the large inverted-triangular region on the map and spans the area between Gujarat, Kerala, and West Bengal. We include India’s western region in this category because of its socio-economic similarities with the southern peninsula. Together the South and West account for the entirety of India’s peninsular coastline and for about 40% of total population. Historically, the South has seen far fewer external invasions and its social fabric is more homogenous than that of the North. This region is characterized by high per capita incomes, balanced gender ratios (Chart 4), and higher literacy ratios (Chart 5). Socio-political conflicts in this region are less common as compared to the North. Chart 4India’s South Has Healthy Gender Ratios Compared To North Chart 5India’s South Is More Educated Than The Rest Of India The state of Kerala is an exception in this region. The social fabric in this state is unusual, with Hindus accounting for only 55% of its population (versus the national average of 80%). The high degree of religious heterogeneity in this southern Indian state could perhaps be the reason why the state has lately seen a rise of small but significant incidences of social conflict. Unlike India’s young North, the median age of the population in India’s South is likely to be higher than the national average. Whilst India’s South is clearly young by global standards, this region will have to deal with problems of an ageing population before India’s North or East. The Southern region in India even today relies on migrant workers from India’s North. Region #3: The East This region is the youngest and the smallest of the three, as it accounts for the remaining 15% of India’s population. The region is young but must contend with low per capita incomes and very high degrees of religious diversity. Muslims, Christians, and other religions account for 20% of India’s population nationally but +50% of the population in India’s East. By virtue of sharing borders with countries like Bangladesh, Nepal, and Myanmar, this region is often the entry point for migration into India. It is historically the least stable of the three regions owing to its heterogeneity and the steady influx of migrants. To conclude, India is young but is also socially complex. Whilst a youthful population yields economic advantages, if this young population lacks economic opportunity then social dissatisfaction and associated risks can be a problem. Furthermore, history suggests that if a region’s populace is young but poor and diverse, then it often spawns the rise of identity politics, which takes policymakers’ attention away from matters of economic development. Social Complexity Index To better represent India’s demographic granularities, we created a Social Complexity Index (SCI), as shown in Map 1. Map 1India’s North Is A Demographic Tinderbox; South Is Prosperous But Ageing The SCI for Indian states is created by adding a layer of socio-economic data over the demographic data. It uses three sets of variables: Economic well-being of a state as proxied by state-level per capita incomes. The lower the incomes, the greater the risk of social instability. This is because India’s per capita income is low to start with and if pockets have incomes that are substantially lower than the national average then the associated economic duress can be significant. Religious diversity in a state as measured by creating a Herfindahl-Hirschman Index of religious diversity in the state. The greater the religious diversity the greater the social complexity is expected to be. Youthfulness of a state as measured by population in the age group of 15-24 years relative to the total population. The greater the youth population ratio, the more complex are the social realities likely to be. If a state is exposed unfavorably to all three of the above stated parameters then such a state is deemed to have a high degree of social complexity and hence could be exposed to a higher risk of social conflicts and/or policy risks. Our Social Complexity Index (SCI) (Map 1) shows how parts of India are young but also socially complex. Why does this matter? This matters because a diverse, young and vast population’s attempt to develop will create policy risks. Policy Impact: Left-Leaning Economics, Right-Leaning Politics To be sure, governments in India will stay focused on creating large-scale jobs, a big concern for India’s median voter (Chart 6). However, given the time involved in building consensus for any major reform, progress on economic reforms (and hence job creation) will remain slow. India’s large population and democratic framework render the reform process more acceptable, but also less nimble. This contrasts with the speed of reforms executed by East Asian countries in the 1970s-90s, which turned them into export powerhouses. Two recent examples illustrate the problem of slow reform in India: Implementation of GST: Goods and services tax (GST) was a major reform that India embraced in 2017. However, the creation of a nation-wide GST was first mooted in 2000 and it took seventeen years for this reform to pass into law. Even in its current form India’s GST does not cover all products. It excludes large categories like petroleum products and electricity owing to resistance from state governments. Industrial sector growth: Despite India’s consistent efforts to grow its industrial sector as a source of large-scale, low-skill jobs, the share of this sector in India’s GDP has remained static for three decades (Chart 7). The services sector has grown rapidly in India over this period but its ability to absorb low-skill workers on a large scale is fundamentally restricted since (1) the sector needs mid-to-high skill workers and (2) the sector generates fewer jobs per unit of GDP owing to high degrees of productivity in the sector. Chart 6India’s Median Voter Worries Greatly About Job Creation Chart 7India’s Industrial Sector Stuck In A Rut, India’s Workforce Is Connected And Aware India’s inability to reform rapidly and create jobs on a large-scale will trigger policy risks. This factor is more relevant now than ever. In the 1990s, India was a small, closed economy that was just opening up. Hence slow reforms were acceptable as they yielded high growth off a low base. By contrast India’s masses today are at the forefront of connectivity (Chart 7). Slow job growth in a young country with high degrees of connectivity will have to be managed in the short term by responding to other needs of India’s median voter. This process might delay painful structural reforms necessary to improve productivity and hence create policy risks in the interim. What policy-risks is India exposed to? We highlight three policy risks that investors must brace for: Policy Risk #1: Structurally Large Budget Deficits Despite being young, India’s fiscal deficit has been large and as such comparable to that of countries that have an older demographic profile (Chart 8). Chart 8Despite India’s Youth, Its Fiscal Deficit Has Been Comparable To That Of Older Countries Chart 9Unlike China, The Majority Of India’s Citizenry Lives On Less Than US$10 A Day Whilst India’s fiscal deficit will rise and fall cyclically, it will remain elevated on a structural basis as India’s median voter is young but poor (Chart 9). This median voter will keep needing government support to tide over her economic duress. These fiscal transfers are likely to assume the form of transfer payments, food subsidies and a large interest burden on the exchequer who will need to borrow funds in the absence of adequate tax revenue growth. Two manifestations of this fiscal quagmire that India must contend with include: Revenue expenditure for India’s central government accounts for 85% of its total expenditure, with only 15% being set aside for more productive capital expenditure. Within central government revenue expenditure, 40% is foreclosed by food-subsidies, transfer payments, and interest payments. Can India’s fiscal deficit be expected to structurally trend lower? Only if India embraces big-ticket tax reforms. This appears unlikely given that India’s central tax revenue to GDP ratio has remained static at 10% of GDP for two decades owing to its inability to widen its tax base. Policy Risk #2: Foreign Policy Will Turn Rightwards India’s northern states are known to harbor unfavorable views of Pakistan. These are more unfavorable than the rest of India (Map 2). Geopolitical tension will persist due to a confluence of factors. Map 2Northern India Views Pakistan Even More Unfavorably Than Rest Of India India may be forced