Social Unrest

Special Report

Dear Client, Instead of our regular report, this week we are sending you a Special Report penned by Matt Gertken, Chief Geopolitical Strategist of our sister Geopolitical Strategy service, titled “The Polybius Solution.” In this report Matt argues that a full-fledged cold war with China would put a cap on American political polarization, putting China at a disadvantage. By contrast, a U.S. war with Iran would exacerbate polarization, giving China a huge strategic opportunity. We trust that you will find this Special Report useful and insightful. Best regards, Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist Highlights So What? U.S.-Iran risk is front-loaded, but U.S.-China is the greater risk overall. A full-fledged cold war with China will put a cap on American political polarization, putting China at a disadvantage. By contrast, a U.S. war with Iran would exacerbate polarization, giving China a huge strategic opportunity. War with Iran or trade war escalation with China are both ultimately dollar bullish – even though tactically the dollar may fall.  Feature The idea of the “Thucydides Trap” has gone viral in recent years – for good reason. The term, coined by Harvard political scientist Graham Allison, refers to the ancient Greek historian Thucydides (460-400 BC), author of the seminal History of the Peloponnesian War. The “trap” is the armed conflict that most often develops when a dominant nation that presides over a particular world order (e.g. Sparta, the U.S.) faces a young and ambitious rival that seeks fundamental change to that order (e.g. Athens, China).1 This conflict between an “established” and “revisionist” power was highlighted by the political philosopher Thomas Hobbes in his translation of Thucydides in the seventeenth century; every student of international relations knows it. Allison’s contribution is the comparative analysis of various Thucydides-esque episodes in the modern era to show how today’s U.S.-China rivalry fits the pattern. The implication is that war (not merely trade war) is a major risk. We have long held a similar assessment of the U.S.-China conflict. It is substantiated by hard data showing that China is gaining on America in various dimensions of power (Chart 1). Assuming that the U.S. does not want to be replaced, the current trade conflict will metastasize to other areas. If the U.S. and China really engage in an epic conflict, American political polarization should fall. There is an important but overlooked corollary to the Thucydides Trap: if the U.S. and China really engage in an epic conflict, American political polarization should fall. Polarization fell dramatically during the Great Depression and World War II and remained subdued throughout the Cold War. It only began to rise again when the Soviet threat faded and income inequality spiked circa 1980. Americans were less divided when they shared a common enemy that posed an existential threat; they grew more divided when their triumph proved to benefit some disproportionately to others (Chart 2). Chart 1China Is Gaining On The U.S. Chart 2U.S. Polarization Falls During Crisis   If the U.S. and China continue down the path of confrontation, a similar pattern is likely to emerge in the coming years – polarization is likely to decline. China possesses the raw ability to rival or even supplant the United States as the premier superpower over the very long run. Its mixed economy is more sustainable than the Soviet command economy was, and it is highly integrated into the global system, unlike the isolated Soviet bloc. As long as China’s domestic demand holds up and Beijing does not suppress its own country’s technological and military ambitions, Trump and the next president will face a persistent need to respond with measures to limit or restrict China’s capabilities. Eventually this will involve mobilizing public opinion more actively. Further, if the U.S.-China conflict escalates, it will clarify U.S. relations with the rest of the world. For instance, Trump’s handling of trade suggests that he could refrain from trade wars with American allies to concentrate attention on China, particularly sanctions on its technology companies. Meanwhile a future Democratic president would preserve some of these technological tactics while reinstituting the multilateral approach of the Barack Obama administration, which launched the “Pivot to Asia,” the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and intensive freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea. These are all aspects of a containment strategy that would reinforce China’s rejection of the western order. Bottom Line: If the White House, any White House, were to pursue a consistent strategy to contain China, the result would be a major escalation of the trade conflict that would bring Americans together in the face of a common enemy. It would also encourage the U.S. to form alliances in pursuit of this objective. So far these things have not occurred, but they are logical corollaries of the Thucydides Trap and they will occur if the Thucydides thesis is validated. How Would China Fare In The Thucydides Trap? China would be in trouble in this scenario. The United States, if the public unifies, would have a greater geopolitical impact than it currently does in its divided state. And a western alliance would command still greater coercive power than the United States acting alone (Chart 3). External pressure would also exacerbate China’s internal imbalances – excessive leverage, pollution, inefficient state involvement in the economy, poor quality of life, and poor governance (Chart 4). China has managed to stave off these problems so far because it has operated under relative American and western toleration of its violations of global norms (e.g. a closed financial system, state backing of national champions, arbitrary law, censorship). This would change under concerted American, European, and Japanese efforts. Chart 3China Fears A Western 'Grand Alliance' Chart 4China's Domestic Risks Underrated Concerted external pressure would make it harder for China to manage its internal imbalances. How would the Communist Party respond? First, it could launch long-delayed and badly needed structural reforms and parlay these as concessions to the West. The ramifications would be negative for Chinese growth on a cyclical basis but positive on a structural basis since the reforms would lift productivity over the long run – a dynamic that our Emerging Markets Strategy has illustrated, in a macroeconomic context, in Diagram 1. This is already an option in the current trade war, but China has not yet clearly chosen it – likely because of the danger that the U.S. would exploit the slowdown. Diagram 1Foreign Pressure And Structural Reform = Short-Term Pain For Long-Term Gain Alternatively the Communist Party could double down on confrontation with the West, as Russia has done. This would strengthen the party’s grip but would be negative for growth on both a cyclical and structural basis. The effectiveness of China’s fiscal-and-credit stimulus would likely decline because of a drop in private sector activity and sentiment – already a nascent tendency – while the lack of “reform and opening up” would reduce long-term growth potential. This option makes structural reforms look more palatable – but again, China has not yet been forced to make this choice. None of the above is to say that the West is destined to win a cold war with China, but rather that the burden of revolutionizing the global order necessarily falls on the country attempting to revolutionize it. Bottom Line: If the Thucydides Trap fully takes effect, western pressure on China’s economy will force China into a destabilizing economic transition. China could lie low and avoid conflict in order to undertake reforms, or it could amplify its aggressive foreign policy. This is where the risk of armed conflict rises. Introducing … The Polybius Solution The problem with the above is that there is no sign of polarization abating anytime soon in the United States. Extreme partisanship makes this plain (Chart 5). Rising polarization could prevent the U.S. from responding coherently to China. The Thucydides Trap could be avoided, or delayed, simply because the U.S. is distracted elsewhere. The most likely candidate is Iran. A lesser known Greek historian – who was arguably more influential than Thucydides – helps to illustrate this alternative vision for the future. This is Polybius (208-125 BC), a Greek who wrote under Roman rule. He described the rise of the Roman Empire as a result of Rome’s superior constitutional system. Polybius explains domestic polarization whereas Thucydides explains international conflict. Polybius took the traditional view that there were three primary virtues or powers governing human society: the One (the king), the Few (the nobles), and the Many (the commons). These powers normally ran the country one at a time: a dictator would die; a group of elites would take over; this oligarchy would devolve into democracy or mob-rule; and from the chaos would spring a new dictator. His singular insight – his “solution” to political decay – was that if a mixture or balance of the three powers could be maintained, as in the Roman republic, then the natural cycle of growth and decay could be short-circuited, enabling a regime to live much longer than its peers (Diagram 2). Diagram 2Polybius: A Balanced Political System Breaks The Natural Cycle Of Tyranny And Chaos In short, just as post-WWII economic institutions have enabled countries to reduce the frequency and intensity of recessions (Chart 6), so Polybius believed that political institutions could reduce the frequency and intensity of revolutions. Eventually all governments would decay and collapse, but a domestic system of checks and balances could delay the inevitable. Needless to say, Polybius was hugely influential on English and French constitutional thinkers and the founders of the American republic. Chart 6Orthodox Economic Policy Has Made Recessions Less Frequent And Less Acute What is the cause of constitutional decay, according to Polybius? Wealth, inequality, and corruption, which always follow from stable and prosperous times. “Avarice and unscrupulous money-making” drive the masses to encroach upon the elite and demand a greater share of the wealth. The result is a vicious cycle of conflict between the commons and the nobles until either the constitutional system is restored or a democratic revolution occurs. Compared to Thucydides, Polybius had less to say about the international balance of power. Domestic balance was his “solution” to unpredictable outside events. However, states with decaying political systems were off-balance and more likely to be conquered, or to overreach in trying to conquer others. Bottom Line: The “Polybius solution” equates with domestic political balance. Balanced states do not allow the nation’s leader, the elite, or the general population to become excessively powerful. But even the most balanced states will eventually decline. As they accumulate wealth, inequality and corruption emerge and cause conflict among the three powers. Why Polybius Matters Today It does not take a stretch of the imagination to apply the Polybius model to the United States today. Just as Rome grew fat with its winnings from the Punic Wars and decayed from a virtuous republic into a luxurious empire, as Polybius foresaw, so the United States lurched from victory over the Soviet Union to internal division and unforced errors. For instance, the budget surplus of 2% of GDP in the year 2000 became a budget deficit of 9% of GDP after a decade of gratuitous wars, profligate social spending and tax cuts, and financial excesses. It is on track to balloon again when the next recession hits – and this is true even without any historic crisis event to justify it. U.S. polarization is contaminating foreign policy. The rise in polarization has coincided with a rise in wealth inequality, much as Polybius would expect (Chart 7). In all likelihood the Trump tax cuts will exacerbate both of these trends (Chart 8). Even worse, any attempts by “the people” to take more wealth from the “nobles” will worsen polarization first, long before any improvements in equality translate to a drop in polarization. Chart 7Polarization Unlikely To Drop While Inequality Rises Chart 8Trump Tax Cuts Fuel Inequality Most importantly, from a global point of view, U.S. polarization is contaminating foreign policy. Just as the George W. Bush administration launched a preemptive war in Iraq, destabilizing the region, so the Obama administration precipitously withdrew from Iraq, destabilizing the region. And just as the Obama administration initiated a hurried détente with Iran in order to leave Iraq, the Trump administration precipitously withdrew from this détente, provoking a new conflict with Iran and potentially destabilizing Iraq. Major foreign policy initiatives have been conducted, and revoked, on a partisan basis under three administrations. And a Democratic victory in 2020 would result in a reversal of Trump’s initiatives. In the meantime Trump’s policy could easily entangle him in armed conflict with Iran – as nearly occurred on June 21. Iranian domestic politics make it very difficult, if not impossible, to go back to the 2015 setting. Despite Trump’s recent backpedaling, his administration runs a high risk of getting sucked into another Middle Eastern quagmire as long as it enforces the sanctions on Iranian oil stringently. China would be the big winner if such a war occurred, just as it was one of the greatest beneficiaries of the long American distraction in Afghanistan and Iraq. It would benefit from another 5-10 years of American losses of blood and treasure. It would be able to pursue regional interests with less Interference and could trade limited cooperation with the U.S. on Iran for larger concessions elsewhere. And a nuclear-armed Iran – which is a long-term concern for the U.S. – is not in China’s national interest anyway. Bottom Line: The U.S. is missing the “Polybius solution” of balanced government; polarization is on the rise. As a result, the grand strategy of “pivoting to Asia” could go into reverse (Chart 9). If that occurs, the conflict with China will be postponed or ineffective. Chart 9Will The Pivot To Asia Reverse? Iran Is The Wild Card If the U.S. gets bogged down in the Middle East yet again, the “Pivot To Asia” will go into reverse and the “Thucydides Trap” with China will be delayed. A war with Iran manifestly runs afoul of the Trump administration’s and America’s national interests, whereas a trade war with China does not. First, although an Iranian or Iranian-backed attack on American troops would give Trump initial support in conducting air strikes, the consequences of war would likely be an oil price shock that would sink his approval rating over time and reduce his chances of reelection (Chart 10). We have shown that such a shock could come from sabotage in Iraq as well as from attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran could be driven to attack if it believes the U.S. is about to attack. Second, not only would Democrats oppose a war with Iran, but Americans in general are war-weary, especially with regard to the Middle East (Chart 11). President Trump capitalized on this sentiment during his election campaign, especially in relation to Secretary Hillary Clinton who supported the war in Iraq. Over the past two weeks, he has downplayed the Iranian-backed tanker attacks, emphasized that he does not want war, and has ruled out “boots on the ground.” Chart 10Carter Gained Then Lost From Iran Oil Shock Third, it follows from the above that, in the event of war, the United States would lack the political will necessary to achieve its core strategic objectives, such as eliminating Iran’s nuclear program or its power projection capabilities. And these are nearly impossible to accomplish from the air alone. And U.S. strategic planners are well aware that conflict with Iran will exact an opportunity cost by helping Russia and China consolidate spheres of influence. The wild card is Iran. President Hassan Rouhani has an incentive to look tough and push the limits, given that he was betrayed on the 2015 deal. And the regime itself is probably confident that it can survive American air strikes. American military strikes are still a serious constraint, but until the U.S. demonstrates that it is willing to go that far, Iran can test the boundaries. In doing so it also sends a message to its regional rivals – Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Arab monarchies, and Israel – that the U.S. is all bark, no bite, and thus unable to protect them from Iran. This may lead to a miscalculation that forces Trump to respond despite his inclinations. The China trade war, by contrast, is less difficult for the Trump administration to pursue. There is not a clear path from tariffs to economic recession, as with an oil shock: the U.S. economy has repeatedly shrugged off counter-tariffs and the Fed has been cowed. While Americans generally oppose the trade war, Trump’s base does not, and the health of the overall economy is far more important for most voters. And a majority of voters do believe that China’s trade practices are unfair. Strategic planners also favor confronting China – unlike Trump they are not concerned with reelection, but they recognize that China’s advantages grow over time, including in critical technologies. Bottom Line: While the media and market focus on China and Iran risks can alternate in the short run, the Trump administration is likely to continue downgrading the conflict with Iran and upgrading the conflict with China over the next six-to-18 months. Neither politics nor grand strategy support a war with Iran, whereas politics might support a trade war with China and grand strategy almost certainly does. China Could Learn From Polybius Too China also lacks the Polybius solution. It suffers from severe inequality and social immobility, just like the Latin American states and the U.S., U.K., and Italy (Chart 12). But unlike the developed markets, it lacks a robust constitutional system. Political risks are understated given the emergence of the middle class, systemic economic weaknesses, and poor governance. Over the long run, Xi Jinping will need to step down, but having removed the formal system for power transition, a succession crisis is likely. China’s imbalances could cause domestic instability even if the U.S. becomes distracted by conflict in the Middle East. But China has unique tools for alleviating crises and smoothing out its economic slowdown, so the absence of outside pressure will probably determine its ability to avoid a painful economic slump. China also lacks the “Polybius solution” of balanced government – and it even lacks a robust constitutional system. This helps to explain China’s interest in dealing with the U.S. on North Korea. President Xi Jinping’s first trip to Pyongyang late last month helped pave the way for President Trump to resume negotiations with the North’s leader Kim Jong Un at the first-ever visit of an American president north of the demilitarized zone (DMZ). China does not want an unbridled nuclear North Korea or an American preventative war on the peninsula. If Beijing could do a short-term deal with the U.S. on the basis of assistance in reining in North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs, it could divert U.S. animus away from itself and encourage the U.S. to turn its attention toward the next rogue nuclear aspirant, Iran. It would also avoid structural economic concessions. Of course, a smooth transition today means short-term gain but long-term pain for Chinese and global growth. Productivity and potential GDP will decline if China does not reform (Diagram 3). But this kind of transition is the regime’s preferred option since Beijing seeks to minimize immediate threats and maintain overall stability. Diagram 3Stimulus And Delayed Reforms = Socialist Put = Stagflation If Chinese internal divisions do flare up, China’s leaders will take a more aggressive posture toward its neighbors and the United States in order to divert public attention and stir up patriotic support. Bottom Line: China suffers from understated internal political risk. While U.S. political divisions could lead to a lack of coherent strategy toward China, a rift in China could lead to Chinese aggression in its neighborhood, accelerating the Thucydides Trap. Investment Conclusions If the U.S. reverses the pivot to Asia, attacks Iran, antagonizes European allies, and exhausts its resources in policy vacillation, its budget deficit will balloon (Chart 13), oil prices will rise, and China will be left to manage its economic transition without a western coalition against it. The implication is a weakening dollar, at least initially. But the U.S. is nearing the end of its longest-ever business expansion and an oil price spike would bring forward the next recession, both of which will push up the greenback. Much will depend on the extent of any oil shock – whether and how long the Strait of Hormuz is blocked. Beyond the next recession, the dollar could suffer severe consequences for the U.S.’s wild policies. Chart 13An Iran War Will Bust The Budget Persian Gulf risks are coming to the fore. But over the next six-to-18 months, U.S.-China conflict will be the dominant marketmover. If the U.S. continues the pivot to Asia, and the U.S. and China proceed with tariffs, tech sanctions, saber-rattling, diplomatic crises, and possibly even military skirmishes, China will be forced into an abrupt and destabilizing economic transition. The U.S. dollar will strengthen as global growth decelerates. Developed market equities will outperform emerging market equities, but equities as a whole will underperform sovereign bonds and other safe-haven assets. Our highest conviction call on this matter is that any trade deal before the U.S. 2020 election will be limited in scope. It will fall far short of a “Grand Compromise” that ushers in a new era of U.S.-China engagement – and hence it will be a disappointment to global equities. Our trade war probabilities, updated on July 26, can be found in Diagram 4. The combined risk of further escalation is 60% -- meaning that the U.S. will either implement the final batch of tariffs or refuse to renew Huawei’s trade license, or both. We are maintaining our risk-off trades: long JPY/USD, long gold, long Swiss bonds, and long USD/CNY. Diagram 4U.S.-China Trade War Decision Tree (Updated July 26, 2019)   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 See Graham Allison, “The Thucydides Trap: Are The U.S. And China Headed For War?” The Atlantic, September 24, 2015, and Destined For War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017).