to adopt a far more aggressive foreign policy response and shed its historical stance of neutrality. This will be done to respond to tectonic shifts in geopolitics as well as the preferences of India’s north that accounts for about 45% of India’s population. China’s active involvement in South Asia will accentuate this phenomenon whereby India tilts towards abandoning its historical foreign policy stance of non-alignment. An aggressive foreign policy stance will engender fiscal costs as well as diverting attention away from internal reform. The adoption of a more aggressive foreign policy stance will necessitate the maintenance of high defense spending when these scarce resources could be used for boosting productivity through spends on soft as well as hard infrastructure. Despite having low per capita incomes, India already is the third largest military spender globally. In 2022, India’s central government plans to allocate ~15% of its budget for defense, which is the same allocation that productivity-enhancing capital expenditure as a whole will attract. Since it will be politically untenable to cut social spending, defense spending will simply add to the budget deficit. Policy Risk #3: Regional Differences Could Get Amplified Over Time India’s northern states typically lag on human development indicators (Charts 4 and 5). Owing to their large population, these states have also lagged smaller states in the east more recently on vaccination rates, which could be a symptom of deeper problems of managing public services in highly populous states (Chart 10). Chart 10India’s Northern States Lagging On Vaccinations, Smaller Eastern States Are Leading Whilst such differences between India’s more populous and less populous states are commonplace, these tensions could grow over the next few years. In specific, it is worth noting that a delimitation exercise in India is due in 2026. Delimitation refers to the process of redrawing boundaries for Lok Sabha seats to reflect changes in population. India’s Northern states are likely to receive an increased allocation of seats in India’s lower house (i.e. the Lok Sabha) beginning in 2026, despite poor performance on human development indicators. This is because India’s North accounted for 40% of seats in India’s lower house and accounted for 41% of its population in 1991. Owing rapid population growth, this region’s population share rose to 44% by 2011 and the ratio could rise further. Given that a review of the allocation of Lok Sabha seats is due in 2026, it is highly likely that India’s northern states get allocated more seats at this review. A change in political influence of different regions will have two sets of implications. Firstly, reforms that require a buy-in from all Indian states (such as GST implementation in 2017) could become trickier to implement if states that have delivered improvements in human development have to contend with a decline in political influence. Secondly, the rising political influence of India’s more populous states in the North could reinforce the trend of a less neutral and more aggressive foreign policy stance that we expect India to assume. Investment Conclusions Indian equity markets have historically traded at a hefty premium to Emerging Markets (EMs). This premium is often attributed to India’s youthful demographic structure. However academic literature has shown that realizing benefits associated with a youthful demographic structure is dependent on a country’s institutions and requires the productive employment of potential workers. It has also been shown, both theoretically and empirically, that there is nothing automatic about the link from demographic change to economic growth.1 Country-specific studies have also shown that it is difficult to find a robust relationship between asset returns on stocks, bonds, or bills, and a country’s age structure.2 An analysis of equity market returns generated by young EMs confirms that a youthful demographic structure can aid high equity returns but the geopolitical setting and macroeconomic factors matter too. Moreover, history confirms that each young country spawns a new generation of winners and losers. Fixed patterns in terms of top performing or worst performing sectors are not seen across young and populous EMs. The rest of this section highlights details pertaining to these two findings. Investment Implication#1: Youth Does Not Assure High Equity Market Returns China in the nineties, Indonesia & Brazil in the early noughties and India over the last decade had similar demographic features (see Row 1, 2 and 3 in Table 1). Table 1Leader And Laggard Sectors Can Vary Across Young, Populous Countries However, it is worth noting that these four EMs delivered widely varying returns even when their demographic features were similar (see Row 5, 6 and 7 in Table 1). In real dollarized terms equity returns ranged from a CAGR of -22% to 8% for these four countries. The variation in returns can be attributed to differences in macroeconomic and geopolitical factors. Brazil’s period of political stability in the early 2000s along with its relatively high per capita incomes were potentially responsible for Brazil’s youthful demography translating into high equity market returns. At the other end of the spectrum, equity returns in China were the lowest despite a young demography owing to low per capita incomes and economic restructuring prevalent in the nineties. Investment Implication#2: Each Young Country Spawns A New Generation Of Winners And Losers Given that a young populace is expected to display a higher propensity to consume, sectors like consumer staples, consumer discretionary, and financials are expected to outperform in young countries. However, a cross-country analysis suggests that a young country does not necessarily throw up any consistent patterns of sector performance. Sectoral performance patterns too appear to be affected by demographics along with macroeconomic and geopolitical factors. Similarities in the profile of top performing sectors in India, China, Brazil and Indonesia when these countries were young are few and far between (see Row 9, 10 and 11 in Table 1). No patterns or similarities are evident even in the profile of worst performing sectors in India, China, Brazil and Indonesia when they had similar demographic features (see Row 12, 13 and 14 in Table 1). Even India’s own experience confirms that: There exists no correlation between India’s equity market returns and its demographic structure. India was at its youngest in the nineties and yet its peak equity market returns were achieved in the subsequent decade (see Row 4, 5 & 6 in Table 2). High domestic growth combined with the emergence of political stability potentially allowed India’s youth to translate into high equity market returns over 2000-2010. Table 2Youth Is Not A Sufficient Condition For A Market To Deliver High Returns There exists no pattern in terms of top or worst performing sectors in India as it has aged over the last three decades (see Row 8 to 13 in Table 2). Healthcare for instance was the top performing sector in India in the 1990s when India’s median age was only 21 years. Industrials as a sector have featured as one of the worst performing sectors in India in the 1990s as well as the late noughties despite India’s youthful age structure. This could be attributed to the fact that India’s growth model pivoted off service sector growth while industrial sector development has lagged. Bottom Line: History suggests that a youthful demographic structure is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for an emerging market like India to deliver high equity market returns. Besides demographics, domestic macroeconomic and regional geopolitical factors create a deep imprint on equity returns’ patterns too. India faces a geopolitical tailwind as its economy develops and China’s risks increase. Nevertheless, owing to India’s heterogeneity and poverty, its road to realizing its demographic dividend will be paved with policy risks. Even as India’s lead on the demographic front is expected to continue, tactical underweights on this EM too are warranted from time to time.   Ritika Mankar, CFA Editor/Strategist ritika.mankar@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 David Bloom et al, "Global demographic change: dimensions and economic significance", NBER Working Paper No. 10817, September 2004, nber.org. 2 James M Poterba, "Demographic Structure and Asset Returns" The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 83, No. 4, November 2001, The MIT Press.

Highlights The August 1 deadline for Congress to raise the debt ceiling will come and go but the looming debt showdown will not replay the 2011-13 crisis. It is not a major risk to the bull market.  The Biden administration still has the political capital to pass a signature piece of legislation via budget reconciliation by end of year.  The tax component of the plan may bring a negative surprise but the market is likely to be more concerned over inflation expectations, eventual Fed rate hikes, and the 2022 fiscal cliff.  The Delta variant of COVID-19 is spreading rapidly in Republican-leaning states but the existence of effective vaccines presents an immediate solution. Any substantial new jitters over the pandemic will increase monetary and fiscal stimulus.  Stay long value over growth stocks despite near term risks and setbacks. Reassess if technical support is broken. Feature The Democratic Party is attempting to achieve two major things before Congress goes on recess in early August. The first is a $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure package – which will take longer than that and may never pass. The second is a $2-$6 trillion budget resolution that will contain reconciliation instructions to enable the Senate to pass President Joe Biden’s proposed $2.5-$4.1 trillion American Jobs and Families Plan with 51 votes. Democrats may very well achieve this resolution before going on recess but that is the very problem when it comes to negotiations with Republicans. Even though divisions within Republican ranks make bipartisanship more likely to succeed than usual, investors should not bet on it. A partisan reconciliation process virtually guarantees both that Democrats pass their next spending bill without major disappointments for the market and that the debt ceiling is not a substantial risk to the bull market. The real risk for investors is that the markets have mostly priced the Democrats’ stimulus spending and will increasingly turn to tax hikes and especially Fed rate hikes. While we expect dovish surprises from the Fed, the strong 4.5% year-on-year growth in core consumer prices, in the context of booming consumer sentiment (Chart 1), suggests the opposite. Chart 1Consumer Confidence Still Rebounding The Debt Ceiling Is Not A Significant Risk To The Bull Market Investors are increasingly concerned about the US debt ceiling, or statutory limit on the national debt, which comes due on August 1. But the debt ceiling does not pose a significant risk to the bull market this time around. The US is not in the same political context as it was in 2011-13 when debt showdowns roiled markets. Investors’ concerns are understandable, of course. In the wake of the Great Recession, congressional Democrats and Republicans quarreled over the debt ceiling, resulting in notable disinflationary episodes in which stocks fell while Treasuries and the dollar rallied (Chart 2). A close look at the debt showdowns of summer 2011 and winter 2012-13 reveals that the “risk off” phase occurred immediately in the first case and over the succeeding month in the second case (Chart 3). The implication is that the whole period from September to December of 2021 could be at risk from any new debt showdown. To understand why risk is not substantial this year one needs to understand what the debt ceiling is. Chart 2ABiden Will Fare Better Than Obama On Debt Ceiling Chart 2BBiden Will Fare Better Than Obama On Debt Ceiling Chart 3A Close Look At Debt Ceiling Showdowns, 2011-13 The debt ceiling is a legislative instrument intended to constrain the US’s public debt. Congress must authorize a higher debt limit to enable the Treasury Department to make debt payments. Legislating a higher debt ceiling is not the same as legislating government spending. Congress spends money through the annual appropriations process. Government spending amidst recurring budget deficits requires new debt issuance to provide the funds to be spent. But debt in excess of the statutory limit must be authorized by raising the limit. The last time Congress expanded the debt ceiling was in August 2019, leaving August 1, 2021 as the next deadline. Theoretically it is unpopular for congressmen to increase the allowance for their own profligate policies and as such the debt ceiling acts a curb on deficits and debt. In reality the two political parties usually pull together the 60 votes needed in the Senate to raise or suspend the limit and prevent the federal government from defaulting on debt payments that come due. The reason is that, if the debt limit were not raised, the government would default on debt payments and be forced to halt social security payments, civil servant wages, and other essential payments. A failure to write checks to seniors and military veterans would be extremely unpopular and both the president’s party and the opposition party would suffer for it (Chart 4). Chart 4ABoth President And Congress To Suffer From Any Debt Showdown Chart 4BBoth President And Congress To Suffer From Any Debt Showdown This does not mean that 10 Senate Republicans can easily be found to join 50 Democrats, thus reaching 60 votes in the Senate to raise the debt limit. The battle is likely to extend well into the fall, pushing up against Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s warning that the Treasury could run out of funds before Congress returns in mid-September. The battle will likely extend into October and create fears of a default.  Getting 10 Republicans is difficult. It will not occur as part of a compromise infrastructure package, even though this package already has 11 Republicans supporting it. First, the bipartisan infrastructure deal may fail anyway because Republicans know that Democratic leadership, whether they admit it or not, will tie the deal to the passage of their larger budget reconciliation bill later this fall. Since Republicans oppose the reconciliation bill they may not be able to save face if they vote for an infrastructure deal that enables it. And Democrats do not have any reason to compromise on a bipartisan deal if they think it will destroy their larger reconciliation ambitions. Second, if a bipartisan infrastructure deal comes together, Republicans will insist that the debt ceiling is kept separate. They will not want to link themselves and their infrastructure spending with the bulging national debt. Rather they will want to force the Democrats to link their massive social spending with the national debt. Democrats may accept this trade off since the Biden administration wants a bipartisan deal – as long as they are given guarantees from moderate Senate Democrats that the latter  will support the reconciliation bill. Public opinion is not generally distressed when it comes to federal budget deficits and the national debt. Only 3% of Americans cite these as the most important problem facing the country today – obviously people are more concerned with the general economic recovery and unemployment (Chart 5). However, voters clearly believe debt is one of the country’s problems, with 43% saying they are “very concerned” about debt growth, including 45% of independents. Republicans are under significant pressure on these issues, which is why only moderates would conceivably vote to raise the debt limit and even then would only raise it if forced to choose between doing so and triggering a national default (Chart 6). Brinkmanship is to be expected. Chart 5Voters Say Recovery More Important Than Debt Chart 6Yet Concern About Debt Is Not Negligible While public opinion generally favors infrastructure spending, support for infrastructure falls when it is explicitly linked to increases in national debt. Only 39% of voters, and 30% of independents, think it is acceptable to increase the debt to pay for infrastructure, according to a recent Ipsos/Reuters poll (Chart 7). About 60% of Democrats agree with this statement and 22% of Republicans. The implication – as we have long argued – is that investors should not bet on a bipartisan deal. They should bet on the partisan reconciliation process. Chart 7Democrats Support More Debt For Infrastructure … Others Do Not Support for extreme deficit spending is likely to wane as the economy recovers and the sense of crisis abates. Support for emergency COVID-19 fiscal relief was very high early this year (Chart 8). Yet even at the height of the lockdowns there was a non-negligible group of voters who claimed to care about deficits (Chart 9). Fortunately for the Biden administration, the window of opportunity has not yet closed. The rise in the Delta variant of COVID-19 is generating higher hospitalization rates and renewed concerns about the pandemic, which will help support additional stimulus measures (Table 1). There is still time to pass a major spending bill on infrastructure and/or social welfare before the end of the year. Chart 8Support For COVID Relief Was Very High Chart 9Yet Voters Showed Some Concern About Deficits Even At Height Of Crisis Table 12022 Swing States Struggling With COVID-19 Ultimately Democrats control both chambers of Congress and will be able to vote with party discipline on raising the debt ceiling. They can raise the debt ceiling with