Highlights So What? Key geopolitical risks remain unresolved and most of the improvements are transitory. Maintain a cautious tactical stance toward risk assets. Why? U.S.-China relations remain the preeminent geopolitical risk to investors and President Trump remains a wild card on trade. Japan’s rising assertiveness in the region will also produce clashes with the Koreas and possibly also with China. USMCA ratification is not a red herring for investors. We expect USMCA will pass by year’s end but our conviction level is low. Trump’s threat to withdraw from NAFTA cannot be entirely ruled out. Remain long JPY-USD and overweight Thailand relative to EM equities. Feature Chart 1U.S. And Chinese Policy Growing More Simulative We maintain our cautious tactical stance toward risk assets despite improvements to the cyclical macro outlook. American and Chinese monetary and fiscal policy are growing more stimulative on the margin – an encouraging sign for the global economy and risk assets. We have frequently predicted this combination as a positive factor for the second half of the year and 2020. With the Federal Reserve likely to deliver a 25 basis point interest rate cut on July 31, the market is pricing in positive policy developments (Chart 1). Yet in the U.S., long-term fiscal and regulatory policies are increasingly uncertain as the Democratic Party primary and 2020 election heat up. And in China, the trade war continues to drag on the effectiveness of the government’s stimulus drive. President Trump remains a wild card on trade: the resumption of U.S.-China talks is precarious and will be accompanied by heightened uncertainty surrounding Mexico, Canada, Japan, and Europe in the near term. Even the USMCA’s ratification is not guaranteed, as we discuss below. Even more pressing are the dramatic events taking place in East Asia: Hong Kong, Japan, the Koreas, Taiwan, and the South and East China Seas. These events each entail near-term uncertainty amid the ongoing slowdown in trade and manufacturing. Our long-running theme of geopolitical risk rotation from the Middle East to East Asia has come to fruition, albeit at the moment geopolitical risk is rising in both regions due to the simultaneous showdown between Iran and the United States and United Kingdom. The market recognizes that geopolitical risks are unresolved, according to this month’s update of our currency- and equity-derived GeoRisk Indicators. This is in keeping with the above points. We regard most of the improvements as transitory – especially the drop in risk in the U.K., where Boris Johnson is now officially prime minister. We are therefore sticking with our cautious trade recommendations despite our agreement with the BCA House View that the cyclical outlook is improving and is positive for global risk assets on a 12-month horizon. What Is Happening To East Asian Stability? A raft of crises has struck East Asia, a region known for political stability and ease of doing business throughout the twenty-first century after its successful recovery from the financial crisis of 1997. The thawing of Asia’s frozen post-WWII conflicts is a paradigm shift with significant long-term consequences for investors. The fundamental drivers are as follows: China’s rise is not peaceful: President Xi Jinping has reasserted Communist Party control while pursuing mercantilist trade policy and aggressive foreign policy. The populations of Hong Kong and Taiwan have reacted negatively to Beijing’s tightening grip, exposing the difficulty of resolving serious political disagreements given unclear constitutional frameworks. Recent protests in Hong Kong are even larger than those in 2014 and 1989 (Table 1). Table 1Hong Kong: Recent Protests The Largest Ever America’s “pivot” is not peaceful: The United States is determined to respond to China’s rise, but political polarization has prevented a coherent strategy. The Democrats took a gradual, multilateral path emphasizing the Trans-Pacific Partnership while the Republicans have taken an abrupt, unilateral path emphasizing sweeping tariffs. Underlying trade policy is the increased use of “hard power” by both parties – freedom of navigation operations, weapons sales, and alliance-maintenance. America is threatening the strategic containment of China, which China will resist through alliances and relations with Russia and others. Japan’s resurgence is not peaceful: Japan’s “lost decades” culminated in the crises and disasters of 2008-11. Since then, Japan’s institutional ruling party – the Liberal Democrats – have embraced a more proactive vision of Japan in which the country casts off the shackles of its WWII settlement. They set about reflating the economy and “normalizing” the country’s strategic and military posture. The result is rising tension with China and the Koreas. Korean “reunion” is not peaceful: North Korea has seen a successful power transition to Kim Jong Un, who is attempting economic reforms to prolong the regime. South Korea has witnessed a collapse among political conservatives and a new push to make peace with the North and improve relations with China. The prospect of peace – or eventual reunification – increases political risk in both Korean regimes and provokes quarrels between erstwhile allies: the North and China, and the South and Japan. Southeast Asia’s rise is not peaceful: Southeast Asia is the prime beneficiary in a world where supply chains move out of China, due to China’s internal development and American trade policy. But it also suffers when China encroaches on its territory or reacts negatively to American overtures. Higher expectations from the U.S. will increase the political risk to Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam, and the Philippines. This is the critical context for the mass protests in Hong Kong and the miniature trade war between Japan and South Korea, and other regional risks. Which conflicts are market-relevant? How will they play out? The U.S.-China Conflict The most important dynamic is the strategic conflict between the U.S. and China. Its pace and intensity have ramifications for all the other states in the region. Because the Trump administration is seeking a trade agreement with China, it has held off from unduly antagonizing China over Hong Kong and Taiwan. President Trump has not fanned the flames of unrest in Hong Kong and has maintained only a gradual pace of improvements in the Taiwan relationship.1 But if the trade war escalates dramatically, Beijing will face greater economic pressure, growing more sensitive about dissent within Greater China, and Washington may take more provocative actions. Saber-rattling could ensue, as nearly occurred in October 2018. Currently events are moving in a more market-positive direction. Next week, the U.S. and China are expected to resume face-to-face trade negotiations between principal negotiators for the first time since May. China is reportedly preparing to purchase more farm goods – part of the Osaka G20 ceasefire – while the Trump administration has met with U.S. tech companies and is expected to allow Chinese telecoms firm Huawei to continue purchasing American components (at least those not clearly impacting national security). We are upgrading the odds of a trade agreement by November 2020 to 40% from 32% in mid-June. With this resumption of talks, we are upgrading the odds of a trade agreement by November 2020 to 40%, from 32% in mid-June (Diagram 1). Of this 40%, we still give only a 5% chance to a durable, long-term deal that resolves underlying technological and strategic disputes. The remaining 35% goes to a tenuous deal that enables President Trump to declare victory prior to the election and allows President Xi Jinping to staunch the bleeding in the manufacturing sector. Diagram 1U.S.-China Trade War Decision Tree (Updated July 26, 2019) Note that these odds still leave a 60% chance for an escalation of the trade war by November 2020. Our conviction level is low when it comes to the two moderate scenarios. Ultimately, Presidents Trump and Xi can agree to a trade agreement at the drop of a hat – no one can stop Xi from ordering large imports from the U.S. or Trump from rolling back tariffs. Our conviction level is much higher in assigning only a 5% chance of a grand compromise and a 36% chance of a cold war-style escalation of tensions. We doubt that China will offer any structural concessions deeper than what they have already offered (new foreign investment law, financial sector opening) prior to finding out who wins the U.S. election in 2020. Beijing is stabilizing the economy even though tariffs have gone up. As long as this remains the case, why would it implement additional painful reforms? This would set a precedent of caving to tariff coercion – and yet Trump could renege on a deal anytime, and the Democrats might take over in 2020 anyway. The one exception might be North Korea, where China could do more to bring about a diplomatic agreement favorable to President Trump as part of an overall deal before November 2020 – and this could excuse China from structural concessions affecting its internal economy. The takeaway is that U.S.-China trade issues are still far from resolved and have a high probability of failure – and this will be a source of strategic tension within the region over the next 16 months, particularly with regard to Taiwan, the Koreas, and the South China Sea. Hong Kong And Taiwan August can be a crucial time period for policy changes as Chinese leaders often meet at the seaside resort of Beidaihe to strategize. This year they need to focus on handling the unrest in Hong Kong, and the Taiwanese election in January, as well as the trade war with the United States. Protests in Hong Kong have continued, driven by underlying socio-economic factors as well as Beijing’s encroachment on traditional political liberties. Even the groups that are least sympathetic to the protesters – political moderates, the elderly, low-income groups, and the least educated – are more or less divided over the controversial extradition bill that prompted the unrest (Chart 2). This reveals that the political establishment is weak on this issue. Chief Executive Carrie Lam is clinging to power, as Beijing does not want to give the impression that popular dissent is a viable mechanism for removing leaders. But she has become closely associated with the extradition bill and will likely have to go in order to satiate the protesters and begin the process of healing. As long as Beijing refrains from rolling in the military and using outright force to crush the Hong Kong protests, the unrest should gradually die down, as the political establishment will draw support for its concessions while the general public will grow weary of the protests – especially as violence spreads. Hong Kong has no alternative to Beijing’s sovereignty. The scene of action will soon turn to Taiwan, where the January 2020 election has the potential to spark the next flashpoint in Xi Jinping’s struggle to consolidate power in Greater China. A large majority of Taiwanese people supports the Hong Kong protests – even most supporters of the pro-mainland Kuomintang (KMT) (Chart 3). This dynamic is now affecting the Taiwanese election slated for January 2020. The relatively pro-mainland KMT has been polling neck-and-neck with the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which has struggled to gain traction throughout its term given diplomatic and economic headwinds stemming from the mainland. Similarly, while popular feeling is still largely in favor of eventual independence, pro-unification feeling has regained momentum in an apparent rebuke to the pro-independence ruling party (Chart 4). However, the events in Hong Kong have changed things by energizing the democratic and mainland-skeptic elements in Taiwan. President Tsai Ing-wen is now taking a slight lead in the presidential head-to-head opinion polls despite a long period of lackluster polling (Chart 5). A close election increases the risk that policymakers and activists in Taiwan, mainland China, the United States, and elsewhere will take actions attempting to influence the election outcome. Beijing will presumably heed the lesson of the 1996 election and avoid anything too aggressive so as not to drive voters into the arms of the DPP. However, with Hong Kong boiling, and with Beijing having already conducted intimidating military drills encircling Taiwan in recent years, there is a chance that past lessons will be forgotten. The United States could also play a disruptive role, especially if trade talks deteriorate. If the KMT wins, then anti-Beijing activists will eventually begin gearing up for protests themselves, which in subsequent years could overshadow the Sunflower Movement of 2013. If the DPP prevails, Beijing may resort to tougher tactics in the coming years due to its fear of the province’s political direction and the DPP’s policies. In sum, while the Hong Kong saga is far from over and has negative long-run implications for domestic and foreign investors, Taiwan is the greater risk because it has the potential not only to suffer individually but also to become the epicenter of a larger geopolitical confrontation between China and the U.S. and its allies. This would present a more systemic challenge to global investors. Japan And “Peak Abe” Japan’s House of Councillors election on July 21 confirmed our view that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has reached the peak of his influence. Abe is still popular and is likely to remain so through the Tokyo summer Olympics next year (Chart 6). But make no mistake, the loss of his two-thirds supermajority in the upper house shows that he has moved beyond the high tide of his influence. Having retained a majority in the upper house, and a supermajority in the much more powerful lower house (House of Representatives), Abe’s government still has the ability to pass regular legislation (Chart 7). If he needs to drive through a bill delaying the consumption tax hike on October 1 due to a deterioration in the global economic and political environment, he can still do so with relative ease. While the Hong Kong saga is far from over ... Taiwan is the greater risk. Clearly, the election loss will not impact Abe’s ability to negotiate a trade deal with the United States, which we expect to happen quickly – even before a China deal – albeit with some risk of tariffs on autos in the interim. The problem is that Abe’s final and greatest aim is to revise Japan’s American-written, pacifist constitution for the first time. This requires a two-thirds vote in both houses and a majority vote in a popular referendum. While Abe can still probably cobble together enough votes in the upper house, the election result makes it less certain – and the dent in popular support implies that the national referendum is less likely to pass. Constitutional revision was always going to be a close vote anyway (Chart 8). If Abe falls short of a majority in that referendum, then he will become a lame duck and markets will have to price in greater policy uncertainty. Even if he succeeds – which is still our low-conviction baseline view – then he will have reached the pinnacle of his career and there will be nowhere to go but down. His tenure as party leader expires in September 2021 and the race to succeed him is already under way. Hence, some degree of uncertainty should begin creeping in immediately. Abe’s departure will leave the Liberal Democrats in charge – and hence Japanese policy continuity will be largely preserved. But the entire arc of events, from now through the constitutional revision process to Abe’s succession, will raise fundamental questions about whether Abe’s post-2012 reflation drive can be sustained. We have a high conviction view that it will be, but Japanese assets will challenge that view. What of the miniature trade war between Japan and South Korea? On July 4, Japan imposed export restrictions on goods critical to South Korea’s semiconductor industry in retaliation for a South Korean court ruling that would set a precedent requiring Japanese companies such as Mitsubishi and Nippon Steel to pay reparations for the use of forced Korean labor during Japanese rule from 1910-45. Chart 9Japan Has A Stronger Hand In The Mini Trade War Japan has the stronger hand in this dispute from an economic point of view (Chart 9). While the unusually heavy-handed Japanese trade measures partly reveal the influence of President Trump, who has given a license for U.S. allies to weaponize trade, it also reflects Japan’s growing assertiveness. Abe’s government may have believed that a surge of nationalism would help in the upper house election. And the constitutional referendum will be another reason to stir nationalism and a recurring source of tension with both Koreas (as well as with China). Therefore, Japanese-Korean tensions and punitive economic measures could persist well into 2020. Bottom Line: U.S.-China relations remain the preeminent geopolitical risk to investors, especially if the Taiwan election becomes a lightning rod. Japan’s rising assertiveness in the region will also produce clashes with the Koreas and possibly also with China. We are playing these risks by remaining long JPY-USD and overweight Thailand relative to EM equities, as Thailand is more insulated than other East Asian economies to trade and China risks. Keep An Eye On The USMCA Last week we highlighted U.S. budget negotiations and argued that the result would be greater fiscal accommodation. The results of the just-announced budget deal are depicted in Chart 10. One side effect is an increased likelihood of eventual tariffs on Mexico if the latter fails to staunch the influx of immigrants across the U.S. southern border, since President Trump has largely failed to secure funding for his proposed border wall. Meanwhile, the administration’s legislative and trade focus will turn toward ratifying the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement (USMCA). There is an increased likelihood of eventual U.S. tariffs on Mexico ... since President Trump has largely failed to secure funding for his proposed border wall.  Ratification is not a red herring for investors, since Trump could give notice of withdrawal from NAFTA in order to hasten USMCA approval, which would induce volatility. Moreover, successful ratification could embolden him to take a strong hand in his other trade disputes, while failure could urge him to concede to a quick deal with China. Chart 11Trade Uncertainty Supports The Dollar Further, trade policy uncertainty in the Trump era has correlated with a rising trade-weighted dollar (Chart 11), so there is a direct channel for trade tensions (or the lack thereof) to influence the global economy at a time when it badly needs a softer dollar – in addition to the negative effects of trade wars on sentiment. The signing of the USMCA trade agreement by American, Mexican, and Canadian leaders last November effectively shifted negotiations from the international stage to the domestic stage. Last month Mexico became the first to ratify the deal. The delay in the U.S. and Canada reflects their more challenging domestic political environments ahead of elections, especially in the United States. Ratification in the U.S. has been stalled by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who is locked in stalemate with the Trump administration. She is holding off on giving the green light to present the agreement to Congress until Democrats’ concerns are addressed (Diagram 2). Trump, meanwhile, is threatening to withdraw from NAFTA – a declaration that cannot be entirely ruled out, even though we highly doubt he would actually withdraw at the end of the six-month waiting period. Diagram 2Pelosi Is Stalling USMCA Ratification Process Republicans are looking to secure the USMCA’s passage before the 2020 campaign goes into full force in order to claim victory on one of Trump’s key 2016 campaign promises. The administration’s May 30 submission of the draft Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) to Congress initiated a 30-day waiting period that must pass before the administration can submit the text to Congress. But the administration is unlikely to put the final bill to Congress before ensuring that House Democrats are ready to cooperate.2 House democrats are in a position of maximum leverage and are using the process to their political advantage. House Democrats are in a position of maximum leverage – since they do not need the deal to become law – and are using the process to their political advantage. If the bill is to be ratified through the “fast action” Trade Protection Authority (TPA), which forbids amendments and limits debate in Congress, then now is their only chance to make amendments to the text, which was written without their input. Even in the Democrat-controlled House, there is probably enough support for the USMCA to secure its passage. There are 51 House Democrats who were elected in districts that Trump won or that Republicans held in 2018, and are inclined to pass the deal. Moreover 21 House Democrats have been identified from districts that rely heavily on trade with Canada and Mexico (Chart 12).3 If these Democrats vote along with all 197 Republicans in favor of the bill, it will pass the House. This is a rough calculation, but it shows that passage is achievable. What is more, there is a case to be made for bipartisan support for USMCA. Trump’s trade agenda has some latent sympathy among moderate Democrats, and Democrats within Trump districts, unlike his border wall. Democrats will appear obstructionist if they oppose the bill. Unlike trade with China, American voters are not skeptical of trade with Canada – and the group that thinks Mexico is unfair on trade falls short of a majority (Chart 13). Since enough Democrats have a compelling self-interest in securing the deal, and since Trump and the GOP obviously want it to pass, we expect it to pass eventually. The question is whether it can be done by year’s end. Once the bill is presented to Congress and passes through the TPA process, it will become law within 90 days. Assuming that the bill is presented to the House in early September, when Congress reconvenes after its summer recess, the bill could be ratified before year-end. Otherwise, without the expedited TPA process, the bill will no longer be protected against amendment and filibuster, leaving the timeline of ratification vulnerable to extensive delay. The above timeline may be too late for Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who faces general elections on October 21. The ratification process has already been initiated, as Trudeau would benefit from wrapping up the entire affair prior to the national vote.4 However, the process most recently has been stalled in order to move in tandem with the U.S., so that parliament does not ratify an agreement that the U.S. fails to pass. Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland has indicated that parliament is not likely to be recalled for a vote unless there is progress down south. This leaves the Canadian ratification process at the mercy of progress in the U.S. – and ultimately Speaker Pelosi’s decision. The current government faces few hurdles in getting the bill passed (Chart 14). The next step is a final reading in the House where the bill will either be adopted or rejected. If it is approved, the bill will then proceed to the Senate where it will undergo a similar process. If the bill is passed in the same form in the House and Senate, it will become law. Chart 15...But Trudeau's Party Is At Risk Failure to ratify the deal before the election means it will be set aside and reintroduced in the next parliament. The Liberal Party is by no means guaranteed to win a majority in the election – our base case has Trudeau forming the next government, but the race is close (Chart 15). A Conservative-led parliament would be likely to pass the bill, but it would likely be delayed to 2021 at that point due to American politics. We suspect that Trudeau will eventually stop delaying and push for Canadian ratification. This would pressure Pelosi and the Democrats to go ahead and ratify, when they are otherwise inclined to reopen negotiations or otherwise delay until after November 2020. If this gambit succeeded, Trudeau would have forced total ratification prior to October 21, which would give him a badly needed boost in the election. He can always go through the frustration of re-ratifying the deal in his second term if the Democrats insist on changes, but not if he does not survive for a second term – so it is worth going forward at home and trying to pressure Pelosi into ratification in September or early October. Bottom Line: In light of Canada’s October election and the U.S. 2020 election cycle, USMCA faces a tight schedule. A delay into next year risks undermining the ratification effort, as we enter a period of hyper-partisan politics amid the 2020 presidential campaigns. This makes the third quarter a sweet spot for USMCA ratification. While we ultimately expect that it will make it through, each passing day raises the odds against it. GeoRisk Indicators Update: July 26, 2019 All ten GeoRisk indicators can be found in the Appendix, with full annotation. Below are the most noteworthy developments this month. U.K.: As expected, Boris Johnson sealed the Conservative party leadership contest. This was largely priced in by the markets and as such did not result in a big shift in our risk indicator. Johnson has stated that he is willing to exit the EU without a deal and it is undeniable that the odds of a no-deal Brexit have increased. Nevertheless, the odds of an election are also rising as Johnson may galvanize Brexit support under the Conservative Party even as Bremain forces are divided between the rising Liberal Democrats and a Labour Party hobbled by Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. The odds that Johnson is willing to risk his newly cemented position on a snap election – having seen what happened in June 2017 – seem overstated to us, but we place the odds at about 21%. As for a no-deal exit, opinion polling still suggests that the median British voter prefers a soft exit or remaining in the EU. This imposes constraints on Johnson, as he may ultimately be forced to try to push through a plan similar to Theresa May’s, but rebranded with minimal EU concessions to make it more acceptable – or risk a no-confidence vote and potential loss of control. We maintain that GBP will stay weak, gilts will remain well-bid, and risk-off tendencies will be reinforced. France: Our French indicator points toward a significant increase in political risk over the last month. President Macron’s government has recently unveiled the pension system overhaul that he promised during the 2017 campaign. The reform, which is due to take effect in 2025, encourages citizens to work longer, as their full pension will come at the age of 64 – two years later than under current regulations. French reform efforts have historically prompted significant social unrest. Both the 1995 Juppé Plan and the 2006 labor reforms were scrapped as a result of unrest, and the 2010 pension reform strikes forced the government to cut the most controversial parts of the bill. Labor unions have already called for strikes against the current bill in September. However, no pain, no gain. Unrest is a sign that ambitious reforms are being enacted, and Macron’s showdown with protesters thus far is no more dramatic than the unrest faced by the most significant European reform efforts. The 1984-85 U.K. miners’ strike led to over 10,000 arrested and significant violence, but resulted in the closures of most collieries, weakening of trade union power, and allowed the Thatcher government to consolidate its liberal economic program. German labor reforms in the early 2000s led to strikes, but marked a turning point in unemployment and GDP trends (Chart 16), and succeeded in increasing wages and pushing people back into the labor force (Chart 17). And the 2011 Spanish reforms under PM Rajoy led to the rise of Indignados, student protesters occupying public spaces, but ultimately helped kick-start Spain’s recovery. Investors should therefore not fear unrest, and we expect any related uncertainty to abate in the medium term. Chart 16Hartz IV Reforms Were Also Accompanied By Unrest... Chart 17...But Were Ultimately Favorable Note that Macron is doubling down on reforms after the experience of the Yellow Vest protests, just as his favorability has rebounded to pre-protest levels. While Macron’s approval is nearly the lowest compared to other French presidents at this point in their terms (Chart 18), he does not face an election until 2022, so he has the ability to trudge on in hopes that his reform efforts will bear fruit by that time. Spain: Our Spanish indicator is showing signs of increasing tensions as Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez attempts to form a government. After ousting Mariano Rajoy in a vote of no confidence in June 2018, Sanchez struggled to govern with an 84-seat minority in Congress. The Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party’s (PSOE) proposed budget plan was voted down in Congress in February, forcing Sanchez to call a snap election for April 28 in which PSOE secured 123 seats. The PSOE leader failed the first investiture vote on July 23 – and the rerun on July 25 – with less votes in his favor than his predecessor Mariano Rajoy received during the 2015-2016 government formation crisis (Chart 19). In the first investiture vote, Sanchez secured 124 votes out of the 176 he needed to be sworn in as prime minister. This led to a second round of voting in which Sanchez needed a simple majority, which he failed to do with 124 affirmative, 155 opposing votes, and 67 abstentions. Going forward, Sanchez has two months to obtain the confidence of Congress, otherwise the King may dissolve the government, leading to a snap election. The Spanish government is more fragmented today than at any point during the last 30 years (Chart 20). Even if Pedro Sanchez’s PSOE were to successfully negotiate a deal with Podemos and its partner parties, the coalition would still require support from nationalist parties such as Republican Left of Catalonia or Basque Nationalist Party to govern. These will likely require major concessions relating to the handling of Catalonian independence, which, if rejected by PSOE, will result in yet another gridlocked government. The next two months will see a significant increase in political risk, and we assign a non-negligible chance to another election in November, the fourth in four years. Turkey: Investors should avoid becoming complacent on the back of the stream of encouraging news following the Turkey-Russia missile defense system deal. Our indicator is signaling that the market is pricing a decrease in tensions, and President Trump has stated that sanctions will not be immediate. Nevertheless, we would be wary. Congress is taking a much tougher stance on the issue than President Trump: The U.S. administration already excluded Turkey from the F-35 stealth fighter jet program; Senators Scott (R) and Young (R) introduced a resolution calling for sanctions; Senator Menendez (D) stated that merely removing Turkey from the F-35 program would not be enough; The new Defense Secretary nominee Mark Esper said that he was disappointed with Turkey’s “drift from the West”; And U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo expressed confidence that President Trump would impose sanctions. Under CAATSA, a law that targets companies doing business with Russia, the U.S. must impose sanctions on Turkey over the missile deal, but does not have a timeline to do so. The sanctions required are formidable, and the U.S. has already imposed sanctions on China for a similar violation. If President Trump is not going forward with sanctions now, he still could proceed later if Turkey does not improve U.S. relations in some other way. From Turkey’s side, Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu threatened retaliation if the U.S. were to impose sanctions. Turkey is also facing increasing tensions domestically. Erdogan suffered a stinging rebuke in the re-run of the Istanbul mayoral election. This defeat has left Erdogan even more insecure and unpredictable than before. On July 6, he fired central bank governor Murat Cetinkaya using a presidential decree, which calls the central bank’s independence into question. He may reshuffle his cabinet, which could make matters worse if the appointments are not market-friendly. As domestic tensions continue to escalate, and when the U.S. announces sanctions, we expect the lira to take yet another hit and add to Turkey’s economic woes. Diagram 3Brazil: Pension Reform Timeline Chart 21Brazil Faces A Fiscal Deficit Despite Pension Reform Brazil: Brazilian risks are likely to remain elevated as the country faces crunch-time over the controversial pension reform on which its fiscal sustainability depends. Although the Lower House voted overwhelmingly in support of the reform on July 11, the bill needs to make it through another Lower House vote slated for August 6. The bill will then proceed to at least two more rounds of voting in the Senate (by end-September at the earliest), with a three-fifths majority required in each round before being enshrined in Brazil’s constitution (Diagram 3). The whole process will likely be delayed by amendments and negotiations. The estimated savings of the bill in its current form are about 0.9 trillion reals, down from the 1.236 trillion reals originally targeted, which risks undermining the effort to close the fiscal deficit. Our colleagues at BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy still forecast a primary fiscal deficit in four years’ time (Chart 21).5   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For instance, the U.S.’s latest $2.2 billion arms package does not include F-16 fighter jets to Taiwan, and F-35s have entirely been ruled out. The Trump administration sent Paul Ryan, rather than a high-level cabinet member, to inaugurate the new office building of the American Institute in Taiwan for the 40th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act. At the same time, the Trump administration is threatening a more substantial upgrade of relations through more frequent arms sales, the Taiwan Travel Act (2018), and the Asia Reassurance Initiative Act (2018). 2 The risk is that history repeats itself. In 2007, then President George W. Bush sent the free-trade agreement with Colombia to Congress prior to securing Pelosi’s approval. She halted the fast-track timeline and the standoff lasted nearly five years. 3 Please see Gary Clyde Hufbauer, “USMCA Needs Democratic Votes: Will They Come Around?” Peterson Institute For International Economics, May 15, 2019, available at piie.com. 4 Bill C-100, as it is known, has already received its second reading in the House of Commons and has been referred to the Standing Committee on International Trade. 5 Please see BCA Research’s Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report titled “On Chinese Banks And Brazil,” dated July 18, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Geopolitical Calendar  

Special Report

Highlights So What? Saudi Arabia’s geopolitical risks and still-elevated domestic risks reinforce our cyclically constructive view on oil prices. Why? Saudi Arabia is still in a “danger zone” of internal political risk due to the structural transformation of its economy and society. External risks arising from the Iran showdown threaten to cutoff oil production or transportation, adding to the oil risk premium. We expect oil price volatility to persist, but on a cyclical basis we are constructive on prices. We are maintaining our long EM oil producer equities trade versus the EM equity benchmark excluding China. This basket includes Saudi equities, although in the near term these equities face downside risks. Feature The pace of change in Saudi Arabia has been brisk. Women are driving, the IPO of Aramco is in the works, and the next monarch is likely to be a millennial. Changes to the global energy economy have raised the urgency for an economic transformation that will have political and social consequences, forcing a structural transformation. While the results thus far are attractive, the adjustment phase will be rocky. Saudi Arabia’s successful transition depends on its ability to navigate three main threats: Chart 1The Epic Shale Shake-Up Continues The growth of U.S. shale producers and the dilution of Saudi Arabia’s pricing power: Since the emergence of shale technology, Saudi Arabia faces a new reality in oil markets (Chart 1). Even in the current environment of supply disruptions from major producers such as Iran, Venezuela, and Libya, Brent prices have averaged just $66/bbl so far this year, weighed down by the global slowdown, and the macro context of rising U.S. production. Saudi Arabia has had to enlist the support of Russia in the production management agreement (OPEC 2.0) in effort to support oil prices. But continued oil production cuts come at the expense of the coalition’s market share, and crude exports are no longer a dependable source of revenue for Saudi Arabia. Domestic social and political uncertainties: The successful functioning of the political system has been dependent on the government’s ability to support the lifestyles of its citizens, who have grown accustomed to the generosity of their rulers. But economic challenges bring fiscal challenges. Moreover, shifting powers within the state raise the level of uncertainty and risks during the transition phase. Saber-rattling in the region: Heightened tensions with arch-enemy Iran are posing significant risks of instability and armed conflict that could affect oil production and transportation. And as the war in Yemen enters its fifth year, it poses risks to Saudi finances and oil infrastructure – as highlighted by the multiple drone attacks on Saudi oil facilities in May. These structural risks now dominate Saudi Arabia’s policy-making. OPEC 2.0’s decision at the beginning of this month to extend output cuts into 2020 aims to smooth the economic transition by maintaining a floor under oil prices. Meanwhile Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman’s Vision 2030 is underway – it is a blueprint for a future Saudi Arabia less dependent on oil (Table 1). Table 1Vision 2030 Highlights Saudi leadership will struggle to minimize near term instability without jeopardizing necessary structural change. In addition to an acute phase of tensions with Iran that could lead to destabilizing surprises this year or next, Saudi Arabia’s economy has just bottomed and is not yet out of the woods. Saudi Arabia’s Economy And Global Oil Markets: Adapting To The New Normal The trajectory of Saudi Arabia’s economic performance has improved since the U-turn in its oil-price management. From 2014-16 Riyadh attempted to drive U.S. shale producers out of business by cranking up production and running prices down. Since then it has supported prices through OPEC 2.0’s production cuts (Chart 2). Export earnings have rebounded over the past two years, reversing the current account deficit (Chart 3). Although net inflows from trade in real terms contribute a much smaller share of overall economic output compared to the mid-2000s, the good news is that the trade balance is back in surplus. Chart 2Return To Cartel Tactics Boosted Economy Nevertheless, the external balance remains hostage to oil prices and may weaken anew over a longer time horizon. Chart 3Current Account Balance Has Improved Chart 4Oil Revenues Easing Budget Strain ... For Now Greater government revenues are helping to improve the budget (Chart 4), but it remains in deficit. Moreover, we do not expect Saudi Arabia to flip the budget to a surplus over the coming two years. Despite our Commodity & Energy Strategy team’s expectation of higher oil prices in 2019 and 2020,1 Saudi Arabia will struggle to balance its budget in the coming 18 months (Chart 5). Their average Brent projection of $73-$75/bbl over the next 18 months still falls short of Saudi’s fiscal breakeven oil price. Most importantly, the kingdom’s black gold is no longer a reliable source of income. Weak oil revenues create a “do-or-die” incentive for Saudi policymakers to diversify the economy. As Chart 1 above illustrates, Saudi Arabia is losing global oil influence to U.S. shale producers. While OPEC 2.0 restrains production, the U.S. will continue dominating production growth, with shale output expected to grow ~1.2mm b/d this year and ~1 mm b/d in 2020.2 Saudi Aramco has been the driving force behind the production cuts (Chart 6), yielding more and more of its market share to American producers. The bad news for Saudi Arabia is that shale producers are here to stay. The kingdom is poorly positioned for this loss of control over oil markets (Chart 7) and is being forced to adapt by diversifying its economy at long last. Chart 7A Long Way To Go In Diversifying Exports Little progress has been made on this front, despite the fanfare surrounding the Vision 2030 plan. 70% of government revenues were derived from the oil sector last year, an increase from the 64% share from two years prior, and Saudi Arabia’s dependence on oil trade has actually increased over the past year (Chart 8).3 This week’s announcement of Aramco’s plans to increase output capacity by 550k b/d does not support the diversification strategy. Nevertheless, the Saudis appear to be redoubling their efforts on Aramco’s delayed initial public offering. The IPO is an important aspect of the diversification process. It is also a driver of Saudi oil price management – other things equal, higher prices support the Saudis’ rosy assessments of the company’s total worth. While an excessively ambitious timeline and indecision over where to list the shares have been setbacks to the plan, last weekend’s meeting between King Salman and British finance minister Philip Hammond follows Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman’s reassertion last month that the IPO would take place in late 2020 or early 2021.4 On the non-oil front, given that Saudi Arabia’s fiscal policy is procyclical, activity in that sector is dependent on the performance of the oil sector. Strong oil sales not only improve liquidity, but also allow for greater government expenditures – both of which stimulate non-oil activity (Chart 9). This means the improvement in the non-oil sector is more a consequence of the rebound in oil revenues than an indication of successful diversification. Chart 8Saudi Reliance On Oil Not Falling Yet Yet the reform vision is not dead. Weak oil revenues may be a blessing in disguise, presenting Saudi policymakers with a “do-or-die” incentive to intensify diversification efforts. Chart 9Non-Oil Activity Still Depends On Oil Sales Bottom Line: By enlisting the support of Russia, Saudi Arabia has managed to maintain a floor beneath oil prices. However, this comes at the expense of falling market share. This leaves authorities with no choice but to diversify the economy – a feat yet to be performed. Domestic Instability Is A Potential Threat Political and social instability in Saudi Arabia is the second derivative of the new normal in global oil markets. So far instability has been limited, but the transition phase is ongoing and the government may not always manage the rapid pace of structural change as effectively as it has over the past two years. Traditionally, Saudi decision-making has comprised the interests of three main social actors: (1) the ruling al Saud family and Saudi elites (2) religious rulers, and (3) Saudi citizens. In the past, the royal family has been able to mitigate social dissent and maintain stability by ensuring that the financial interests of its citizens are satisfied while granting extensive authority to religious groups. The government has transferred profits amassed from oil to Saudi citizens in the form of subsidies for housing, fuel, water, and electricity; public services; and employment opportunities in bloated and inefficient bureaucracies. Going forward, pressure on Riyadh to reduce expenditures and adapt its budget to the changing oil landscape will persist. The authorities will have to continue to shake down elites for funds, or make cuts to these entitlements, or both. Hence policymakers are attempting to walk a thin line between near-term stability and long-term structural change. Several instances of official backtracking show that authorities fear the potential backlash. Following mass discontent in 2017, the Saudi government rolled back most of a series of cuts to public sector wages and benefits that would have led to massive fiscal savings. Instead, the government raised revenue by increasing prices of subsidized goods and services, including fuel, while doling out support to low-income families. The government also introduced a 5% value-added tax in January 2018. Unemployment – especially youth unemployment – is elevated. This is frightening for the authorities. What about the guarantee of cushy government jobs? 45% of employed Saudis work in the public sector. The consequence is an unproductive labor force lacking the skills necessary to succeed in the private sector. Declining oil revenues remove the luxury of supporting a large, unproductive labor force. Chart 10Youth And Woman Unemployment A Structural Constraint Against this backdrop, unemployment – especially youth unemployment – is elevated (Chart 10). This is frightening for the authorities as over half of Saudi citizens are below 30 years of age and the fertility rate is above replacement level implying continued rapid population growth. It will be a challenge to find employment for the rising number of young people. All the while, jobs in the private sector – which will need to take in the growing labor force – are dominated by expatriate workers. Saudi citizens hold only 20% of jobs in the private sector – but this sector makes up 60% of the country’s employment. Fixing these distortions is challenging. Overall, monthly salaries of nationals are more than double those of expatriates (Chart 11). High wage gaps also exist among comparably skilled workers, reducing the incentive to hire nationals. With non-Saudis holding over 75% of the jobs, the incentive to employ low-wage expatriate workers has also weighed on the current account balance through large remittance outflows (Chart 12). And while the share of jobs held by Saudi citizens increased, this is not on the back of an increase in the number of employed Saudis. Rather, while the number of nationals with jobs contracted by nearly 10% in 2018, jobs held by non-Saudis declined at a faster pace. The absolute number of employed Saudis is down 37% since 2015. “Saudization” efforts are aimed at reducing the wage gap – such as a monthly levy per worker on firms where the majority of workers are non-Saudi; wage subsidies for Saudi nationals working in the private sector; and quotas for hiring