a simple majority vote if they include it in their upcoming budget reconciliation bill. This is the main reason why investors should look through any financial market jitters: there is a clear escape hatch if Republicans obstruct. The only reason we do not exclude the possibility of Republican cooperation entirely is that Republicans are in such desperate need of a lifeline following President Trump’s defeat and the post-election riot on Capitol Hill. Indeed, the last time Republicans saw anywhere near such low levels of partisan identification was in 2013, after House Republicans brought the US to the brink of defaulting on its debt (Chart 10). The Senate Republicans are divided, not unified in willingness to trigger a default, and we can count at least 10 Senate Republicans who will capitulate if necessary to prevent a default. Chart 10Republicans Need A Lifeline … Infrastructure May Be It Of course, Senate Republicans could refuse to raise the debt ceiling anyway. But the crucial difference is that Congress is not gridlocked. Democrats, as the ruling party, would suffer in the event of a default and they have the reconciliation process to prevent that from happening. (We have also maintained that they will eventually water down or abolish the Senate filibuster, which would open another way to lift the debt ceiling, although so far they have not succeeded in doing so.) Bottom Line: There are reasons for investors to be increasingly risk averse – tax hikes, eventual Fed rate hikes, the 2022 fiscal cliff, global growth sputters – but the debt ceiling is not one of them. Any major stock market jitters that emerge because of the debt ceiling should be ignored if they are not attended by more significant risks. Biden’s Political Capital Still Sufficient For One More Big Bill All year we have maintained that President Biden will get at least one signature bill passed in addition to the huge COVID-19 relief bill, the American Rescue Plan, passed at the beginning of the year. This view is based in our reading of his political support and capability, as evinced in our Political Capital Index, which we update weekly in the Appendix. This view is on track and we maintain high conviction. Nevertheless readers should be aware that Biden’s support will wobble over the coming months and US economic policy uncertainty will rebound from post-pandemic lows. This week’s update of the Political Capital Index shows some chinks in Biden’s armor that will likely get wider over the coming months, though we do not expect them to prevent the bill from passing. First, while political polarization has subsided from recent peaks in 2020, our polarization indicators are starting to rebound from post-election lows. Our polarization proxy (the gap in partisan approval of the president) will eventually find a floor considering the historically high structural polarization in the country. Meanwhile economic sentiment polarization and the Philly Fed Partisan Conflict Index climbed from their respective lows in the first half of the year, as Congress bickered over Biden’s next reconciliation bill (Chart 11). The upcoming partisan battles over infrastructure, the debt ceiling, budget appropriations, voting rights, guns, the Hyde amendment (abortion), a possible government shutdown, and the midterm elections will revive polarization even if it does not surpass 2020 peaks. Partisanship will ensure the passage of a reconciliation bill but then it will reduce Biden’s ability to pass legislation afterwards.    Chart 11Polarization Still Historically Elevated Second, Biden’s approval rating is rebounding a bit in July from its low point in June but the legislative process – as well as looming foreign policy challenges and other negative surprises – will weigh on his approval, at least until his infrastructure bill passes (Chart 12). Over the medium term, strong consumer sentiment and a recovering economy will prevent Biden’s approval rating from falling to President Trump’s levels, at least until a major mistake or negative shock occurs. Nevertheless presidents tend to have low approval ratings in the modern era due to partisanship and so far Biden is no exception. Chart 12ABiden Approval Will Suffer Till Infrastructure Passes Chart 12BBiden Approval Will Suffer Till Infrastructure Passes Third, while small business continues to be more concerned with wages and inflation than with Biden’s legislative agenda, concerns about higher taxes are gradually emerging. The business community may finally be internalizing Biden’s American Jobs Plan, which will include a corporate tax hike and possibly also individual tax hikes (Chart 13). The stock market is unlikely to ignore Biden’s corporate tax hikes forever, even if they only cause a one-off hit to earnings of 8%-10%. We expect negative tax surprises from the reconciliation process. The small business community’s opposition to Biden’s agenda is well known, and limited in impact, but it will increasingly detract from his political capital on the margin. Fourth, the economy is beginning to decelerate albeit from a very high rate of growth. The manufacturing PMI and its employment component have fallen from their highs in the first half of the year while the ratio of new orders to inventories was flat in June. The non-manufacturing sector showed the same trend with non-manufacturing business activity and new orders-to-inventories coming down from earlier heights. Non-manufacturing employment ticked down though it will likely rebound soon as enhanced federal unemployment benefits expire (Chart 14). Capex intentions softened a bit. Chart 13Small Biz Wakes Up To Inflation, Tax Hikes Chart 14Economy To Decelerate From Highs Still, the unemployment rate continued its decline in June and household and business balance sheets are strong as the economic recovery continues. Biden’s ability to pass his spending plans will ensure that the government contribution to growth remains robust in the coming years, after a soft patch in 2022 as the infrastructure plan is gradually rolled out. Most of these indicators show improvement relative to November, which gives Biden a store of political capital.  Bottom Line: Polarization and policy uncertainty are likely to rebound as the economy decelerates, albeit from rapid growth. Ultimately Biden is likely to pass a signature government spending plan by the end of the year, which will give his approval rating a boost. But given thin margins in Congress, and the looming 2022 midterm elections, Biden’s political capital will largely be exhausted after the second half of this year. Fiscal policy will likely be frozen in place for several years after that. Investment Takeaways The debt ceiling is not a major risk to the bull market, though congressional brinkmanship is inevitable. We are prepared for more volatility and near-term equity setbacks but jitters arising solely from the debt ceiling should be looked through.. Investors should stay focused on the high likelihood that Biden and the Democrats will pass a reconciliation bill that will add about $1.3-$2.5 trillion to the budget deficit over eight years. Disappointments in the bill (higher taxes, lower spending) pose a greater risk to the stock market than the debt ceiling. This bill will solidify the economic recovery but also exact a one-off toll on corporate earnings and hasten concerns over rising inflation expectations and Fed rate hikes. Furthermore a fiscal cliff looms in 2022 as budget deficits normalize from extreme levels. Until new stimulus is secured, this fiscal cliff poses a much greater risk than debt ceilings or a possible government shutdown. The Delta variant of the COVID-19 virus is threatening to clog hospitals and thus poses a risk of forcing authorities to tighten social restrictions, especially in Republican-leaning states where vaccination rates are lower (Chart 15). However, we expect vaccinations to rise – and meanwhile highly vaccinated areas will remain free to conduct business. As long as vaccines remain effective, any scare over variants of the virus will be limited. A selloff is possible but would trigger new bouts of monetary and fiscal stimulus. Chart 15Red States Will Have To Increase Vaccination We will maintain our cyclical orientation of favoring value stocks over growth stocks, although this trade faces an immediate and critical test that could trigger a revaluation (Chart 16). Tactically it should be clear from this report that rising policy uncertainty and other near-term risks are abounding. Chart 16A Test For Value Versus Growth   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor jesse.Kuri@bcaresearch.com Appendix Table A1USPS Trade Table Table A2Political Risk Matrix Chart A1Presidential Election Model Chart A2Senate Election Model Table A3Political Capital Index Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Footnotes  

Special Report