nationals. But these have mixed results. While Saudi employment has improved, the associated reduced productivity and higher costs have been damaging. Thus, these labor market challenges pose risks to both domestic stability, and the economy. Moreover, even though improved liquidity conditions have softened interbank rates, loans to government and quasi-government entities still outpace loans to the private sector (Chart 13). This “crowding out” effect is not conducive to a private sector revival. It is conducive to central government control, which the leadership is tightening. Chart 12Jobs For Expatriate Workers Have Declined Chart 13Monetary Conditions Ease But Private Credit Lags Facing these structural factors, authorities are attempting to appease the population through social change. There has been a marked relaxation in the ultra-conservative rules governing Saudi society. Permission for women to drive cars has been granted and the first cinemas and music venues opened their doors last year. Critically, religious rulers are seeing their wide-ranging powers curtailed. The hai’a or religious police are now only permitted to work during office hours. They no longer have the authority to detain or make arrests, and may only submit reports to civil authorities. While these changes appeal to the new generation, they also run the risk of provoking a “Wahhabi backlash.” This risk is still alive despite the past two years of policy change. The recently approved “public decency law” – which requires residents to adhere to dress codes and bans taking photos or using phrases deemed offensive – reveals the authorities’ need to mitigate this risk. Popular social reforms are occurring against a backdrop of an unprecedented centralization of power. Mohammad bin Salman will be the first Saudi ruler of his millennial generation. The evolving balance of power between the 15,000 members of the royal family will hurl the kingdom into the unknown. The concentration of power into the Sudairi faction of the ruling family, through events such as the 2017 Ritz Carlton detentions, is still capable of provoking a destabilizing backlash. Discontent among royal family members and Saudi elites may give rise to a new, fourth faction, resentful of the social and political changes. At the moment, the state’s policies have generated some momentum. A number of major hardline religious scholars and clerics have apologized for past extremism and differences over state policy and have endorsed MBS’s vision of a modern Saudi state and “moderate” Islam – the crackdown on radicalism has moved the dial within the religious establishment.5 But structural change is not quick and the social pressures being unleashed are momentous. Saudi Arabia’s oil production and transportation infrastructure are currently in danger from saber-rattling or conflict in the region. The government is guiding the process, but the consensus is correct that internal political risk remains extremely high. There has been a structural increase in that risk, as outlined in this report – and it is best to remain cautious even regarding the cyclical increase in political risk over the past two years. Bottom Line: Saudi Arabia’s new economic reality is ushering in social and political change at an unprecedented pace. Unless the interests of the three main social actors – the royal family, religious elites, and Saudi citizens – are successfully managed, a new faction comprised of disaffected elites may arise. A Dangerous Neighborhood Putting aside the longer term threat from U.S. energy independence, Saudi Arabia’s oil production and transportation infrastructure are currently in danger from saber-rattling or conflict in the region. Saudi officials originally expected the war in Yemen to last only a few weeks, but the conflict is now in its fifth year and still raging. The claim by the Iran-backed Houthi insurgents that a recent drone attack on Saudi oil installations was assisted by supporters in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern province – home to the majority of the country’s 10%-15% Shia population and oil production – is also troubling as it shows that the above domestic risks can readily combine with external, geopolitical risks. The U.S. is also joining Israel and Saudi Arabia in applying increasing pressure on Iran, which risks sparking a war. Our Iran-U.S. Tensions Decision Tree illustrates that the probability of war between the U.S. and Iran – which would involve the Saudis – is as high as 40% (Diagram 1). Diagram 1Iran-U.S. Tensions Decision Tree We are not downgrading this risk in the wake of President Trump’s decision not to conduct strikes on Iranian radars and missile launchers on June 20. President Trump claims he wants negotiations instead of war, but his administration’s pressure tactics have pushed Iran into a corner. The Iranian regime is capable of pushing the limits further (both in terms of its nuclear program as well as regional oil production and transport), which could easily lead to provocations or miscalculation. The Saudi-Iranian rivalry is structurally unstable as a result of Iran’s capitalization on major strategic movements of the past two decades. The Saudis have lost a Sunni-dominated buffer in Iraq, they have lost influence in Syria and Yemen, and their aggressive military efforts to counter these trends have failed.6 The Israelis are equally alarmed by these developments and trying to persuade the Americans to take a much more aggressive posture to contain Iran. As a result, the Trump administration reneged on the 2015 U.S.-Iran nuclear agreement and broader détente – intensifying a cycle of distrust with Iran that will be difficult to reverse even if the Democratic Party takes the White House in 2020. Hence there is a real possibility of attacks on Saudi oil production facilities, domestic pipelines, and tankers in transit in the near term. Moreover, the majority of Saudi Arabia’s exports transit through two major chokepoints making these barrels vulnerable to sabotage: The Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has resumed threatening to block; The Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, located between Yemen and East Africa, which was the site of an attack on two Saudi Aramco tankers last year, forcing a temporarily halt in shipments. Saudi Arabia is acutely aware of these risks. It is the top buyer of U.S. arms and, as a result of the dramatic strategic shifts since the American invasion of Iraq, it is the world’s leading spender on military equipment as a share of GDP (Chart 14). One of our key “Black Swan” risks of the year is that the Saudis may be emboldened by the Trump administration’s writing them a blank check. Bottom Line: In addition to the structural risks associated with Saudi Arabia’s economic, social and political transition, geopolitical tensions in the region are elevated. Warning shots are still being fired by Iran and their proxies (such as the Houthis), and oil supplies are at the mercy of additional escalation. Investment Implications Saudi Arabia’s equity market is halfway through the process of joining the benchmark MSCI EM index. The process will finish on August 29, 2019 with Saudi taking up a total 2.9% weighting in the index. Research by our colleague Ellen JingYuan He at BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy shows that in the case of the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Pakistan, inclusion into MSCI created a “buy the rumor, sell the news” phenomenon and suggested that a top of the market was at hand.7 Saudi equities have recently peaked in absolute terms and relative to the emerging market benchmark, supporting this thesis. Saudi equity volatility has especially spiked relative to the emerging market average, which is appropriate. We expect ongoing bouts of volatility due to the immediate, market-relevant political risks outlined above. The risk of a disruptive conflict stemming from the Saudi-Iran and U.S.-Iran confrontation is significant enough that investors should, at minimum, expect minor conflicts or incidents to disrupt oil markets in the immediate term. We expect oil price volatility to persist. Because Riyadh is maintaining OPEC 2.0 discipline in this environment, oil prices should experience underlying upward pressure. It is not that the Saudis are refusing to support the Trump administration’s maximum pressure against Iran but rather that they are calibrating their support in a way that hedges against the risk that Trump will change his mind, since that risk is quite high. This is the 55% chance of an uneasy status quo in U.S.-Iran relations in Diagram 1, which requires at least secret U.S. relaxation of oil sanction enforcement. Moreover, the Saudis want to reduce the downside risk of weak global growth and support their national interest in pushing Brent prices toward $80/bbl for fiscal and strategic purposes. Our pessimistic assessment of the Osaka G20 tariff truce between the U.S. and China is more than offset by our expectation since February that China’s economic policy has shifted toward stimulus rather than the deleveraging of 2017-18. We assign a 68% probability to additional trade war escalation in Q4 this year or at least before November 2020. But since a dramatic trade war escalation would lead to even greater stimulus, we still share our Commodity & Energy Strategy’s cyclical view that the underlying trend for oil prices is up. We are maintaining our recommendation of being long EM oil producers’ equities relative to EM-ex-China. This trade includes Saudi Arabian equities, but as a whole it has upside in the near-term as Brent prices are below our expected average and Chinese equities are still down 10% from their April highs.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Our Commodity & Energy Strategy team expects Brent prices to average $73/bbl this year and $75/bbl in 2020. For their latest monthly balances assessment, please see “Supply-Demand Balances Consistent With Higher Oil Prices,” dated June 20, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled “Supply-Demand Balances Consistent With Higher Oil Prices,” dated June 20, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 The higher export dependence on oil reflects the rebound in oil prices in 2018, rather than a decline in non-oil exports. Given the strong relationship between activity in the oil and non-oil sectors, non-oil exports also increased in 2018. 4 Saudi Aramco’s purchase of a 70 percent stake in SABIC from the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) earlier this year reportedly contributed to the IPO delay. The deal will capitalize the PIF, enabling it to diversify the economy. 5 See, for example, James M. Dorsey, “Clerics and Entertainers Seek to Bolster MBS’s Grip on Power,” BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 1220, July 7, 2019, available at besacenter.org. 6 The U.S., Saudi Arabia, and their allies are trying to restore Iraq as a geopolitical buffer by cultivating an Iraq that is more independent of Iranian influence – and this is part of rising regional frictions. Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi’s recently issued decree to reduce the power of Iraq’s Iran-backed milita, the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) and integrate them into Iraq’s armed forces by forcing them to choose between either military or political activity. Just over a year ago, Iraq’s previous Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi issued a decree granting members of the PMF many of the same rights as members of the military. 7 Please see BCA Frontier Markets Strategy, “Pakistani Stocks: A Top Is At Hand,” March 13, 2017, available at fms.bcaresearch.com.

Special Report

Highlights So What? U.S.-Iran risk is front-loaded, but U.S.-China is the greater risk overall. In the medium-to-long run the trade war with China should reaccelerate while the U.S. should back away from war with Iran. But for now the opposite is happening. A full-fledged cold war with China will put a cap on American political polarization, putting China at a disadvantage. By contrast, a U.S. war with Iran would exacerbate polarization, giving China a huge strategic opportunity. War with Iran or trade war escalation with China are both ultimately dollar bullish – even though tactically the dollar may fall. Feature Two significant geopolitical events occurred over the past week. First, U.S. President Donald Trump declared his third pause to the trade war with China. The terms of the truce are vague and indefinite, but it has given support to the equity rally temporarily. Second, Iran edged past the limits on uranium stockpiling, uranium enrichment, and the Arak nuclear reactor imposed by the 2015 nuclear pact. Trump instigated this move by walking away from the pact and re-imposing oil sanctions. If these events foreshadow things to come, global financial markets should position for lower odds of a deflationary trade shock and higher odds of an inflationary oil shock in the coming six-to-18 months. But is this conclusion warranted? Is the American “Pivot to Asia” about to shift into reverse? If the White House pursued a consistent strategy to contain China, it would bring Americans together and require forming alliances. In the short run, perhaps – but the conflict with China is ultimately the greater of the two geopolitical risks. We expect it to intensify again, likely in H2, but at latest by Q3 of 2020, ahead of the U.S. presidential election. Our highest conviction call on this matter, however, is that any trade deal before that date will be limited in scope. It will fall far short of a “Grand Compromise” that ushers in a new era of U.S.-China engagement – and hence it will be a disappointment to global equities. Our trade war probabilities, updated on June 14 to account for the expected resumption of negotiations at the G20, can be found in Diagram 1. The combined risk of further escalation is 68%. Diagram 1Trade War Decision Tree (Updated June 13, 2019 To Include G20 Tariff Pause) The risk to the view? The U.S.-Iran conflict could spiral out of control and the Trump administration could get entangled in the Middle East. This would create a very different outlook for global politics, economy, and markets over the next decade than a concentrated conflict with China.  The Missing Corollary Of The “Thucydides Trap” The idea of the “Thucydides Trap” has gone viral in recent years – for good reason. The term, coined by Harvard political scientist Graham Allison, refers to the ancient Greek historian Thucydides (460-400 BC), author of the seminal History of the Peloponnesian War. The “trap” is the armed conflict that most often develops when a dominant nation that presides over a particular world order (e.g. Sparta, the U.S.) faces a young and ambitious rival that seeks fundamental change to that order (e.g. Athens, China).1  This conflict between an “established” and “revisionist” power was highlighted by the political philosopher Thomas Hobbes in his translation of Thucydides in the seventeenth century; every student of international relations knows it. Allison’s contribution is the comparative analysis of various Thucydides-esque episodes in the modern era to show how today’s U.S.-China rivalry fits the pattern. The implication is that war (not merely trade war) is a major risk. We have long held a similar assessment of the U.S.-China conflict. It is substantiated by hard data showing that China is gaining on America in various dimensions of power (Chart 1). Assuming that the U.S. does not want to be replaced, the current trade conflict will metastasize to other areas. There is an important but overlooked corollary to the Thucydides Trap: if the U.S. and China really engage in an epic conflict, American political polarization should fall. Polarization fell dramatically during the Great Depression and World War II and remained subdued throughout the Cold War. It only began to rise again when the Soviet threat faded and income inequality spiked circa 1980. Americans were less divided when they shared a common enemy that posed an existential threat; they grew more divided when their triumph proved to benefit some disproportionately to others (Chart 2).    Chart 1China Is Gaining On The U.S. Chart 2U.S. Polarization Falls During Crisis   If the U.S. and China continue down the path of confrontation, a similar pattern is likely to emerge in the coming years – polarization is likely to decline. China possesses the raw ability to rival or even supplant the United States as the premier superpower over the very long run. Its mixed economy is more sustainable than the Soviet command economy was, and it is highly integrated into the global system, unlike the isolated Soviet bloc. As long as China’s domestic demand holds up and Beijing does not suppress its own country’s technological and military ambitions, Trump and the next president will face a persistent need to respond with measures to limit or restrict China’s capabilities. Eventually this will involve mobilizing public opinion more actively. Further, if the U.S.-China conflict escalates, it will clarify U.S. relations with the rest of the world. For instance, Trump’s handling of trade suggests that he could refrain from trade wars with American allies to concentrate attention on China, particularly sanctions on its technology companies. Meanwhile a future Democratic president would preserve some of these technological tactics while reinstituting the multilateral approach of the Barack Obama administration, which launched the “Pivot to Asia,” the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and intensive freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea. These are all aspects of a containment strategy that would reinforce China’s rejection of the western order.   Bottom Line: If the White House, any White House, were to pursue a consistent strategy to contain China, the result would be a major escalation of the trade conflict that would bring Americans together in the face of a common enemy. It would also encourage the U.S. to form alliances in pursuit of this objective. So far these things have not occurred, but they are logical corollaries of the Thucydides Trap and they will occur if the Thucydides thesis is validated. How Would China Fare In The Thucydides Trap? China would be in trouble in this scenario. The United States, if the public unifies, would have a greater geopolitical impact than it currently does in its divided state. And a western alliance would command still greater coercive power than the United States acting alone (Chart 3). External pressure would also exacerbate China’s internal imbalances – excessive leverage, pollution, inefficient state involvement in the economy, poor quality of life, and poor governance (Chart 4).  China has managed to stave off these problems so far because it has operated under relative American and western toleration of its violations of global norms (e.g. a closed financial system, state backing of national champions, arbitrary law, censorship). This would change under concerted American, European, and Japanese efforts. Chart 3China Fears A Western 'Grand Alliance' Chart 4China's Domestic Risks Underrated How would the Communist Party respond? First, it could launch long-delayed and badly needed structural reforms and parlay these as concessions to the West. The ramifications would be negative for Chinese growth on a cyclical basis but positive on a structural basis since the reforms would lift productivity over the long run – a dynamic that our Emerging Markets Strategy has illustrated, in a macroeconomic context, in Diagram 2. This is already an option in the current trade war, but China has not yet clearly chosen it – likely because of the danger that the U.S. would exploit the slowdown. Diagram 2Foreign Pressure And Structural Reform = Short-Term Pain For Long-Term Gain Alternatively the Communist Party could double down on confrontation with the West, as Russia has done. This would strengthen the party’s grip but would be negative for growth on both a cyclical and structural basis. The effectiveness of China’s fiscal-and-credit stimulus would likely decline because of a drop in private sector activity and sentiment – already a nascent tendency – while the lack of “reform and opening up” would reduce long-term growth potential. This option makes structural reforms look more palatable – but again, China has not yet been forced to make this choice. None of the above is to say that the West is destined to win a cold war with China, but rather that the burden of revolutionizing the global order necessarily falls on the country attempting to revolutionize it. Bottom Line: If the Thucydides Trap fully takes effect, western pressure on China’s economy will force China into a destabilizing economic transition. China could lie low and avoid conflict in order to undertake reforms, or it could amplify its aggressive foreign policy. This is where the risk of armed conflict rises. Introducing … The Polybius Solution The problem with the above is that there is no sign of polarization abating anytime soon in the United States. Extreme partisanship makes this plain (Chart 5). Rising polarization could prevent the U.S. from responding coherently to China. The Thucydides Trap could be avoided, or delayed, simply because the U.S. is distracted elsewhere. The most likely candidate is Iran. A lesser known Greek historian – who was arguably more influential than Thucydides – helps to illustrate this alternative vision for the future. This is Polybius (208-125 BC), a Greek who wrote under Roman rule. He described the rise of the Roman Empire as a result of Rome’s superior constitutional system. Polybius explains domestic polarization whereas Thucydides explains international conflict. Polybius took the traditional view that there were three primary virtues or powers governing human society: the One (the king), the Few (the nobles), and the Many (the commons). These powers normally ran the country one at a time: a dictator would die; a group of elites would take over; this oligarchy would devolve into democracy or mob-rule; and from the chaos would spring a new dictator. His singular insight – his “solution” to political decay – was that if a mixture or balance of the three powers could be maintained, as in the Roman republic, then the natural cycle of growth and decay could be short-circuited, enabling a regime to live much longer than its peers (Diagram 3). Diagram 3Polybius: A Balanced Political System Breaks The Natural Cycle Of Tyranny And Chaos In short, just as post-WWII economic institutions have enabled countries to reduce the frequency and intensity of recessions (Chart 6), so Polybius believed that political institutions could reduce the frequency and intensity of revolutions. Eventually all governments would decay and collapse, but a domestic system of checks and balances could delay the inevitable. Needless to say, Polybius was hugely influential on English and French constitutional thinkers and the founders of the American republic. Chart 6Orthodox Economic Policy Has Made Recessions Less Frequent And Less Acute What is the cause of constitutional decay, according to Polybius? Wealth, inequality, and corruption, which always follow from stable and prosperous times. “Avarice and unscrupulous money-making” drive the masses to encroach upon the elite and demand a greater share of the wealth. The result is a vicious cycle of conflict between the commons and the nobles until either the constitutional system is restored or a democratic revolution occurs. Compared to Thucydides, Polybius had less to say about the international balance of power. Domestic balance was his “solution” to unpredictable outside events. However, states with decaying political systems were off-balance and more likely to be conquered, or to overreach in trying to conquer others. Bottom Line: The “Polybius solution” equates with domestic political balance. Balanced states do not allow the nation’s leader, the elite, or the general population to become excessively powerful. But even the most balanced states will eventually decline. As they accumulate wealth, inequality and corruption emerge and cause conflict among the three powers.  