Highlights Barring major surprises, President Macron will be re-elected in 2022. Any dramatic reversal in the pandemic that leads to a new recession would benefit the opposition candidate. Otherwise, Macron will remain the frontrunner. A second term for President Macron would see a continuation of the structural reforms started in 2017, but with a longer process for coalition-building in the National Assembly. This is bullish for France. Reducing the size of the state will go a long way to improve France’s economic competitiveness over the long run. Tactically, favor the more defensive Spanish market over the highly cyclical French market. Underweight French consumer discretionary equities relative to their European and global peers. Longer term, overweight French industrials equities relative to German ones, and overweight French tech equities relative to European ones. Ahead of the election, buy the dip on any euro weakness and French OAT/German bund spread widening. Feature The French presidential election is nine months away, and it is already starting to catch investors’ attention as one of the main political events in Europe in 2022. In talks with clients, we’ve been asked repeatedly about the odds we assign to a Marine Le Pen victory and the market implications. Those concerns are understandable but overrated. Le Pen’s personal approval rating is on the rise, and, in most polls, the far-right candidate beats President Emmanuel Macron in the first round vote, although not the critical second round. Although the same polls see Macron being re-elected, the gap between the two has narrowed considerably since the 2017 election, which Macron won by 66 percent of the vote.   Still, Macron is favored for re-election. He has several strong advantages over Le Pen, and it is unlikely she will be able to close the gap further before the election. Macron’s first term has been eventful. Neoliberal structural reforms started with drums beating in the first 18 months of his term. But the pace and breadth of reform eventually became too ambitious or painful for France to bear, and protests erupted in 2018. First came the “Yellow Vest Movement,” and then came protests against pension reform. Macron tried to compromise and continue with his agenda, but COVID-19 forced his hand. Since then, Macron has focused on crisis management, benefiting from the large state sector’s role as an automatic stabilizer amid the downturn. A second term under President Macron would see a reboot of the structural reforms started in 2017, albeit without single-party rule in the National Assembly. Reforms aimed at reducing the size of the state, and its cost, would go a long way to improve France’s economic competitiveness over the long run. Therefore, the prospect of Macron’s reelection is bullish for France, even though the reality of his second term would be more complex. 2017 All Over Again? Yes And No At first glance, the 2022 election seems to be a repeat of 2017. Le Pen and Macron are likely to face off in the second round and the latter, the Europhile centrist candidate, is likely to win once more. However, everything surrounding this election has changed. The Incumbency Effect One of the major changes is favorable for Macron: he is the incumbent running for re-election. Macron had been part of President Francois Hollande’s government since 2014, so he was still viewed in 2017 as a political neophyte and dark horse candidate. His rapid rise to power, along with that of his upstart party, La République En Marche (LREM), was astounding. Chart 1Pro-Incumbency Effect Favors Macron There is a strong pro-incumbency effect in French presidential elections, especially in the first round (Chart 1). Since 1965, five incumbents have run for re-election, and all have made it to the second round. Importantly, four won first place in the first round, with a six percentage-point margin on average. The chief exception is Nicolas Sarkozy in 2012. The reason for Sarkozy’s loss, however, is well known: he attempted to pass an unpopular pension reform in the teeth of the Euro debt crisis, 12 months before facing re-election. The only other incumbent who failed at re-election was Valerie Giscard d’Estaing, who lost to Francois Mitterrand in 1981, when the whole world was in stagflation and upheaval. The incumbency effect is not as pronounced in the second round (Chart 1, bottom panel). However, when facing a far-right candidate, incumbents win by a wide margin. This was the case in 2002 and 2017. Today, Macron still has a 12-point lead on Le Pen. Macron compares well to his predecessors. Chart 2 shows the approval rating for all presidents sitting in office over the past 40 years. The number of people who intend to vote for Macron has increased, the first time this has happened for an incumbent president since 1988. Only three presidents had a higher approval rating at this stage of their term, albeit from a higher starting point. Macron’s approval rating has increased by 10% since February 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic hit Europe. Chart 2Macron Compares Well To His Predecessors Table 1Incumbency And Recessions Under The Fifth Republic The shock of the pandemic and recession is the greatest change since 2017, and the biggest challenge facing Macron. Four incumbents have made a bid for re-election that was preceded by a recession within 12-24 months (Table 1). The results are mixed, and it is hard to establish a clear anti-incumbency effect. If anything, the timing and nature of this crisis are likely to help Macron rather than hurt him, since the vaccination campaign and easing of lockdown measures will enable the economy to normalize and improve ahead of April 10-24, 2022, when voters cast their first ballots. Nonetheless, another major shock (of any kind) could undermine the incumbent advantage. Economic Recovery Is The Top Priority While the Macron administration’s handling of the pandemic was questioned, public opinion was never aggressively hostile toward his handling of the economy. Macron was instrumental in securing a major European fiscal stimulus package (and joint debt issuance) with the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel. He enthusiastically adopted the crisis mentality of “whatever it takes” to wage war against COVID-19, enabling the oversized French state to deploy the most generous furlough scheme in Europe, shielding millions of workers and preventing businesses from going under. This will be one of his winning cards. Chart 3The Handling Of The Pandemic Dictates Macron's Popularity His approval rating began to rebound following the end of lockdowns (Chart 3). This trend should strengthen as the French economy reopens, supported by a government that will play an accommodative and reflationary economic role until the election. Public opinion wants him to focus on the labor market and the economic recovery in the months to come, and he will be happy to oblige. Public opinion also views Macron as the most qualified candidate when it comes to economic matters (Table 2). 42% of respondents think that Le Pen is not qualified “at all” on economic matters, her Achilles’ heel, a perception that was already entrenched when Macron crushed her in a televised debate before the second round of the 2017 election. Table 2Macron Is Perceived As The Most Qualified To Oversee The Economic Recovery Europhile Versus Eurosceptic? The central issue of the 2017 election was Europe and France’s role in it. Following the UK’s disruptive Brexit referendum in 2016, and a long tradition of Euroscepticism within her party, Le Pen campaigned on “Frexit” and the abandonment of the euro. Conversely, Macron embraced the EU and the monetary union as he ran for president and committed to having France play a more important role within the bloc if he won. Chart 4Le Pen And The EU: Not The Divorce We Expected Since then, Le Pen has drastically shifted her stance on the EU. She now claims that the benefits of the common currency and single market outweigh the costs. After all, 70% of the French public support the euro and EU membership (Chart 4). Like clockwork, her personal approval ratings have steadily gone up. This strategic shift aligns her with the median voter, and combined with the Covid crisis, it is the only reason to take her candidacy remotely seriously in 2022, despite Macron’s clear advantages. Nevertheless, Le Pen has not yet risen above her 2012 peak in popular support. She failed to do so between 2014 and 2015, when the lingering European debt crisis, the Syrian refugee crisis, multiple terrorist attacks in France, and sluggish economic growth should have boosted her popularity. Her shifting perspective on the euro was therefore necessary and might be just what she needs to break through her 37% ceiling of popular support. Le Pen’s policy agenda is now focusing on protectionism, immigration, and national security. It is a Trumpian mix. However, while her new stance is more mainstream, it also differentiates her less from the other center-right politicians in France, namely Xavier Bertrand, who recently made local electoral gains in Le Pen’s northern industrial base. Macron is as strong an advocate for Europe as ever. He convinced Germany to break the taboo on joint fiscal policy during the pandemic. Now, he is also mounting a bid to become the natural leader of Europe, given that Merkel is stepping down, and her party is likely to lose standing in the German election in September.  