Why Polybius Matters Today It does not take a stretch of the imagination to apply the Polybius model to the United States today. Just as Rome grew fat with its winnings from the Punic Wars and decayed from a virtuous republic into a luxurious empire, as Polybius foresaw, so the United States lurched from victory over the Soviet Union to internal division and unforced errors. For instance, the budget surplus of 2% of GDP in the year 2000 became a budget deficit of 9% of GDP after a decade of gratuitous wars, profligate social spending and tax cuts, and financial excesses. It is on track to balloon again when the next recession hits – and this is true even without any historic crisis event to justify it. The rise in polarization has coincided with a rise in wealth inequality, much as Polybius would expect (Chart 7). In all likelihood the Trump tax cuts will exacerbate both of these trends (Chart 8). Even worse, any attempts by “the people” to take more wealth from the “nobles” will worsen polarization first, long before any improvements in equality translate to a drop in polarization. Chart 7Polarization Unlikely To Drop While Inequality Rises Chart 8Trump Tax Cuts Fuel Inequality Most importantly, from a global point of view, U.S. polarization is contaminating foreign policy. Just as the George W. Bush administration launched a preemptive war in Iraq, destabilizing the region, so the Obama administration precipitously withdrew from Iraq, destabilizing the region. And just as the Obama administration initiated a hurried détente with Iran in order to leave Iraq, the Trump administration precipitously withdrew from this détente, provoking a new conflict with Iran and potentially destabilizing Iraq. Major foreign policy initiatives have been conducted, and revoked, on a partisan basis under three administrations. And a Democratic victory in 2020 would result in a reversal of Trump’s initiatives. In the meantime Trump’s policy could easily entangle him in armed conflict with Iran – as nearly occurred on June 21. Iranian domestic politics make it very difficult, if not impossible, to go back to the 2015 setting. Despite Trump’s recent backpedaling, his administration runs a high risk of getting sucked into another Middle Eastern quagmire as long as it enforces the sanctions on Iranian oil stringently. Persian Gulf risks are coming to the fore. But over the next six-to-18 months, U.S.-China conflict will be the dominant market-mover. China would be the big winner if such a war occurred, just as it was one of the greatest beneficiaries of the long American distraction in Afghanistan and Iraq. It would benefit from another 5-10 years of American losses of blood and treasure. It would be able to pursue regional interests with less Interference and could trade limited cooperation with the U.S. on Iran for larger concessions elsewhere. And a nuclear-armed Iran – which is a long-term concern for the U.S. – is not in China’s national interest anyway. Chart 9Will The Pivot To Asia Reverse? Bottom Line: The U.S. is missing the “Polybius solution” of balanced government; polarization is on the rise. As a result, the grand strategy of “pivoting to Asia” could go into reverse (Chart 9). If that occurs, the conflict with China will be postponed or ineffective. Iran Is The Wild Card A war with Iran manifestly runs afoul of the Trump administration’s and America’s national interests, whereas a trade war with China does not. First, although an Iranian or Iranian-backed attack on American troops would give Trump initial support in conducting air strikes, the consequences of war would likely be an oil price shock that would sink his approval rating over time and reduce his chances of reelection (Chart 10). We have shown that such a shock could come from sabotage in Iraq as well as from attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran could be driven to attack if it believes the U.S. is about to attack. Second, not only would Democrats oppose a war with Iran, but Americans in general are war-weary, especially with regard to the Middle East (Chart 11). President Trump capitalized on this sentiment during his election campaign, especially in relation to Secretary Hillary Clinton who supported the war in Iraq. Over the past two weeks, he has downplayed the Iranian-backed tanker attacks, emphasized that he does not want war, and has ruled out “boots on the ground.” Chart 10Carter Gained Then Lost From Iran Oil Shock Third, it follows from the above that, in the event of war, the United States would lack the political will necessary to achieve its core strategic objectives, such as eliminating Iran’s nuclear program or its power projection capabilities. And these are nearly impossible to accomplish from the air alone. And U.S. strategic planners are well aware that conflict with Iran will exact an opportunity cost by helping Russia and China consolidate spheres of influence. The wild card is Iran. President Hassan Rouhani has an incentive to look tough and push the limits, given that he was betrayed on the 2015 deal. And the regime itself is probably confident that it can survive American air strikes. American military strikes are still a serious constraint, but until the U.S. demonstrates that it is willing to go that far, Iran can test the boundaries. In doing so it also sends a message to its regional rivals – Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Arab monarchies, and Israel – that the U.S. is all bark, no bite, and thus unable to protect them from Iran. This may lead to a miscalculation that forces Trump to respond despite his inclinations. The China trade war, by contrast, is less difficult for the Trump administration to pursue. There is not a clear path from tariffs to economic recession, as with an oil shock: the U.S. economy has repeatedly shrugged off counter-tariffs and the Fed has been cowed. While Americans generally oppose the trade war, Trump’s base does not, and the health of the overall economy is far more important for most voters. And a majority of voters do believe that China’s trade practices are unfair. Strategic planners also favor confronting China – unlike Trump they are not concerned with reelection, but they recognize that China’s advantages grow over time, including in critical technologies. Bottom Line: While short-term events are pushing toward truce with China and war with Iran, the Trump administration is likely to downgrade the conflict with Iran and upgrade the conflict with China over the next six-to-18 months. Neither politics nor grand strategy support a war with Iran, whereas politics might support a trade war with China and grand strategy almost certainly does. China Could Learn From Polybius Too China also lacks the Polybius solution. It suffers from severe inequality and social immobility, just like the Latin American states and the U.S., U.K., and Italy (Chart 12). But unlike the developed markets, it lacks a robust constitutional system. Political risks are understated given the emergence of the middle class, systemic economic weaknesses, and poor governance. Over the long run, Xi Jinping will need to step down, but having removed the formal system for power transition, a succession crisis is likely. China’s imbalances could cause domestic instability even if the U.S. becomes distracted by conflict in the Middle East. But China has unique tools for alleviating crises and smoothing out its economic slowdown, so the absence of outside pressure will probably determine its ability to avoid a painful economic slump. This helps to explain China’s interest in dealing with the U.S. on North Korea. President Xi Jinping’s first trip to Pyongyang late last month helped pave the way for President Trump to resume negotiations with the North’s leader Kim Jong Un at the first-ever visit of an American president north of the demilitarized zone (DMZ). China does not want an unbridled nuclear North Korea or an American preventative war on the peninsula. If Beijing could do a short-term deal with the U.S. on the basis of assistance in reining in North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs, it could divert U.S. animus away from itself and encourage the U.S. to turn its attention toward the next rogue nuclear aspirant, Iran. It would also avoid structural economic concessions. Of course, a smooth transition today means short-term gain but long-term pain for Chinese and global growth. Productivity and potential GDP will decline if China does not reform (Diagram 4). But this kind of transition is the regime’s preferred option since Beijing seeks to minimize immediate threats and maintain overall stability. Diagram 4Stimulus And Delayed Reforms = Socialist Put = Stagflation If Chinese internal divisions do flare up, China’s leaders will take a more aggressive posture toward its neighbors and the United States in order to divert public attention and stir up patriotic support. Bottom Line: China suffers from understated internal political risk. While U.S. political divisions could lead to a lack of coherent strategy toward China, a rift in China could lead to Chinese aggression in its neighborhood, accelerating the Thucydides Trap. Investment Conclusions Chart 13An Iran War Will Bust The Budget If the U.S. reverses the pivot to Asia, attacks Iran, antagonizes European allies, and exhausts its resources in policy vacillation, its budget deficit will balloon (Chart 13), oil prices will rise, and China will be left to manage its economic transition without a western coalition against it. The implication is a weakening dollar, at least initially. But the U.S. is nearing the end of its longest-ever business expansion and an oil price spike would bring forward the next recession, both of which will push up the greenback. Much will depend on the extent of any oil shock – whether and how long the Strait of Hormuz is blocked. Beyond the next recession, the dollar could suffer severe consequences for the U.S.’s wild policies. If the U.S. continues the pivot to Asia, and the U.S. and China proceed with tariffs, tech sanctions, saber-rattling, diplomatic crises, and possibly even military skirmishes, China will be forced into an abrupt and destabilizing economic transition. The U.S. dollar will strengthen as global growth decelerates. Developed market equities will outperform emerging market equities, but equities as a whole will underperform sovereign bonds and other safe-haven assets. Over the past week, developments point toward the former scenario, meaning that Persian Gulf risks are coming to the fore. But over the next six-to-18 months, we think the latter scenario will prevail.  We are maintaining our risk-off trades: long JPY/USD, long gold, long Swiss bonds, and long USD/CNY.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      See Graham Allison, “The Thucydides Trap: Are The U.S. And China Headed For War?” The Atlantic, September 24, 2015, and Destined For War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017).  

Special Report

Highlights Bad news is still looming in the trade war. Public opinion polling in the U.S. gives President Trump more leeway to push the envelope on tariffs and sanctions against China than the consensus recognizes. Trump’s tendency to push the envelope is forcing China into a corner in which structural concessions become too risky. Unrest in Hong Kong reveals the city-state’s political woes as well as the tail-risk of a geopolitical incident in Taiwan. Tariffs on Mexico are still possible. Close long MXN/BRL. Maintain tactical safe-haven plays. Feature Judging by the S&P 500, the Federal Reserve has cut interest rates and the G20 summit between Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping has been a success (Chart 1). Chart 1Trade War? Who Cares! The problem is that there is not yet a compelling, positive, political catalyst on the trade front. And the Fed has an incentive to wait until after the June 28-29 G20 to make its decision on any cut. At least in the case of the December 1 G20 summit in Buenos Aires there was significant diplomatic preparation ahead of time. That is not yet the case for the summit in Osaka, Japan. And even Buenos Aires ended up being a flop given the subsequent tariff escalation. We are maintaining our tactical safe-haven recommendations – long gold, Swiss bonds, and Japanese yen – until we see a clearer pathway for the risk-on phase to resume amid a summer loaded with fair-probability geopolitical risks: Trump’s aggressive foreign policy, the Democratic primary, China’s domestic policy, the U.S. immigration crisis, and Brexit. Beyond this near-term caution, we agree with BCA’s House View in remaining overweight equities on a cyclical basis (12 months). China’s economic stimulus is likely to pick up further this summer and it still has the capacity to deliver positive surprises. Preparing For The G20 Over the course of this year we have argued for a 50% chance and then 40% chance that the U.S. and China would conclude a trade deal by the G20 summit. However, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and other administration officials, including Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, have recently indicated that the best case at the G20 is for the leaders to have dinner and agree to a new timetable that aims to close the negotiations in the coming months. The Trump-Xi summit itself remains unconfirmed as we go to press. This suggests that we were too optimistic about even a barebones trade deal at the G20. We are now extending our time frame to the November 2020 election -- the only deadline that really matters. Diagram 1 presents a cogent and conservative decision tree that results in a 41% chance of a major, Cold War-style escalation in tensions; a 27% chance of a minor escalation that is contained but without a final trade agreement; and a 28% chance of a tenuous or short-term deal. It gives only a 4% chance of a “grand compromise” that initiates a new phase of re-engagement between the two economies. These outcomes clearly represent a large downside risk given where equities are positioned today. Diagram 1Trade War Decision Tree (Updated June 13, 2019) Why such gloom when the two sides may be on the brink of a new tariff ceasefire? First, delaying the talks beyond the G20 is disadvantageous for Trump and will make him angry sooner or later. The Trump administration, unlike its predecessors, has made a point of opposing China’s traditional playbook of drawing out negotiations. China benefits in talks over the long run because it gains economic and strategic leverage. This has been the case in every major round of dialogue since the 1980s and it is specifically the case today, as China gradually stimulates its way out of the slowdown that afflicted it at the time of the last G20 (Chart 2). Chart 2China's Bargaining Leverage To Improve On Stimulus Trump would not have called a ceasefire on Dec. 1, 2018 if the stock market had held up amid Fed rate hikes and the Sept. 24 implementation of the 10% tariff on $200 billion. This year the U.S. equity market has bounced back and the Fed has paused, but China’s economy has not yet fully recovered. This gives Trump an advantage that may not last if the talks extend through the rest of the year. And this reasoning explains why Trump raised the tariff rate and blacklisted China’s tech companies in May – to try to clinch a deal by the end of June. He is also threatening to impose tariffs on the remaining $300 billion worth of imports if Xi snubs him in Osaka. If the G20 fails to produce progress, we would bet that Trump will proceed with a sweeping tariff on the remaining $300 billion worth of Chinese imports, whether immediately after the summit or at some later point when he decides that the Chinese are indeed playing for time. How can we be confident of this? After all, Trump’s approval rating has fallen since he escalated the trade war in May and it remains well beneath the average post-World War II presidents at this stage in their first terms, including President Obama’s rating in the summer of 2011 (Chart 3). Recent opinion polls suggest that voters are getting wise to the negative impact of tariffs on their pocketbooks. The financial and political constraints on Trump are not very pressing. We are confident because the financial and political constraints on Trump are not very pressing, at least not at the moment. First, the stock market has risen despite the tariff hikes, so Trump is likely emboldened. Second, Trump is less constrained in the use of tariffs than in other areas. He is bogged down with a Democratic Congress, investigations, and scandals at home. He cannot pursue policy through legislation – he shifted to the threat of tariffs on Mexico because he could not build his border wall. By turbo-charging his trade policy and foreign policy – against China, Iran, Mexico, Russia, most recently Germany … basically everyone except North Korea – he creates the option of turning 2020 into a “foreign policy election” rather than an election about the economy or social policy. A strong economy has not enabled him to break through his ceiling in public opinion thus far and he will lose a social policy election easily (see health care). The risk of his aggressive foreign policy is that it triggers an international crisis. But that would likely benefit him in the polls, given the natural inclination to defend America against foreign enemies. See George W. Bush, 2004 (Chart 4). Third, popular opposition to Trump’s trade war is not clear-cut – voters are ambivalent. In the past we have shown that President Trump’s 2020 run still depends on his ability to increase voter turnout among whites, specifically white males, low-income whites, and whites without college degrees. Recent polls suggest that voters have turned against tariffs and the trade war – namely the Quinnipiac and Monmouth University polls released in late May after the latest tariff hike. But it is essential to dig beneath the surface. These polls reveal that the key voting groups look more favorably than the rest of the country upon Trump’s policies on both trade and China (Chart 5). These voters’ assessment of Trump’s performance overall, across a range of policies, is not disapproving, despite all of the unorthodox and disruptive decisions that Trump has made in his presidency thus far (Chart 6). American voters are neither as enthusiastic about free trade nor as appalled by protectionism as the headline polling suggests. For instance, take the Monmouth University poll, which asked very specific questions about trade, tariffs, and retaliation. If we combine the group of voters who are clearly protectionist with those who are “not sure” or think the answer “depends,” the results do not suggest that Trump is heavily constrained (Table 1). Table 1Americans Are Not As Pro-Free Trade As It Seems In swing counties 51% of voters think that free trade is either a bad idea or are undecided. And even 57% percent of voters in counties that voted for Hillary Clinton by more than a 10% margin are in favor of tariffs or unsure. And a majority of voters in the most relevant categories – independents, moderates, non-college graduates, low-income earners – believe that Trump’s tariffs will bring manufacturing back, a highly relevant point for an election that will likely swing on the Rust Belt yet again. This includes Clinton’s most secure districts (Chart 7)! The point is not that Trump lacks political constraints on the trade war – after all, these voters are on the borderline in many cases and concerned about all-out trade war with China. Rather, his aggressive trade tactics enable him to reconnect with and energize his voter base at a time when his other signature policies are tied down. This is critical because his reelection prospects, which we have pegged at 55%, are in great peril, at least judging by his lag in the head-to-head polling against the top Democrats in swing states. Bottom Line: Going forward, Trump has more room to push the envelope than investors realize. A failed G20 summit poses the risk of another selloff in global equities. We are maintaining our tactical safe-haven trades.   What About Xi Jinping’s Constraints? Xi is president for life and must be attentive to long-term ramifications. Chart 8Xi Jinping's Immediate Constraint If Trump is tempted to continue pushing the envelope, will President Xi back down? While not constrained by the stock market or elections, he does face the prospect of instability in the manufacturing sector and large-scale unemployment (Chart 8), which Beijing has not had to deal with for 20 years. The point is not to claim that laid-off Chinese workers will turn around and protest against their own country in the face of gunboat diplomacy by capitalist imperialists – on the 70th anniversary of the regime, no less. Rather, Xi is president for life and must be attentive to the long-term ramifications of a disruptive transition in the excessively large manufacturing sector. This would cause economic and, yes, ultimately socio-political problems for him down the road. If Trump continues to move toward his 2016 campaign pledge of a 45% tariff on all Chinese imports, as the 2020 election approaches, China’s leaders have far less incentive to put their careers (and lives) on the line to produce structural concessions. A tariff covering all Chinese goods is an absolutist position that China can only address by doubling down on its demand for full tariff rollback. Yet Trump needs to retain some tariffs to enforce the implementation of any agreement. Thus slapping tariffs on all Chinese imports is almost, but not quite, an irreversible step. This is captured in Diagram 1 via the 29% chance that tensions are contained even if a deal falls through. Tensions are even less likely to be contained if the Trump administration follows through on its threats against China’s tech sector. On August 19, the Commerce Department will decide whether to renew the license for U.S. companies to sell key components to Huawei and other blacklisted companies. If the administration denies the license – and moves further ahead with export controls on emerging and foundational technologies – then Beijing faces an outright technological blockade. It will retaliate against U.S. companies – a process already beginning1 – and will likely act on other threats such as a rare earths embargo. In this case strategic tensions will escalate dramatically, including saber-rattling in the air, in cyberspace, or on the high seas. At the moment political frictions in Hong Kong are exacerbating U.S.-China distrust. Bottom Line: Since President Xi’s constraints are longer-term, he has the ability to deny structural concessions to Trump. But Trump’s ability to push the trade war further and further risks forcing China to a point of no return. There is not a clear basis for the geopolitical risk affecting the global trade and growth outlook to fall. Hong Kong: A New Front In The U.S.