France is set to take over the rotating EU Council Presidency in the first half of 2022, under the theme “Recovery, power, belonging,” which provides Macron with a golden opportunity to pitch himself as Europe’s premier statesman and economic steward in the final months of the election campaign. One Thing Hasn’t Changed: The Outcome Of A Macron/Le Pen Duel Most opinion polls give Macron a 10-12 point lead on Le Pen in the second round of the election. This gap is wide enough to reassure investors that it is not a polling error. However, in 2017, Macron’s average lead over Le Pen was 22%, and he won the election with 66% of votes. It is the narrowing of that gap that raises eyebrows among investors. Table 3Ideological Blocs Also Favor Macron Still, Le Pen’s chances at closing the gap are overrated. She is not a political “unknown” anymore and has very little ability to “surprise” voters into rallying around her next year. She will have trouble persuading those who know all about her. Grouping French voters according to ideological blocs, that is, presidential preference by party affiliation, suggests that the biggest threat to Macron is a strong center-right candidate who can beat Le Pen, especially if this should coincide with a revival of the center-left (Table 3). Otherwise, as in 2017, Macron will be able to count on voters from other parties in the second round of the election (Table 4). While both candidates appeal to right-wing constituents and would have to share their ballots, Macron can count on the green EELV party, as well as left-wing voters, to join center-right voters to elect him. Macron has made environmental issues a part of his mandate, which should help him confront a green neophyte such as Le Pen. Table 4Voting Against Le Pen Implies Voting For Macron The results of the regional elections held last month confirm this analysis. The motivation to keep Le Pen and her Rassemblement National (National Rally) party out of power is still strong (see Box 1). The poor showing of the National Rally means she won’t be able to maintain her current momentum in her personal approval ratings.   Box 1 2021 Regional Elections: Bad Omen For Marine Le Pen In Revival Of The Center-Right? The regional elections took place on June 20 and 27. While limited in relevance for the 2022 presidential race, the result of extremely low voter turnout, regional elections offer a gauge of how constituents feel about the political offerings from anti-establishment parties. Le Pen’s party suffered a heavy blow. It had hoped to consolidate power and build momentum ahead of the presidential election, but it failed even to win in its stronghold of Southern France. Meanwhile, Macron’s party (La République En Marche!) also disappointed. This outcome is not surprising; the local elections last year yielded similar results, highlighting the lack of presence at the local and regional levels for the four-year-old party. The surprise came from the center-right. It managed to win seven of the thirteen regions, beating far-right candidates by wide margins. Importantly, Xavier Bertand, Valérie Pécresse, and Laurent Wauquiez, all predicted to run for president next year, held onto their seats.   Chart 5Strong Demographic Base In The Second Round Both candidates’ demographic bases have remained the same. Macron is still popular among Millennials, white collar workers, and the elderly (Chart 5). He also has a strong base in Paris (and the suburbs) as opposed to Le Pen, and he still outperforms Le Pen among rural voters in today’s polls. Macron also scores high among the employees of the public sector—even though he is in favor of a smaller public sector. Furthermore, the unemployed mostly favor him, which reinforces the perception that he is the best candidate to improve the French economy and cut the unemployment rate. What if Le Pen fails to make it into the second round of the election? We discuss this possibility in the next section. Risks To The Base Case Scenario The greatest risks to our view are a setback in the economic recovery, an outperformance from the center-right, and the emergence of a dark horse. The latest developments in the UK and Israel, where a large share of the population is fully vaccinated, suggest that the “Delta” variant of COVID-19 remains a threat, with the potential to send economies back into lockdowns. The consequences would be dire for Macron. His chances at re-election would likely evaporate if his government imposed new lockdown measures. What about presidential candidates other than Le Pen? Our base case scenario that Macron will win is based on two assumptions: (1) the center-left Socialist Party will remain in shambles, and (2) the center-right remains scattered under different banners and will therefore lack unity. There is very little chance that the center-left will make a comeback in time, but the results from the regional elections suggest that the center-right could surprise to the upside (see Box 1), especially if it decides to rally behind a single candidate ahead of the first round. Could this candidate be a dark horse? Former Prime Minister Edouard Philippe or outsider candidate Xavier Bertrand could make formidable opponents to both Macron and Le Pen. Philippe’s personal approval rating currently stands at 50%, the highest among French politicians. He also appeals to constituents of all political leanings (Chart 6). This scenario could reshuffle the likely outcomes of both the first and second round of the election. Both Bertand and Philippe could win over voters who decided to side with Le Pen in 2017, while Philippe can compete with Macron over LREM voters. Additionally, Xavier Bertrand cuts into Le Pen’s support since he has made blue collar workers and the middle-class a priority. However, Macron and Le Pen each enjoy a strong voters’ base. It is necessary to monitor whether Valérie Pécresse (Soyons libres) and Laurent Wauquiez (Les Républicains) can be brought to endorse Xavier Bertrand ahead of the first round in 2022. Chart 6Edouard Philippe: From Ally To Outcast To Challenger? Beyond The Election Aside from the presidency, the outstanding question is the makeup of the National Assembly in 2022. Macron is not likely to enjoy the strong single-party legislative majority of his first term or to gain control of the Senate. Consequently, he will be more constrained in the legislature in a second term. Nonetheless, the demand for a better economy and a healthier job market requires pro-productivity reforms, which the public knows, and Macron has made reform his banner. Other conventional parties will come under pressure to support Macron’s reform agenda, even though that agenda will be less ambitious than it was in his first term. Chart 7Strong Presence Of Right-Leaning Forces Efforts at cutting back the size of the state are still likely, even though the pandemic has helped rather than hurt statism. This is because the French median voter, who never witnessed the degree of neoliberal reform that took place in the Anglo-Saxon world, has grown weary of the economy’s inefficiencies, just as the Anglo-Saxons have grown weary of laissez-faire neoliberalism. Before the pandemic, the French people understood the need to reduce the size of the state. After all, a larger state implies a larger cost burden borne by both households and corporations. When faced with the choice between paying the bill for the government’s fiscal response to COVID-19 (through higher taxes), or undertaking reforms aiming at reducing the size of the state, the French people will pick the former. Moreover, centrist forces will hold sway in the legislature (Chart 7); hence, some kind of budget normalization is expected in 2023 or thereafter. Other structural reforms If Macron wins would include pension reforms. We should also expect measures to push French companies to bring activities back to France, as well as a greater focus on leading France on the green path. Bottom Line: Barring major surprises, President Macron will be re-elected in 2022. There is a risk to our view if a center-right candidate defeats Le Pen to make it to the second round of the election. Either Macron or a center-right presidency would see a continuation of the structural reforms started in 2017, but with a longer process for coalition-building in the National Assembly. Investment Implications The French economy is currently experiencing an economic upswing. Three factors explain this pick-up: ultra-accommodative monetary conditions in Europe, fiscal largesse, and considerable pent-up demand. In 2021, GDP is projected to expand by 5.75% in annual average terms, higher than the Euro Area average of 4.6%. It should then grow by 4% in 2022 and by 2% in 2023. We remain bullish on French equities on a secular basis, as long as the elections result in further incremental structural reforms over time. As the election draws nearer, investors should treat any French OAT/German Bund spread widening as a buying opportunity and purchase the euro on any election-related dip. French Equities The CAC40 and French equities have had a good run since the beginning of the year. In absolute terms, the CAC40 is one of the best performers year-to-date, up +17%, driven by the outperformance of