-China Struggle The large-scale protests that have erupted in Hong Kong – first on April 28 and most recently on June 9 –are important for several reasons: they highlight the immense geopolitical pressure in East Asia emanating from China’s “New Era” under Xi Jinping; they are rapidly becoming entangled in U.S.-China tensions, particularly over technological acquisition; and they foreshadow the political instability on the horizon in Taiwan. Tensions have been rising between Hong Kong and mainland China since the Great Recession and the shock to capitalist financial centers around the world. The tensions are symptomatic of the dramatic change in China over the past decade; the decline of the post-Cold War status quo; and the broader decline of the western world order (e.g. the British Empire). After all, the West is lacking tools to preserve the rights and privileges that Hong Kong was supposed to be guaranteed when the transfer of sovereignty occurred in 1997. More immediately, the current protests are part of a process going back to 2012 in which the disaffected and marginalized parts of Hong Kong society began speaking up against the political establishment. This emerged because of high income inequality (Chart 9), shortcomings in quality of life, excessive property prices (Chart 10), and the mainland’s reassertion of Communist Party rule and encroachments on Hong Kong’s autonomy. Chart 10Another Source Of Hong Kong's Unrest A simple comparison with Singapore, the other major East Asian city-state, shows that Hong Kong has trailed in GDP per capita and wage gains, while property price inflation has soared ahead (Chart 11). These structural economic factors contributed to the emergence of the “Occupy Central” protests in 2014, which were smaller than today’s protests but signaled the abrupt shift in the political sphere toward disenchantment and activism. Chart 11Why Hong Kong Is Not As Quiet As Singapore The 2016 elections for the Legislative Council (LegCo) resulted in a fiasco by which a number of pro-democracy activists, known as “localists,” were squeezed out of the legislature through a combination of juvenile mistakes and heavy-handed intervention by Beijing and the pro-mainland Hong Kong authorities (Chart 12 A&B). Beijing exploited the occasion to extend its legal writ over Hong Kong society and curb some of the city’s freedoms.2 The democratic opposition and dissidents have been sidelined or repressed — and now they face the prospect of being extradited, given that the LegCo is highly likely to pass the “Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters” bill that sparked the protests this year. The exclusion of the localists from power runs the risk of radicalizing them and increasing disaffection, making mass protests likely to recur both in the near term and in future. Hong Kongers are losing confidence in the “One Country, Two Systems” arrangement (Chart 13). They are similarly becoming more disillusioned with mainland China, adding fuel to the fire over time (Chart 14). However, in the specific case of the city-state, there is no alternative to Beijing’s ultimate say – and the older generations will continue to support the political establishment. Nevertheless Hong Kong’s discontents will become entangled in the broader Cold War emerging between the U.S. and China. Beijing is accusing the protesters of being lackeys of foreign powers. The U.S. Congress, on both sides of the aisle, is threatening to declare that Hong Kong is no longer sufficiently autonomous from Beijing and therefore no longer eligible for special privileges. Hong Kong faces rising political dependency on China and the potential for special relations with the United States to decline. Part of Washington’s concern lies with Beijing’s aggressive technological acquisition program. Hong Kong has been able to import advanced dual-use technology products from the United States without Beijing’s restrictions. This is not apparent from the proportion of exports but it is important on the technological level (Chart 15). It introduces a backdoor for China to acquire these goods and has prompted a rethink in Washington. Hong Kong is also accused of facilitating the circumventing of sanctions on U.S. enemies. It thus faces rising political dependency on China and the potential for special relations with the United States to decline. These pressures also highlight why we view Taiwan as a potential “Black Swan.” Similar political fissures are emerging as Beijing expands its economic and military dominance over Taiwan. Of course, the political backlash against Beijing has recently been receding in Taiwanese opinion, due to the fact that the nominally pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party has lost most of the momentum it gained after the large-scale “Sunflower” student protests of 2014 (Chart 16). But there are still several reasons that the January 2020 election could become a geopolitical flashpoint: namely the developments in Hong Kong, China’s handling of them, Beijing’s tensions with Washington, and the Trump administration’s temptation to achieve some key goals with the Tsai Ing-wen administration before it leaves office (including arms sales). Even if the Taiwanese political winds shift to become less confrontational toward Beijing after January, the time between now and then is ripe for an “incident” of some kind. Beyond that, the pro-independence opposition will begin activating and marching against the next government if it proves obsequious to the mainland. Chart 16Taiwan: Pro-Mainland Forces Revive Over the long run, Taiwan is far more autonomous than Hong Kong, harder for Beijing to control, and much more attractive for Beijing’s enemies to defend – namely the U.S. and Japan. Moreover, as the tech conflict with Washington heats up, Taiwan becomes vital for China’s technological self-sufficiency, putting it at higher risk (Chart 17). Beijing will also frown upon the role of Taiwanese companies like FoxConn for taking early steps to diversify the supply chain away from China. This regional strategic reality is not conducive to U.S.-China trade negotiations. And even aside from the U.S., Beijing’s growing power generates resistance from its periphery. This is true of Chinese ally North Korea, which is trying to broaden its options, as well as a historic enemy like Vietnam. Other countries at a bit more of a distance are trying to accommodate both Beijing and Washington, but are increasingly seeing their regimes vacillate based on their orientation toward China – this is true of Thailand in 2014, the Philippines in 2015, South Korea in 2017, and Malaysia in 2018. These changes inject economic policy uncertainty on the country level. Over the long run we see Southeast Asia as a beneficiary of the relocation of supply chains out of China. But at the moment, with the trade war escalating and unresolved and with China taking a heavier hand, we are only recommending holding relatively insulated countries like Thailand. Bottom Line: Our theme of U.S.-China conflict is intertwined with our theme of geopolitical risk rotation to East Asia. States that have domestic-oriented economies, limited exposure to China, or greater U.S. support – including Japan, Thailand, South Korea, Indonesia, and Malaysia – face less geopolitical risk than those heavily exposed to China (Taiwan) or that lack U.S. security guarantees (Hong Kong, Vietnam). Investment Recommendations In addition to our safe-haven tactical trades – long spot gold, long Swiss bonds, and long JPY-USD – we are maintaining our long recommendation for a basket of companies in the MVIS global rare earth and strategic metals index. The basket includes companies not based in mainland China that have seen their stock prices appreciate this year yet have a P/E ratio under 35 (Chart 18). Chart 18Go Long Rare Earth Firms Ex-China We remain short the CNY-USD on the expectation that trade tensions will encourage Beijing to use depreciation as a countervailing tool, despite our expectation of increasing fiscal-and-credit stimulus. Over the long run, we would observe that trade escalation between the U.S. and China bodes poorly for China’s long-term productivity and efficiency. The basis for a reduction in trade tensions is a recommitment to the liberal structural reform agenda that Chinese state economists outlined at the beginning of Xi Jinping’s term in 2012-13. The current trajectory of “the New Long March,” in which Beijing pursues personalized power and uses stimulus to improve self-sufficiency and import-substitution, goes the opposite direction. It is not a pathway for innovation, openness, and technological progress. A simple comparison of China’s long-term equity total return highlights the market’s lack of enthusiasm about the current administration’s approach (Chart 19). The contexts were different, but the earlier outperformance grew from painful structural reforms and a grand compromise with the United States in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Chart 19The Market Wants Reforms And Trade Deal We are closing our long MXN / short BRL trade for a gain of 4.6%. This trade has bounced back from the U.S.-Mexico deal to avert tariffs. The agreement was not entirely hollow compared to earlier agreements: it calls for Mexico to accelerate the deployment of the National Guard to stem the flow of refugees from Guatemala and central America and expand the Migrant Protection Protocols across the southern border. Trump’s reversal – under Senate pressure, entirely unlike the China dynamic – gave the peso a boost, benefiting our trade. However, one of the fundamental reasons for this trade – the improvement in Mexico’s relative current account balance – has now rolled over (Chart 20) and the tariff threat will reemerge if Mexico proves unable or unwilling to stem the inflow of asylum seekers into the United States (Chart 21). Chart 20Peso Has Outperformed The Real   As we go to press, the attacks on tankers in Oman highlight our view that oil prices will witness policy-induced volatility and a rising geopolitical risk premium as “fire and fury” shifts to the U.S. and Iran in the near-term. Our expectation of increasing Chinese stimulus helps underpin the constructive view on oil and energy-producing emerging markets.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The American Chamber of Commerce in China and Shanghai released a survey on May 22, 2019 revealing that while 53% of companies have not yet experienced “non-tariff” retaliation by Chinese authorities, 47% had experienced it: 20.1% through increased inspections; 19.7% through slower customs clearance; 14.2% through slow license approvals; another 14.2% through bureaucratic and regulatory complications; and smaller numbers dealing with problems associated with American employees’ visas, increased difficulty closing investment deals, products rejected by customs, and rejections of licenses and applications. 2 We noted at the time, “Mainland forces will bring down the hammer on the pro-independence movement. The election of a new chief executive will appear to reinforce the status quo but in reality Beijing will tighten its legal, political, and security grip. Large protests are likely; political uncertainty will remain high.” See BCA Geopolitical Strategy, “Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now,” December 14, 2016, available at www.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights So what? EM elections bring opportunities as well as risks. Why?   Emerging market equities will benefit as long as China’s stimulus does not fizzle. Modi is on track to win India’s election – which is a positive – though risks lie to the downside. Thailand’s next cycle of political instability is beginning, but we are still cyclically overweight. Indonesia will defy the global “strongman” narrative – go overweight tactically. Populism remains a headwind to Philippine and Turkish assets. Wait for Europe to stabilize before pursuing Turkish plays. Feature Chart 1Risks of China's Stimulus Have Shifted To The Upside China’s official PMIs in March came at just the right time for jittery emerging market investors awaiting the all-important March credit data. EM equities, unlike the most China-sensitive plays, have fallen back since late January, after outperforming their DM peers since October (Chart 1). This occurred amid a stream of negative economic data and policy uncertainties: China’s mixed signals, prolonged U.S.-China trade negotiations, the Fed’s extended “pause” in rate hikes, the inversion of the yield curve, Brexit, and general European gloom. We have been constructive on EM plays since February 20, when we determined that the risks of China’s stimulus had shifted to the upside. However, several of the EM bourses that are best correlated with Chinese stimulus are already richly valued (the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc). The good news is that a series of elections this spring provide a glimpse into the internal politics of several of these countries, which will help determine which ones will outperform if we are correct that global growth will find its footing by Q3.  First, A Word On Turkey … More Monetary Expansion On The Way Local elections in Turkey on March 31 have dealt a black eye to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. His ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) has lost control of the capital Ankara for the first time since 2004. Erdogan has also (arguably) conceded the mayoralty of Istanbul, the economic center of the country, where he first rose to power in 1994. Other cities also fell to the opposition. Vote-counting is over and the aftermath will involve a flurry of accusations, investigations, and possibly unrest. Erdogan’s inability to win elections with more than a slim majority is a continual source of insecurity for him and his administration. This weekend’s local elections reinforce the point. The AKP alone failed to cross 45% in terms of popular votes. Combined with its traditional ally – the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) – it received 51.6% of the total vote (in the 2015 elections, the two parties combined for over 60% of the vote). While losing the local elections will not upset the balance in parliament, it is a rebuke to Erdogan over his economic policy and a warning to the AKP for the future. Erdogan does not face general elections until 2023. But judging by his response to the first serious challenge to his rule – the Gezi Park protests of May 2013 – his reaction will be to double down on unorthodox, populist economic policy. Chart 2Erdogan Will Respond With Populist Politics Back in 2013, the government responded to the domestic challenge through expansive monetary policy. The central bank gave extraordinary liquidity provisions to the banking system. Chart 2 clearly shows that the liquidity injections began with the Gezi protests. These provisions only paused in 2016-17, when global growth rebounded on the back of Chinese stimulus and EM asset prices rose, supporting Turkey’s currency and enabling the central bank to hold off. Today, the severe contraction in GDP (by 3% in Q4 2018), with a negative global backdrop, will likely end Erdogan’s patience with tight monetary policy.1 To illustrate how tight policy has been, note that bank loan growth denominated in lira is contracting at a rate of 17% in real terms. Given the authorities’ populist track record, rising unemployment will likely lead to further “backdoor” liquidity easing. A new bout of unorthodox monetary policy will be negative for domestic bank equities, local-currency bonds, and the lira. As one of the first EM currencies and bourses to begin outperforming in September 2018, Turkey has been at the forefront of the EM mini-rally over the past six months. But with global growth still tepid, this mini-cycle is likely to come to an end for the time being. Watch for the bottoming in Chinese followed by European growth before seeking new opportunities in Turkish assets. Erdogan’s domestic troubles could also prompt him to renew his foreign combativeness, which raises tail risks to Turkish risk assets, such as through U.S. punitive measures. Last year, Erdogan responded to the economic downswing by toning down his belligerent rhetoric and mending fences with Europe and the U.S. However, a reversion to populism may require him to seek a convenient distraction. The U.S. is withdrawing from Syria and the Middle East, leaving Turkey in a position where it needs other relationships to pursue its interests. Russia is a key example. Currently Erdogan is bickering with the U.S. over the planned purchase of a missile defense system from Russia. But the consequence is that relations with the U.S. could deteriorate further, potentially leading to new sanctions. Bottom Line: Turkey is still in the grip of populist politics and will respond to the recession and domestic discontent with easier monetary policy which would bode ill for the lira and lira-denominated assets. The stabilization of the European economy is necessary before investors attempt to take advantage of the de-rating of Turkish assets. India: Focus On Modi’s Political Capital We have long maintained that Modi is likely to stay in power after India’s general election on April 11-May 19. His coalition has recovered in public opinion polling since the Valentine’s Day attack on Indian security forces in Indian Kashmir (Chart 3). The government responded to the attacks by ordering airstrikes on February 26 against Pakistani targets in Pakistani territory for the first time since 1974. The attack was theatrical but the subsequent rally-around-the-flag effect gave Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) a badly needed popular boost. The market rallied on the back of Modi’s higher chances of reelection. Modi is the more business-friendly candidate, as opposed to his chief rival, Rahul Gandhi of the Indian Congress Party. Nevertheless, election risks still lie to the downside: Modi and his party are hardly likely to outperform their current 58% share of seats in the lower house of parliament, since the conditions for a wave election – similar to the one that delivered the BJP a single-party majority in 2014 – do not exist today. While the range of outcomes is extremely broad (Chart 4), the current seat projections shown in Chart 3 put Modi’s coalition right on the majority line. Meanwhile his power is already waning in the state legislatures. Thus Modi’s reform agenda has lost momentum, at least until he can form a new coalition. This will take time and markets may ultimately be disappointed by the insufficiency of the tools at his disposal in his second term. Indian equities are the most expensive in the EM space, and only more so after the sharp rally in March on the back of the Kashmir clash and Modi’s recovering reelection chances (Chart 5). Additional clashes with Pakistan are not unlikely during the election season, despite the current appearance of calm. This is because Modi’s patriotic dividend in the polls could fade. Since even voters who lack confidence in Modi as a leader believe that Pakistan is a serious threat (Chart 6), he could be encouraged to stir up tensions yet again. This would be playing with fire but he may be tempted to do it if his polling relapses or if Pakistan takes additional actions. Chart 5...And Lofty Valuations Further escalation would be positive for markets only so long as it boosts Modi’s chances of reelection without triggering a wider conflict. Yet the standoff revealed that these two powers continue to run high risks of miscalculation: their signaling is not crystal clear; deterrence could fail. Thus, further escalation could become harder to control and could spook the financial markets.2 Even if Modi eschews any further jingoism, his lead is tenuous. First, the economic slowdown is taking a toll – even the official unemployment rate is rising (Chart 7) and the government has been caught manipulating statistics. There is no time for the economy to recover enough to change voters’ minds. Opinion polls show that even BJP voters are not very happy about the past five years. They care more about jobs and inflation than they do about terrorism, and a majority thinks these factors have deteriorated over Modi’s five-year term (Chart 8). Chart 7Manipulated Stats Can't Hide Deteriorating Economy   If the polling does not change, Modi will win with a weak mandate at best. A minority government or a hung parliament is possible. A Congress Party-led coalition, which would be a market-negative event, cannot be ruled out. The latter especially would prompt a big selloff, but anything short of a single-party majority for Modi will register as a disappointment. Bottom Line: There may be a relief rally after Modi is seen to survive as prime minister, but his likely weak political capital in parliament will be disappointing for markets. The market will want additional, ambitious structural reforms on top of what Modi has already done, but he will struggle to deliver in the near term. While we are structurally bullish, in the context of this election cycle –  which includes rising oil prices that hinder Indian equity outperformance – we urge readers to remain underweight Indian equities within emerging markets. Thailand: An Outperformer Despite Quasi-Military Rule A new cycle of political instability is beginning in Thailand as the country transitions back into civilian rule after five years under a military junta. However, this is not an immediate problem for investors, who should remain overweight Thai equities relative to other EMs on a cyclical time horizon. The source of Thai instability is inequality – both regional and economic. Regionally, 49% of the population resides in the north, northeast, and center, deprived of full representation by the royalist political and military establishment seated in Bangkok (Map 1). Economically, household wealth is extremely unevenly distributed. Thailand’s mean-to-median wealth ratio is among the highest in the world (Chart 9). Eventually these factors will drive the regional populist movement – embodied by exiled Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his family and allies – to reassert itself against the elites (the military, the palace, and the civil bureaucracy). New demands will be made for greater representation and a fairer distribution of wealth. The result will be mass street protests and disruptions of business sentiment and activity that will grab headlines sometime in the coming years, as occurred most recently in 2008-10 and 2013-14.   Chart 10Social Spending Did Not Hinder Populism The seeds of the next rebellion are apparent in the results of the election on March 24. The junta has sought to undercut the populists by increasing infrastructure spending and social welfare (Chart 10), and controlling rice prices for farmers. Yet the populists have still managed to garner enough seats in the lower house to frustrate the junta’s plans for a seamless transition to “guided” civilian rule. The final vote count is not due until May 9 but unofficial estimates suggest that the opposition parties have won a majority or very nearly a majority in the lower house. This is despite the fact that the junta rewrote the constitution, redesigned the electoral system to be proportional (thus watering down the biggest opposition parties), and hand-picked the 250-seat senate. Such results point to the irrepressible population dynamics of the “Red Shirt” opposition in Thailand, which has won every free election since 2001. Nevertheless, the military and its allies (the “Yellow Shirt” political establishment) are too powerful at present for the opposition to challenge them directly. The junta has several tools to shape the election results to its liking in the short run.3 It would not have gone ahead with the election were this not the case. As a result, the cycle of instability is only likely to pick up over time. Investors should note the silver lining to the period of military rule: it put a halt to the spiral of polarization at a critical time for the country. The unspoken origin of the political crisis was the royal succession. The traditional elites could not tolerate the rise of a populist movement that flirted with revolutionary ideas at the same time that the revered King Bhumibol Adulyadej drew near to passing away. This combination threatened both a succession crisis and possibly the survival of the traditional political system, a constitutional monarchy backed by a powerful army. With the 2014 coup and five-year period of military rule (lengthy even by Thai standards), the military drew a stark red line: there is no alternative to the constitutional monarchy. The royalist faction had its bottom line preserved, at the cost of an erosion of governance and democracy. The result is that going forward, there is a degree of policy certainty. Chart 11Thai Confidence Has Bottomed Chart 12Strong Demand Sans Risk Of Being Overleveraged The long-term trend of Thai consumer confidence tells the story (Chart 11). Optimism surged with the election of populist Thaksin in the wake of the Asian Financial Crisis in 2001. The long national conflict that ensued – in which the elites and generals exiled Thaksin and ousted his successors, and the country dealt with a global financial crisis and natural disasters – saw consumer confidence decline. However, the coup of 2014 and the royal succession (to be completed May 4-6 with the new king’s coronation) has reversed this trend, with confidence trending upward since then. Revolution is foreclosed yet the population is looking up. Military rule is generally disinflationary in Thailand and this time around it initiated a phase of private sector deleveraging. Yet the economy has held up reasonably well. Private consumption has improved along with confidence and investment has followed, albeit sluggishly (Chart 12). The advantage is that Thailand has had slow-burn growth and has avoided becoming overleveraged again, like many EM peers. Chart 13Thailand Outperformed EM Despite Military Interference Furthermore, Thailand is not vulnerable to external shocks. It has a 7% current account surplus and ample foreign exchange reserves. It is not too exposed to China, either economically or geopolitically: China makes up only 12% of exports, while Bangkok has no maritime-territorial disputes with Beijing in the South China Sea. In fact, Thailand maintains good diplomatic relations with China and yet has a mutual defense treaty with the United States (the oldest such treaty in Asia). It is perhaps the most secure of any of the Southeast Asian states from the point of view of the secular U.S.-China conflict. Finally, if our forecast proves wrong and political instability returns sooner than we expect, it is important to remember that Thailand’s domestic political conflicts rarely affect equity prices in a lasting way. Global financial crises and natural disasters have had a greater impact on Thai assets over the past two decades than the long succession crisis. Thailand has outperformed both EM and EM Asia during the period of military interference, though democratic Indonesia has done better (Chart 13). Bottom Line: Thailand’s political risks are domestic and stem from regional and economic inequality, which will result in a revived opposition movement that will clash with the traditional military and political elite. This clash will eventually create policy uncertainty and political risk. But it will need to build up over time, since the military junta has strict control over the current environment. Meanwhile macro fundamentals are positive. Indonesia: Rejecting Strongman Populism We do not expect any major surprises from the Indonesian election. Instead, we expect policy continuity, a marginal positive for the country’s equities. However, stocks are overvalued, overexposed to the financial sector,4 and vulnerable if global growth does not stabilize. The most important trend since the near collapse of Indonesia in the late 1990s has been the stabilization of the secular democratic political system and peaceful transition of power. That trend looks to continue with President Joko Widodo’s likely victory in the election on April 17. President Jokowi defeated former general Prabowo Subianto in the 2014 election and has maintained a double-digit lead over his rival in the intervening years (Chart 14). Prabowo is a nationalist and would-be strongman leader who was accused of human rights violations during the fall of his father-in-law Suharto’s dictatorship in 1998. Emerging market polls are not always reliable but a lead of this size for this long suggests that the public knows Prabowo and does not prefer him to Jokowi. In fact he never polled above 35% support while Jokowi has generally polled above 45%. The incumbent advantage favors Jokowi. Household consumption is perking up slightly and consumer confidence is high (see Chart 11 above). Wages have received a big boost during Jokowi’s term and are now picking up again, in real as well as nominal terms and for rural as well as urban workers. Jokowi’s minimum wage law has not resulted in extravagant windfalls to labor, as was feared, and inflation remains under control (Chart 15). Government spending has been ramped up ahead of the vote (and yet Jokowi is not profligate). All of these factors support the incumbent. Real GDP growth is sluggish but has trended slightly upward for most of Jokowi’s term. Chart 15Favorable Economic Conditions Support Incumbent Jokowi Jokowi has been building badly needed infrastructure with success and has been attracting FDI to try to improve productivity (Chart 16). This is the most positive feature of his government and is set to continue if he wins. A coalition in parliament has largely supported him after an initial period of drift. The biggest challenge for Jokowi and Indonesia are lackluster macro fundamentals. For instance, twin deficits, which show a lack of savings and invite pressure on the currency, which has been very weak. The twin deficits have worsened since 2012 because China’s economic maturation has forced a painful transition on Indonesia, which it has not yet recovered from. There is some risk to governance as Jokowi has chosen Ma’ruf Amin, the top cleric of the world’s largest Muslim organization, as his running mate. Jokowi wants to counteract criticisms that he is not Islamic enough (or is a hidden Christian), which cost his ally the governorship of Jakarta in 2017. However, Jokowi is not a strongman leader like Erdogan in Turkey, whose combination of Islamism and populism has been disastrous for the country’s economy. As mentioned, Jokowi will be defeating the would-be strongman Prabowo, who has also allied with Islamism. In fact, Indonesia is a relatively secular and modern Muslim-majority country and Amin is the definition of an establishment religious leader. The security forces have succeeded in cracking down on militancy in the past decade, greatly improving Indonesia’s stability and security as a whole (Chart 17). Governance is weak on some measures in Indonesia, but Jokowi is better than the opposition on this front and neither his own policies nor his vice presidential pick signals a shift in a Turkey-like, Islamist, populist direction. Bottom Line: We should see Indonesian equities continue to outperform EM and EM Asia as long as China’s stimulus efforts do not collapse and global growth picks up as expected in the second half of the year. Peaceful democratic transitions and economic policy continuity have been repeatedly demonstrated in Indonesia despite the inherent difficulties of developing a populous, multi-ethnic archipelago. Nationalism is a constant risk but it would be more virulent under Jokowi’s opponent. The Philippines: Embracing Strongman Populism The May 13 midterm elections mark the three-year halfway point in President Rodrigo Duterte’s presidential term. Duterte is still popular, with approval ratings in the 75%-85% range. These numbers likely overstate his support, but it is clearly above 50% and superior to that of his immediate predecessors (Chart 18). Further, his daughter’s party, Faction for Change, has gained national popularity, reinforcing the signal that he can expand his power base in the vote. The senate is the root of opposition to Duterte. His supporters control nine out of 24 seats. But of the twelve senators up for election, only three are Duterte’s supporters. So he could make gains in the senate which would increase his ability to push through controversial constitutional reforms. (He needs 75% of both houses of parliament plus a majority in a national referendum to make constitutional changes.) In terms of the economy, we maintain the view that Duterte is a true “populist” – pursuing nominal GDP growth to the neglect of everything else. His fiscal policy of tax cuts and big spending have supercharged the economy but macro fundamentals have deteriorated (Chart 19). He has broken the budget deficit ceiling of 3%, up from 2.2% in 2017. His reflationary policies have turned the current account surplus into a deficit, weighing heavily on the peso, which peaked against other EM currencies when he came to power in 2016 (Chart 20). Inflation peaked last year but we expect it to remain elevated over the course of Duterte’s leadership. He has appointed a reputed dove, Benjamin Diokno, as his new central banker. Chart 19Reflationary Policies Created Twin Deficits...   Chart 20...And Twin Deficits Weigh On The Peso Rule of law has deteriorated, as symbolized by the removal of the chief justice of the Supreme Court for questioning Duterte’s extension of martial law in Mindanao. Duterte also imprisoned his top critic in the senate, Leila de Lima, on trumped-up drug charges. He tried but failed to do so with Senator Antonio Trillanes, a former army officer and quondam coup ring-leader who has substantial support in the military. The army is pushing back against any prosecution of Trillanes, and against Duterte’s ongoing détente with China, prompting Duterte to warn of the risk of a coup.   Duterte’s China policy is to attract Chinese investment while avoiding a conflict in the South China Sea. His administration has failed to downgrade relations with the U.S. thus far, but further attempts could be made. This strategy could make the Philippines a beneficiary of Chinese investment if it succeeds. However, China knows that the Philippine public is very pro-American (more so than most countries) and that Duterte could be replaced by a pro-U.S. president in as little as three years, so it is not blindly pouring money into the country. Pressure to finance the current account deficit will persist. If pro-Duterte parties gain seats in the senate the question will be whether he comes within reach of the 75% threshold required for constitutional changes. His desire to change the country into a federal system has not gained momentum so far. He claims he will stand down at the end of his single six-year term but he could conceivably attempt to use any constitutional change to stay in power longer. If the revision goes forward, it will be a hugely divisive and unproductive use of political capital. Bottom Line: The Philippine equity market is highly coordinated with China’s credit cycle and so should benefit from China’s stimulus measures this year (as well as the Fed’s backing off). Nevertheless, Philippine equities are overvalued and macro fundamentals and quality of governance have all deteriorated. Duterte’s emphasis on building infrastructure and human capital is positive, but the means are ill-matched to the ends: savings are insufficient and inflation will be a persistent problem. We would favor South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia over the Philippines in the EM space. Investment Implications We expect China’s stimulus to be significant and to generate increasingly positive economic data over the course of the year. China is a key factor in the bottoming of global growth, which in turn will catalyze the conditions for a weaker dollar and outperformance of international equities relative to U.S. equities. Caveat: In the very near term, it is possible that China plays could relapse and EM stocks could fall further due to the fact that Chinese and global growth have not yet clearly bottomed. We are structurally bullish India, but recommend sitting on the sidelines until financial markets discount the disappointment of a Modi government with insufficient political capital to pursue structural reforms as ambitious as the ones undertaken in 2014-19. Go long Thai equities relative to EM on a cyclical basis. Stay long Thai local-currency government bonds relative to their Malaysian counterparts. Go long Indonesian equities relative to EM on a tactical basis. Maintain vigilance regarding Russian and Taiwanese equities: the Ukrainian election, Russia’s involvement in Venezuela, and the unprecedented Taiwanese presidential primary election reinforce our view that Russia and Taiwan are potential geopolitical “black swans” this year.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      See BCA Emerging Markets Strategy, “Turkey: Brewing Policy Reversal?” March 21, 2019, available at www.bcaresearch.com. 2      See Sanjeev Miglani and Drazen Jorgic, “India, Pakistan threatened to unleash missiles at each other: sources,” Reuters, March 16, 2019, available at uk.reuters.com.  3      The junta can disqualify candidates and rerun elections in the same district without that candidate if the candidate is found to have violated a range of very particular laws on campaigning and use of social media. Also, the Election Commission is largely an instrument of the Bangkok establishment and can allocate seats according to the junta’s interests. 4      See BCA Emerging Markets Strategy, “Indonesia: It Is Not All About The Fed,” March 7, 2019, available at www.bcaresearch.com.   Geopolitical Calendar

Dear Client, I am travelling this week so this report is a joint effort juxtaposing two contrasting observations about France. The ‘opulence’ part highlights France as the world’s dominant producer of luxury goods, and makes the case that some of the French luxury goods companies should form a core part of a long-term investment portfolio. The ‘rebellion’ part borrows from a recent Special Report on French politics penned by my colleague Jeremie Peloso. It analyses the recent yellow vest protests in France, and assesses whether they are a cause for concern. Best regards, Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist Feature Opulence Made In France Global luxury goods sales amount to a quarter of a trillion dollars, and Europe dominates in the production of these luxury goods. Measured by the number of companies, the leading luxury goods country is Italy. But on the more important metric of share of total global sales, the undisputed world leader is France. In fact, just four French companies produce a quarter of the world’s luxury goods sales. The four are: LVMH, Kering, L’Oreal, and Hermes1 (Chart of the Week, Chart I-2, and Table I-1). France’s luxury goods sector is an excellent diversifier for investors. This is because, compared to other goods and services, luxuries follow very different laws of economics: The demand for luxuries has a positive elasticity to price. Put more simply, the desirability of a luxury increases as its price goes up. This is opposite to the demand for non-luxuries which has a negative elasticity to price: for non-luxury items, the demand declines as the price goes up. By definition, you cannot compete with a luxury item by undercutting its price. Given that a luxury implies fine-craftsmanship rather than mass production, the sector is highly resilient to the existential threats confronting other European industries that emanate from out-sourcing to lower cost economies and from automation. Luxury demand is also relatively insensitive to exchange rate movements. The barrier to entry into the luxuries sector is extremely high. It takes years, or even decades, for a luxury item to acquire its premium status based on consistent high quality in materials and craftsmanship. This high barrier to entry makes it much harder for other economies to challenge the European and French dominance in providing these luxury products. Despite these attractive characteristics the sector does still require a source of structural demand. Our premise, expounded in our Special Report “Buying European Clothes: An Investment Megatrend”, is that the feminisation of consumer spending, particularly in Europe, is providing a strong structural tailwind to the demand for ‘soft’ luxury goods. A recent industry study by Deloitte corroborates this thesis, pointing out that the strongest growth in the luxury sector is to be found in cosmetics, fragrances, bags and accessories. On this premise, the four leading French companies are big beneficiaries.2,3   Are market valuations already aware of, and fully discounting, the thesis of feminisation of consumer spending? We think not, as most investors are surprised by the thesis and unaware of the on-going dynamics behind it. On this basis, three of the four French luxury companies, trading on forward PE multiples in the 20s or below, still appear reasonably valued for their growth prospects (Table I-2). The exception is Hermes which, on a multiple of 40, does seem richly priced. The bottom line is that the three other leading French luxury goods companies – LVMH, Kering, and L’Oreal – do deserve to be a core part of a long-term investment portfolio. Rebellion Made In France The yellow vest protest movement is not a coherent force led by a clear leadership. What started on the social media as a protest against the fuel tax in rural areas has evolved into a movement against President Macron. This transition occurred in part because a large segment of the population believes that Macron’s reforms have mainly benefited the wealthy. 77 percent of respondents in a recent poll view him as the “president of the rich.” The modification of the ‘wealth tax’ – which mostly shifts the focus toward real estate assets instead of financial assets – was highly criticized for favouring the wealthiest households. It resonated strongly with the perception that past governments helped the wealthiest households to accumulate more wealth on the back of the middle class. But it is not clear how intense or durable this popular sentiment will be, given that this type of inequality is not extreme in France and has not been rising (Chart I-3). Chart I-3What Income Inequality? Public support for the protests has hovered consistently around 70 percent since they started in November 2018 (Chart I-4). However, there are now more respondents who think that the protests should stop as that they should continue (Chart I-5). As a sign of things to come, a demonstration against the yellow vests and in support of Macron and his government – held by the “red scarves” – managed to gather more people on the streets of Paris than the regionally based yellow vests have done in the capital city.4 Who are the yellow vests? They are mostly rural, mostly hold a high school degree (or less), and overwhelmingly support anti-establishment political leaders Marine Le Pen (right-wing leader of the National Rally) or Jean-Luc Mélenchon (left-wing leader of La France Insoumise). This suggests that the movement has failed to cross the ideological aisle and win converts from the centre (Diagram I-1). How many French people are actually protesting? Although there was a slight pickup in protests at the beginning of January, the numbers countrywide are not high. In fact, they are far from what they were back in November and therefore would have to get much larger for markets to become concerned anew (Chart I-6). If we are to compare these protests to those in 1995 or 2010, the numbers pale in comparison (Table I-3). For instance, the protest of December 1995 brought a million people onto the streets while the demonstrations against the Woerth pension reform in 2010 lasted for seven months and gathered close to nine million protesters across eight different events (Chart I-7). We would compare the yellow vest protests to the 15-month long Spanish Indignados in 2011, which gathered between six and eight million protesters overall, and the U.S. Occupy Wall Street protests that same year. The two movements were similarly disorganized and combined disparate and often contradictory demands. In both cases, the governments largely ignored the protesters. Thus the yellow vests should not have a major impact on Macron’s reform agenda. As expected, Macron has not mentioned changing course on his most business-friendly reforms, which we see as a signal to investors that, despite the recent chaos, the plan remains the same. There is no strategic reason why Macron would reverse course. His popularity is already in the doldrums. His only chance at another term is to plough ahead and campaign in 2022 on his accomplishments. Nevertheless, to ensure that he does not plough into a rock, Macron will adjust course to calm the protesters. For example, the recent increase in the minimum wage that the government announced in response to the demonstrations was not supposed to be implemented until later in the presidential term. In a similar vein, pension reforms will likely be postponed given the ongoing protests. Macron hoped to introduce a universal, unified pension system by the middle of 2019 to replace an overly complex and fragmented system in which 42 different types of pension coexist, each one having its own rules of calculation. Though protests (both yellow vest and otherwise) have been unimpressive by historical standards, it might be too risky for the government to push the pension reform so close to these events. Such adjustments to the reform agenda should help reduce the protest movement’s fervour or otherwise its support. The bottom line is that the yellow vest protests were to be expected – they are the natural consequence of Emmanuel Macron’s push to reform the French economy and state. However, when compared to previous efforts to derail government reforms, the numbers simply do not stack up. Their disunited and broad objectives are likely to limit the effectiveness of the movement going forward.5   Dhaval Joshi,  Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso, Research Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 In the case of L’Oreal this refers to the L’Oreal Luxe division. 2  Please see the European Investment Strategy “Buying European Clothes: An Investment Megatrend”, dated December 6, 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Deloitte: Global Powers of Luxury Goods 2018, Shaping the future of the luxury industry 4 According to the government, 10,500 “red scarves” marched in Paris on January 27, 2018. 5 For the full report, please see the Geopolitical Strategy Special Report “France: La March A Suivre?”, dated February 27, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.  