French consumer discretionary and financials equities, both in absolute and relative terms. However, a period of turbulence is appearing on the horizon; the shift in global growth drivers, the beginning of the global liquidity withdrawal, and lingering COVID worries are creating headwinds for the cyclicals-to-defensives ratio this summer. As such, we recently recommended investors downgrade cyclical equities tactically in Europe from overweight to neutral. With 66% in cyclicals, the French MSCI equity index will underperform in this environment, especially relative to the more defensive Spanish market (Table 5). Table 5Cyclicals Versus Defensives In European Markets Chart 8Three Trade Ideas In fact, our Combined Mechanical Valuation Indicator (CMVI) shows that French consumer discretionary equities are expensive relative to both their European and global peers (Chart 8). Regarding the reform theme, we stick with our long French industrial equities / short German industrial equities on a long-term horizon (Chart 8, second and third panel). The idea is that French reforms should suppress unit labor costs and make French exports more competitive vis-à-vis their main competitor, Germany. The latter faces a leftward shift in policy in elections this September. Finally, we recommend investors go long French tech stocks relative to their European counterparts. This sector is cheap (Chart 8, bottom panel), and the French tech sector will be supported by additional government spending of EUR7 billion on digital investments over the next two years. Bond Markets & FX A dovish ECB is consistent with a continued overweight in European peripheral bonds and an underweight stance on French government bonds. Chart 9Just Buy The Dip What is more relevant with respect to the French election is the OAT/Bund spread. In the past, unusually wide spreads between the two represented a euro breakup premium. In early 2017, spreads widened when the approval rating of Le Pen increased (Chart 9). However, since “Frexit” and the abandonment of the euro are no longer part of Le Pen’s agenda, investors should view spread widening as a buying opportunity. Similarly, investors should buy the euro on any election-related dip, particularly following the first round. “Frexit” has been removed from the equation, hence the euro should not weaken on breakup risk this time around. Bottom Line: We remain bullish on French equities within a European portfolio on a secular basis. If our views on the cyclicals-to-defensives ratio materialize in the near-term, highly cyclical French equities will temporarily underperform, unlike the more defensive Spanish market. On a 3- to 12-month horizon, investors should short French consumer discretionary equities relative to both their European and global counterparts. Current valuations suggest that betting on the booming French tech sector at the expense of its European neighbors will be profitable. Once the election draws nearer, investors should treat any French OAT/German Bund spread widening as a buying opportunity and purchase the euro on any election-related dip.   Jeremie Peloso, Associate Editor JeremieP@bcaresearch.com

Highlights Three distinct forces are likely to make South Asia’s geopolitical risks increasingly relevant to global investors. First, India’s tensions with China stem from China’s growing foreign policy assertiveness and India’s shift away from traditional neutrality toward aligning with the US and its allies. This creates a security dilemma in South Asia, just as in East Asia. Second, India’s economy is sputtering in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, adding fuel to nationalism and populism in advance of a series of important elections. India will stimulate the economy but it could also become more reactive on the international scene. Third, the US is withdrawing from Afghanistan and negotiating a deal with Iran in an effort to reduce the US military presence in the Middle East and South Asia. This will create a scramble for influence across both regions and a power vacuum in Afghanistan that is highly likely to yield negative surprises for India and its neighbors. Traditionally geopolitical risks in South Asia have a limited impact on markets. India’s growth slowdown and forthcoming fiscal stimulus are more relevant for investors. However, a sharp rise in geopolitical risk would undermine India’s structural advantages as the West diversifies away from China. Stay short Indian banks. Feature Geopolitical risks in South Asia are slowly but surely rising. India-Pakistan and China-India are well-known “conflict-dyads” or pairings. Historically, these two sets have been fighting each other over their fuzzy Himalayan border with limited global financial market consequences. But now fundamental changes are afoot that are altering the geopolitical setting in the region. Specifically, the coming together of three distinct forces could trigger a significant geopolitical event in South Asia. The three forces are as follow: Force #1: Sino-Indian Tensions Get Real About a year ago, Indian and Chinese troops clashed in Ladakh, a disputed territory in the Kashmir region. Following these clashes China reduced its military presence in the Pangong Tso area but its presence in some neighboring areas remains meaningful. Besides the troop build-up along India’s eastern border, China is building more air combat infrastructure in its India-facing western theatre. China’s major air bases have historically been concentrated in China’s eastern region, away from the Indian border (Map 1). Consequently, India has historically enjoyed an advantage in airpower. But China appears to be working to mitigate this disadvantage. Map 1Most Of China’s Major Aviation Units Are Located Away From India Owing to China’s increased military focus along the Sino-India border, India’s threat perception of China has undergone a fundamental change in recent years. Notably, India has diverted some of its key army units away from its western Indo-Pak border towards its eastern border with China. India could now have nearly 200,000 troops deployed along its border with China, which would mark a 40% increase from last year.1 Turning attention to the Indo-Pak border, India’s problems with Pakistan appear under control for now. This is owing to the ceasefire agreement that was renewed by the two countries in February 2021. However, this peace cannot possibly be expected to last. This is mainly because core problems between the two countries (like Pakistan’s support of militant proxies and India’s control over Kashmir) remain unaddressed. History too suggests that bouts of peace between the two warring neighbors rarely last long. These bouts usually end abruptly when a terrorist attack takes place in India. With both political turbulence and economic distress in Pakistan rising, the fragile ceasefire between India and Pakistan could be upended over the next six months. In fact, two events over the last week point to the fragility of the ceasefire: Two drones carrying explosives entered an Indian air force station located in Jammu and Kashmir (i.e. a northern territory that India recently reorganized, to Pakistan’s chagrin). Even as no casualties were reported, this attack marks a turning point for terrorist activity in India as this was the first-time terrorists used drones to enter an Indian military base. Hours later, another drone attack struck an Indian base at the Ratnuchak-Kaluchak army station, the site of a major terrorist attack in 2002. Chart 1China, Pakistan And India Cumulatively Added 41 Nuclear Warheads Over 2020 Given that the ceasefire was agreed recently, any further increase in terrorist activity in India over the next six months would suggest that a more substantial breakdown in relations is nigh. Distinct from these recent tensions, China’s troop deployment along India’s eastern arm and Pakistan’s presence along India’s western arm creates a strategic “pincer” that increasingly threatens India. India is naturally concerned. China and Pakistan are allies who have been working closely on projects including the strategic China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). The CPEC is a collection of infrastructure projects in Pakistan that includes the development of a port in Gwadar where a future presence of the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) is envisaged. Gwadar has the potential of providing China land-based access to the Indian Ocean. Trust in the South Asian region is clearly running low. Distinct from troop build-ups and drone-attacks, China, Pakistan, and India cumulatively added more than 40 nuclear warheads over the last year (Chart 1). China is reputed to be engaged in an even larger increase in its nuclear arsenal than the data show.2 From a structural perspective, too, geopolitical risks in the South Asian peninsula are bound to keep rising. When it comes to the conflicting Indo-Pak dyad, India’s geopolitical power has been rising relative to that of Pakistan in the 2000s. However, the geopolitical muscle of the Sino-Pak alliance is much greater than that of India on a standalone basis (Chart 2). Chart 2India Has Aligned With The QUAD To Counter The Sino-Pak Alliance China’s active involvement in South Asia is responsible for driving India’s increasing desire to abandon its historical foreign policy stance of non-alignment. India’s membership in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (also known as the QUAD, whose other members include the US, Japan, and Australia) bears testimony to India’s active effort to develop closer relations with the US and its allies (Chart 2). India’s alignment with the US is deepening China’s and Pakistan’s distrust of India. Conventional and nuclear military deterrence should prevent full-scale war. But the regional balance is increasingly fluid which means geopolitical risks will slowly but surely rise in South Asia over the coming year and years. Force #2: A Growth Slowdown Alongside India’s Loaded Election Calendar The pandemic has hit the economies of South Asia particularly hard. South Asia historically maintained higher real GDP growth rates relative to Emerging Markets (EMs). But in 2021, this region’s growth rate is set to be lower than that of EM peers (Chart 3). History is replete with examples of a rise in economic distress triggering geopolitical events. South Asia is characterized by unusually low per capita incomes (Chart 4) and the latest slowdown could exacerbate the risk of both social unrest and geopolitical incidents materialising. Chart 3South Asian Economies Have Been Hit Hard By The Pandemic Chart 4South Asia Is Characterized By Very Low Per Capita Incomes To complicate matters a busy state elections calendar is coming up in India. Elections will be due in seven Indian states in 2022. These states account for about 25% of India’s population. State elections due in 2022 will amount to a high-stakes political battle. During state elections in 2021, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was the incumbent in only one of the five states. In 2022, the BJP is the incumbent party in most of the states that are due for elections, which means it has the advantage but also has a lot to lose, especially in a post-pandemic environment. Elections kick off in the crucial state of Uttar Pradesh next February. Last time this state faced elections Prime Minister Narendra Modi was willing to go to great lengths to boost his popularity ahead of time. Specifically, he upset the nation with a large-scale and unprecedented de-monetization program. Given the busy state election calendar in 2022, we expect the BJP-led central government to focus on policy actions that can improve its support among Indian voters. Two policies in particular are likely to come through: Fiscal Stimulus Measures To Provide Economic Relief: India has refrained from administering a large post-pandemic stimulus thus far. As per budget estimates, the Indian central government’s total expenditure in FY22 is set to increase only by 1% on a year-on-year basis. But the expenditure-side restraint shown by India’s central government could change. With elections and a pandemic (which has now claimed over 400,000 lives in India), the central government could consider a meaningful increase in spending closer to February 2022. Map 2Northern India Views Pakistan Even More Unfavorably Than Rest Of India India’s Finance Minister already announced a fiscal stimulus package of $85 billion (amounting to 2.8% of GDP) earlier this week. Whilst this stimulus entails limited fresh spending (amounting to about 0.6% of India’s GDP), we would not be surprised if the government follows it up with more spending closer to February 2022. Assertive Foreign Policy To Ward-Off Unfriendly Neighbors: India’s northern states are known to harbor unfavorable views of Pakistan (Map 2). The roots of this phenomenon can be traced to geography and the bloody civil strife of 1947 that was triggered by the partition of British-ruled India into the two independent dominions of India and Pakistan. Given the north’s unfavorable views of Pakistan and given looming elections, Indian policy makers may be forced to adopt a far more aggressive foreign policy response, to any terrorist strikes from Pakistan or territorial incursions by China. This kind of response was observed most recently ahead of the Indian General Elections in April-May 2019. An Indian military convoy was attacked by a suicide-bomber in early February 2019 and a Pakistan-based terrorist group claimed responsibility. A fortnight later the Indian air force launched unexpected airstrikes across the Line of Control which were then followed by the Pakistan air force conducting air strikes in Jammu and Kashmir. While the next round of Pakistani and Indian general elections is not due until 2023 and 2024, respectively, it is worth noting that of the seven state elections due in India in 2022, four are in the north (Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Uttarakhand, and Himachal Pradesh). Force #3: Power Vacuum In Afghanistan The final reason to be wary of the South Asian geopolitical dynamic is the change in US policy: both the Iran nuclear deal expected in August and the impending withdrawal from Afghanistan in September. The US public has now elected three presidents on the demand that foreign wars be reduced. In the wake of Trump and populism the political establishment is now responding. Therefore Biden will ultimately implement both the Iran deal and the Afghan withdrawal regardless of delays or hang-ups. But then he will have to do damage control. In the case of Iran, a last-minute flare-up of conflict in the region is likely this summer, as the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran underscore their red lines before the US and Iran settle down to a deal. Indeed it is already happening, with recent US attacks against Iran-backed Shia militias in Syria and Iraq. A major incident would push up oil prices, which is negative for India. But the endgame, an Iranian economic opening, is positive for India, since it imports oil and has had close relations with Iran historically. In the case of Afghanistan, the US exit will activate latent terrorist forces. It will also create a scramble for influence over this landlocked country that could lead to negative surprises across the region. The first principle of the peace agreement between the US and Afghanistan states that the latter will make all efforts to ensure that Afghan soil is not used to further terrorist activity. However, the enforceability of such a guarantee is next to impossible. Notably, the US withdrawal from Afghanistan will revive the Taliban’s influence in the region. This poses major risks for India, which has a long history of being targeted by Afghani terrorist groups. The Taliban played a critical role in the release of terrorists into Pakistan following the hijacking of an Indian Airlines flight in 1999. Furthermore, the Haqqani network, which has pledged allegiance to the Taliban, has attacked Indian assets in the past. Any attack on India deriving from the power vacuum in Afghanistan would upset the precarious regional balance. Whilst there are no immediate triggers for Afghani groups to launch a terrorist attack in India, the US withdrawal will trigger a tectonic shift in the region. Negative surprises emanating from Afghanistan should be expected. Investment Conclusions Chart 5Indian Banks Appear To Have Factored In All Positives We reiterate the need to pare exposure to Indian assets on a tactical basis. India’s growth engine is likely to misfire over the second half of the Indian financial year. Macroeconomic headwinds pose the chief risk for investors, but major geopolitical changes could act as a negative catalyst in the current context. So we urge clients to stay short Indian Banks (Chart 5). Financials account for the lion’s share of India’s benchmark index (26% weight). India could opt for an unexpected expansion in its fiscal deficit soon. Whilst we continue to watch fiscal dynamics closely, we expect the fiscal expansion to materialize closer to February 2022 when India’s most populous state (i.e. Uttar Pradesh) will undergo elections. Over the long run, India’s sense of insecurity will escalate in the context of a more assertive China, stronger Sino-Pakistani ties, and a power vacuum in Afghanistan. For that reason, New Delhi will continue to shed its neutrality and improve relations with the US-led coalition of democratic countries, with an aim to balance China. This process will feed China’s insecurity of being surrounded and contained by a hegemonic American system. This security dilemma is a source of South Asian geopolitical risk that will become more globally relevant over time. China’s conflict with the US and western world should create incentives for India to attract trade and investment. However, its ability to do so will be contingent upon domestic political factors and regional geopolitical factors.   Ritika Mankar, CFA Editor/Strategist ritika.mankar@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Sudhi Ranjan Sen, ‘India Shifts 50,000 Troops to China Border in Historic Move’, Bloomberg, June 28, 2021, bloomberg.com. 2 Joby Warrick, “China is building more than 100 missile silos in its western desert, analysts say,” Washington Post, June 30, 2021, washingtonpost.com.