Special Report

Highlights So What? The yellow vest movement has not soured our optimistic view on France – if anything, it tells us it is time to turn more bullish. Why? The constraints on Macron pursuing reforms are overstated; he has no choice but to double-down.  France has multiple tailwinds: strong demographic trends, comparative advantages in exports, and an increasingly pro-business market environment.  Also … The roadmap for the European Union to change structurally is set, though it will need political will to materialize. Feature “La réforme oui, la chienlit non!” Charles De Gaulle, May 1968 “France is only herself when she leads fights that are bigger than herself.” Emmanuel Macron, August 2018 “When France sneezes the rest of Europe catches cold.” Prince Clemens von Metternich, 1848   In May 2017, the election of 39-year-old Emmanuel Macron brought an end to the seemingly unstoppable tide of populist nationalism in the developed world. As it turned out, the median voter in France was not as angry as the median voter in the U.K. and the U.S.  The reforms implemented since the French election have hardly made headlines outside of domestic media. The struggles of Italy, akin to la commedia dell’arte, and the jousting between London and Brussels, have drawn more attention. More recently, the yellow vest protests have reaffirmed the usual stereotypes about France. Behind the headlines, however, one cannot ignore the market relevance of what is happening in France. Thought to be condemned to stagnation by the rigidity of its labor market and the size of its state, the country is now looking to undo the malaise of the past two decades. The only surprise about the protests is that they did not occur sooner in Macron’s term. In this Special Report, we assess the ongoing yellow vest protests, review the reforms conducted since 2017, and give Macron favorable chances of reforming France further. We also highlight structural tailwinds that will support the French economy in the long run. Finally, we briefly go over the European Union’s roadmap for reforms. How Relevant Are The Yellow Vest Protests? Where there are reforms, there are protests. Or, as an astute client once told us: Buy when blood is in the streets. Had there been no protest against President Macron’s reforms, it would have signaled they lacked teeth. Protests were inevitable as soon as Macron set in motion his ambitious pro-growth and pro-business reform agenda. The yellow vest movement is not a coherent force led by a clear leadership. The demands of the group are many: lower taxes, better services, less of the current reforms (specifically in education), and more of other reforms. But despite this lack of clarity, the protesters have convinced most of the public that the reform agenda should pause, or at least slow down (Chart 1). What started on social media as a protest against the fuel tax in rural areas has evolved into a movement against President Macron. This transition occurred in part because a large segment of the population believes that Macron’s reforms have mainly benefited the wealthy. In fact, 77% of respondents in a recent poll view him as the “president of the rich.” The modification of the “wealth tax” – which mostly shifts the focus toward real estate assets instead of financial assets – was highly criticized for favoring the wealthiest households. It resonated strongly with the perception that past governments helped the wealthiest households to accumulate more wealth at the expense of the middle class. But it is not clear how intense or durable this popular sentiment will be, given that this type of inequality is not extreme in France and has not been rising (Chart 2). Chart 2What Income Inequality? Public support for the protests has hovered around 70% for several weeks since they started in November 2018, but is now coming down (Chart 3). There are now more respondents who think that the protests should stop than those who believe they should continue (Chart 4). As a sign of things to come, a demonstration against the yellow vests and in support of Macron and his government – held by the “red scarves” – managed to gather more people on the streets of Paris than the regionally based yellow vests have done in the capital city.1 Who are the yellow vests? The profile is shown in Diagram 1. They are mostly rural, mostly hold a high school degree (or less), and overwhelmingly support anti-establishment political leaders Marine Le Pen (right-wing leader of the National Rally) or Jean-Luc Mélenchon (left-wing leader of La France Insoumise). This suggests that the movement has failed to cross the ideological aisle and win converts from the center. Diagram 1The Profile Of A 'Yellow Vest' Protester How many French people are actually protesting? Although there was a slight pickup in protests at the beginning of January, nationwide numbers are not high. In fact, they are far from what they were back in November and therefore would have to get much larger for markets to become concerned anew (Chart 5). If we are to compare these protests to those in 1995 or 2010, the numbers pale in comparison (Table 1). For instance, the protest of December 1995 brought a million people onto the streets while the demonstrations against the Woerth pension reform in 2010 lasted for seven months and gathered close to nine million protesters across eight different events (Chart 6).   Table 1In A Glorious History Of Protests, 'Yellow Vests' Are A Footnote   Instead we would compare the yellow vest protests to the 15-month long Spanish Indignados in 2011, which gathered between six and eight million protesters overall, and the U.S. Occupy Wall Street protests that same year. The two movements were similarly disorganized and combined disparate and often contradictory demands. In both cases, the governments largely ignored the protesters. In the Spanish case, the right-of-center government of Mariano Rajoy plowed ahead with painful, pro-market reforms that have significantly improved Spain’s competitiveness. Thus the yellow vests should not have a major impact on Macron’s reform agenda. Although they have dragged his approval rating to historic lows (Chart 7), there is no constitutional procedure for the French president to lose power. The president’s mandate runs until 2022 and he has a solid 53% of the seats in the Assemblée Nationale. In other words, despite the consensus view – including among voters (Chart 8) – that he will not be able to implement the reforms he had planned, he still has the political power to push forward new initiatives. Chart 7...Although Macron Wishes He Was Sarkozy! Nevertheless, Macron will certainly have to adjust course to calm the protesters. For example, the recent increase in the minimum wage that the government announced in response to the demonstrations was not supposed to be implemented until later in the presidential term. The reforms brought forward in response to the protest are highlighted in Table 2. This should help reduce the movement’s fervor or otherwise its support. Table 2Macron’s Reforms: The Scorecard More importantly, Table 2 provides a list of the main reforms that have been implemented, proposed, or are yet to be completed since the election. The pace and breadth of these reforms come close to a revolution by the standards of the past forty years.2 What really matters is how these reforms tackle the following three key issues: the size of the state, the cost of financing such a large state, and the inflexible labor market. Macron is making progress on the latter two.  Labor reforms, effective since the beginning of 2018, simplify a complex labor code to allow for more negotiations at the company level, leaving unions outside the process. They also establish ceilings on damages awarded by labor courts, which represent a real burden on small and medium-sized French companies. The objective is to better align firm-level wage and productivity developments and encourage hiring on open-ended contracts. Education and vocational reforms aim at reducing the slack in the economy by reallocating skills. The youth unemployment rate, and the percentage of the youth population not in education, employment, or training, are both high (Chart 9). This is very relevant for the labor market given that the lack of skilled labor is the most important barrier to hiring (Chart 10), more so than regulation or employment costs. Chart 9Stagnant Youth Employment Figures... Chart 10...Are A Product Of Skill Deficiencies And Economic Uncertainty The administration’s weak spot is the large size of the state, which is undeniably at the root of the French malaise. At 55% of GDP, total government spending makes the French state the largest amongst developed economies (Chart 11). Although cutbacks have been announced, they have not materialized yet. These would include bringing the defense budget back to 2% of GDP, decreasing the number of deputies in the National Assembly by 30%, and cutting 120,000 jobs in the public sector. On the bright side, polls show that the French people understand the need to pare back the state. Indeed, 71% are in favor of the announced 100 billion euro cuts in government spending by 2022. Even Marine Le Pen campaigned on the promise of cutting the size of the public sector. Despite having a relatively good opinion of government employees, the majority of respondents approve of increasing work hours and job cuts for redundant government employees (Chart 12). The fundamental problem of a large public sector is that it has to be financed by taxing the private sector. This has fallen on the shoulders of businesses. However, under Macron, the corporate tax rate is set to decline progressively from 33.33% to 25% by 2022 – a cut of 8.3% in the corporate tax rate over four years (Chart 13). Chart 13Respite Coming For The Private Sector Bottom Line: The yellow vest protests were to be expected – they are the natural consequence of Emmanuel Macron’s push to reform the French economy and state. However, when compared to previous efforts to derail government reforms, the numbers simply do not stack up. Their disunited and broad objectives are likely to limit the effectiveness of the movement going forward. The global media’s focus on the protests ignores the structural reforms that Paris has already passed. This is a mistake as the reforms have been significant thus far, though much remains to be done. What To Expect Going Forward? Macron stands in what we call the “danger zone” of the J-Curve of structural reform (Diagram 2). Cutting the size of the state might be what he needs to get out of that zone over the course of his term. Diagram 2In The Danger Zone Of The J-Curve Unlike the last two presidents, Macron’s term has begun with a whirlwind. If he stops now, it is highly unlikely that he will recover his support levels. As such, there is no strategic reason why he would reverse course. His popularity is already in the doldrums. His only chance at another term is to plow ahead and campaign in 2022 on his accomplishments. He just needs to ensure that he will not plow into a rock. As expected, Macron has not made any mention of changing course on his most business-friendly reforms, which we see as a signal to investors that despite the recent chaos, the plan remains the same. Pension reforms, however, will likely be postponed given the ongoing protests. Macron hoped to introduce a universal, unified pension system by the middle of 2019 to replace an overly complex and fragmented system in which 42 different types of pension coexist, each one with its own calculation rules. Though protests (both yellow vest and otherwise) have been unimpressive by historical standards (Table 1), it might be too risky for the government to push the pension reform so close to these events. Bottom Line: Macron has turned France into one of the fastest-reforming countries in Europe. Do not read too much into the lows in approval rating and the protests. Macron has no choice but to own the reform agenda and try to campaign on it in 2022. France Is Not Hopelessly Condemned To Stagnation No country elicits investor doom and gloom like France. It is like the adage that Brazil has been turned on its head: France is the country of the past and always will be. However, we think that such pessimism ignores three important structural tailwinds.  Demographics From 2015 to 2050, the age distribution will remain broadly unchanged (Chart 14). The same cannot be said of Italy or Germany, where low fertility rates and ageing populations will permanently shift the demographic picture. Indeed, France has the highest fertility rate amongst advanced economies and less than 20% of the population is older than 65 (Chart 15). And France is far from relying on net migration to keep its population growing; migration represented only 27% of total population growth between 2013 and 2017, lower than in the U.S., the U.K. and Germany even if we were to exclude the migration crisis (Chart 16).   Chart 15France Has Healthy Demographics… Whenever one mentions France’s positive demographics, criticism emerges that the high fertility rate is merely the result of migrants having lots of kids. This is not entirely correct. While data is scarce due to nineteenth century laws prohibiting censuses based on race or religious belief, data from neighboring European states shows that the birth rate among migrants and citizens of migrant descent essentially declines to that of the native population by the second generation, which in France remains at the replacement level.3 Solid population growth will be a boon to the French economy. A stable dependency ratio – the ratio of working-age to very old or very young people – should limit the burden on government budgets. Further, France will avoid the downward pressure on aggregate household savings associated with an ageing population, the negative implications of a smaller pool of funds available to the private sector, and the resulting inflationary pressures. We also expect the structural rise in European elderly labor force participation to finally take effect in France. The aftermath of the Great Recession and the burden of having to provide for unemployed youth should spur French retirees to work longer. At 3.1%, France is still some way behind Germany at 7% and the average of 6% for European countries (Chart 17). Chart 17Time For Pépère To Get Back To Work Together, these forces imply a higher long-term French potential growth. Based on demographic divergence alone, the European Commission expects French nominal GDP to overtake German nominal GDP by 2040. The French Savoir-Faire France has lost competitiveness in the global marketplace. French export performance has suffered from decades of rigidities and high unit-labor costs while some of France’s peers, such as Germany, benefited greatly from an early implementation of labor reforms (Chart 18). While pro-growth and pro-market reforms ought to reverse some of these trends, France can still rely on a manufacturing savoir-faire that gives it a strong foothold in high value-added sectors of manufacturing, such as in transportation, defense, and aeronautics. Chart 18The Hartz Reforms Gap Table 3 lists the 10 largest export sectors as a share of total exports for France and Germany. These two economies share five similar categories of exports amongst their largest exports, representing respectively 23.8% and 24.3% of their total exports. However, France displays a substantially higher revealed comparative advantage (RCA) in its flagship sectors.4 In other words, the level of specialization of these sectors relative to the world average is higher in France than in Germany. Going forward, it is precisely this level of specialization in the high value-added sectors that will support the French manufacturing industry. Table 3France Vs. Germany: Closer Than You Think We also view the bullish trends for defense spending and arms trade, and the burgeoning EM demand for transportation goods, as important tailwinds for French manufacturing. France is the world’s fourth-largest global defense exporter and will benefit from shifting geopolitical equilibriums caused by multipolarity. France is also well positioned in the transportation sector where its exports to EM countries represent 20% of its overall transportation exports – a share that more than doubled in the past 15 years (Chart 19). While this trend is currently declining with the end of Chinese industrialization, we expect that it will resume over the next several decades as more EM and FM economies grow. Chart 19EM: A Growth Market For France France Is Much More Business-Friendly Than You Think A surge in the number of businesses created followed the election of the French president. Last year, more than 520,000 new businesses were created (Chart 20). Chart 20The New 'Start-Up Nation' The ease of doing business has improved on various metrics and the economy-wide regulatory and market environment should continue on this trend, as measured by the OECD product market regulation indicator (Chart 21). For instance, it takes only three and a half days to set up a business in France and no more than five steps, which is much easier than in most European countries. France also ranks 10th on the Global Entrepreneurship Index – a measure of the health of entrepreneurship ecosystems in 137 countries. It appears prepared for more tech start-ups as it ranks amongst the top countries on the Technological Readiness Index. Overall, France is now a much more attractive destination for investments (Chart 22). It appears that Brexit uncertainty is also driving some long-term capital investments. Between 2016 and 2017, the number of FDI projects in France jumped by 31% and Paris has become the most attractive European city for foreign direct investments (Chart 23). Chart 23Paris: The City Of (Love) FDI Cyclical View Despite the end of QE, markets do not expect the ECB to start hiking rates in the next 12 months – the expected change in ECB policy rate as discounted by the Overnight Index Swap curve is only 7 bps. This means the private sector will keep benefiting from extremely low lending rates, nearing 2%. Bank loans to the private sector will continue growing at a solid pace (Chart 24). Chart 24Banks Are Itching To Lend A lower unemployment rate and accelerating wage growth are positive for both consumer spending and residential investment. Average monthly earnings have strongly rebounded in the past five quarters (Chart 25). These two trends could put a floor under deteriorating household confidence and support consumer spending (Chart 26). Should household confidence rebound, consumers might spend more and stimulate the economy given their high savings rate. Chart 25Consumers Are Primed To Consume Chart 26But Protests Have Dented Confidence How does this dynamic translate in economic growth? Despite the setback experienced by the euro area – due to weaker external demand, or “vulnerabilities in emerging markets” to use the European Central Bank’s (ECB) own words – and the negative economic impact of the yellow vests, French real GDP grew by 1% (annualized) in the fourth quarter. The concessions made by Macron to answer the protests will bring the budget deficit close to 3.2% of GDP – from an earlier projection of 2.8%. The fiscal thrust will contribute positively to GDP growth (Chart 27), though 2020 may witness a larger fiscal drag.  Chart 27Macron Has Given Up On Austerity Bottom Line: The overall fundamentals of the economy are not as bad as the pessimists say. Cyclical and structural tailwinds will support the French economy going forward and should be reinforced by reforms. Can Europe Be Set En Marche Too? Macron’s presidency offers the European Union a window of opportunity to change structurally. He is already perceived as the “default leader” of Europe and might be the answer to the EU’s desperate need for strong leadership. What we have so far looks like a roadmap for a roadmap, but some progress could materialize this year. The European Stability Mechanism (ESM) – the European instrument for economic crisis prevention – is supposed to be granted new powers. At the Euro Summit in December, the ministers agreed on the terms of reference of the common backstop to the euro zone bank resolution fund (SRF), which would allow the ESM to lend to the SRF should a crisis or number of crises suck away all its funds. It would be ready from 2024 to come up with loans for bank resolution. While this may appear to be too late to make a difference in the next recession, we would remind clients that all dates are malleable in the European context. The possibility of the ESM playing a role in a potential sovereign debt restructuring in the future, like a sort of “European IMF,” was also discussed. However, some – including the ESM’s leadership – argue that such an expanded role will necessitate a greater injection of capital, which obviously Berlin must accept. Second, the stalled Banking Union project requires Berlin’s intimate involvement. In fact, Germany remains practically the only member state against the European Deposit Insurance Scheme (EDIS). This deposit insurance union would go a long way toward stabilizing the Euro Area amid future financial crises. However, a high-level working group should report by June 2019. As such, with Merkel sidelined and Macron taking leadership of the reform process, there could be movement on the EDIS by mid-year. Bottom Line: As Merkel exits the stage, France is likely to seize the opportunity to take the leading role from the Germans. By delivering the reforms he promised during his campaign and thus performing effectively at home, Macron hopes to obtain the legitimacy to set the EU en marche as well. Some material progress could be achieved as early as June this year. Stay tuned.   Jeremie Peloso, Research Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      According to the government, 10,500 “red scarves” marched in Paris on January 27, 2018. 2      Sans the guillotine! 3      Rojas, Bernardi, and Schmid, “First and second births among immigrants and their descendants in Switzerland,” Demographic Research 38:11 (2018), pp. 247-286, available at https://www.demographic-research.org/Volumes/Vol38/11/Ariane Pailhé, “The convergence of second-generation immigrants’ fertility patterns in France: The role of sociocultural distance between parents’ and host country,” Demographic Research 36:45 (2017), pp. 1361-1398, available at https://www.demographic-research.org/Volumes/Vol36/45/Kulu et al., “Fertility by Birth Order among the Descendants of Immigrants in Selected European Countries,” Population And Development Review 43:1 (2017), pp. 31-60, available at https://doi.org/10.1111/padr.12037  4      A country displays a revealed comparative advantage in a given product if it exports more than its “fair” share, that is, a share that is equal to the share of total world trade that the product represents.  

Special Report

Venezuela’s stability is deteriorating rapidly along the lines of our projections in recent years. Regime failure is at this point a high probability and poses immediate risks to global oil production. Our conviction is high because of the unprecedented combination of internal and external factors working against the regime: Economic collapse: Economic collapse has translated into total social collapse, as indicated by the large-scale emigration from the country (Chart 1). The current mass protests are the largest ever and are gaining momentum, while the opposition movement is coalescing into a single force against the regime as a whole for the first time. Political illegitimacy: What remained of the Maduro administration’s political legitimacy has eroded with his decision to ignore the results of the 2015 election and rig the election of 2018. The President of the National Assembly, Juan Guaidó, has declared himself President of the Republic based on an interpretation of the Venezuelan constitution and his leadership of the democratically elected National Assembly.1 International opposition: The erosion of Maduro’s legitimacy is reinforced by a rapidly changing international environment, with several countries becoming more assertive in opposing the regime. The United States and Colombia, on January 23, formally recognized Guaidó as president. They are joined by Canada and several other Latin American states, including Brazil, which is taking a more confrontational posture under the newly inaugurated President Jair Bolsonaro. This marks a rare coordination of North and South American states in pursuing a harder policy toward Venezuela. U.S. intervention: The United States, in particular, is taking a more interventionist stance through tighter sanctions. Indeed a limited U.S. military intervention is one of our top five geopolitical “Black Swans” for this year. Such an intervention could be further motivated by President Donald Trump’s need to distract from his domestic woes (Chart 2). His weak popular approval is comparable to that of President Ronald Reagan at this stage in Reagan’s first term, when he intervened in the small island state of Grenada. Venezuela is not Grenada, but the U.S. is also not considering outright invasion. Trump is facing a serious risk of becoming a “lame duck” due to the fall in his popularity amid the government shutdown and gridlock in Congress. A foreign policy response to a humanitarian crisis is an obvious way for him to try to increase his influence over the remainder of his term. Moreover, the U.S. diplomatic and defense establishment may agree on the need to reinforce the Monroe Doctrine against anti-democratic politics and growing Chinese (and Russian) influence in Venezuela. Chart 2Trump May Distract From His Woes What remains is to see whether the U.S. adds force (tougher sanctions) to its more aggressive diplomatic posture, and whether the Venezuelan opposition remains mobilized and unified in rejecting anything except a transition to a new government. The U.S. is already considering expanding sanctions, including a likely deathblow that would involve sanctioning Venezuelan oil imports and the export of diluents necessary to process Venezuela’s heavy sour crude. Within Venezuela, the opposition’s momentum and the role of the National Bolivarian Armed Forces will be decisive: so far there are small signs of fracture (Table 1), but no sign of a substantial turn against the Maduro regime.Sufficient popular pressure can create a “tipping point,” however, after which the military and security forces are no longer effective in executing the government’s writ and the socio-political situation declines beyond the ability of the regime to stay in power. Persistent large-scale protests concentrating on Maduro’s departure and/or a split in the security forces could precipitate the final stage of transition to a new interim government in the short to medium term. Table 1Military Insurgencies Have Been Small And Unsuccessful … So Far Impact On The Oil Market In this context, we are raising the likelihood of a collapse of that state to an 80% probability, from our prior assessment (33%). We use the word “collapse” to stand for Venezuela’s production falling to 250k b/d to feed domestic refineries, from ~ 1mm b/d at present. In our simulation of how a collapse could affect oil prices, we make the following assumptions based on recent history – i.e., the run-up to the re-imposition of U.S. sanctions against Iranian oil exports. These assumptions are driven by our prior belief that the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia, which we’ve dubbed OPEC 2.0, and the Trump administration will attempt to hold Brent crude oil prices at or below $80/bbl in the event of a collapse in Venezuela’s oil production. Here are our assumptions: Venezuela collapses next month; OPEC 2.0 responds with a one-month lag, and increases production by 500k b/d in March 2019. If Brent spot prices trade to $85/bbl, OPEC 2.0 raises production an additional 100k b/d. If prices continue to rise toward $100/bbl, OPEC 2.0 adds another 300k b/d to global supply. Further increases lead to the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) releasing 100k b/d as needed to reduce Brent prices to $80/bbl or less. If spot Brent prices rise toward $100/bbl, we assume there will be 200k b/d of demand destruction globally. Chart 3 shows how Brent and WTI prices would evolve per these assumptions. Because Venezuela’s production has fallen so much, we believe the collapse of that country’s oil industry can be managed by OPEC 2.0, and, if necessary, via U.S. SPR releases. Of course, a similar trajectory likely would occur in the event Venezuela’s oil industry collapses later.2 Chart 3A Venezuela Collapse Would Trigger OPEC 2.0 and U.S. Supply Responses In our simulation, the Brent spot price trades to $85/bbl in December 2019, and OPEC 2.0 adds an additional 100k b/d to global supply. Prices continue to rise, and we assume OPEC 2.0 member states release a combined 300k b/d in March 2020. The U.S. release 100k b/d of SPR in 2020. In addition, we do see demand destruction of 200k b/d in 2020, as prices reach close to $100/bbl. With all of this, prices are contained and start decreasing in mid-2020. Of course, whether these surges can be maintained indefinitely – i.e., until Venezuela comes back on line, or comparable crude grades can be shipped south from Canada – is an open question. Even so, there is no doubt that the leaders of OPEC 2.0 silenced more than a few critics by means of their 4Q18 production surge. KSA stands out in this regard, taking its November 2018 production over 11mm b/d from ~ 10mm b/d in 1H18 (Table 2). Table 2BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) As a practical matter, we have no way of knowing how OPEC 2.0 or the U.S. SPR would respond to a collapse in Venezuela’s oil industry. In these simulations, we’re making a call on how and when OPEC 2.0 might choose to release its spare capacity once again, as they did in the run-up to the U.S.’s Iran oil export sanctions last year (Chart 4). As the members of OPEC 2.0 – mostly KSA, when it’s all said and done – dig deeper into spare capacity, less is available to meet another unplanned outage – e.g., Libya or Nigeria lose significant barrels to civil unrest. That is, we are sure, a discussion OPEC 2.0 is and will be having among its members, and with the U.S. SPR. The global oil market still is exposed to a sharp loss of Iranian barrels on top of the loss of Venezuela’s supplies in the event that country’s oil industry collapses. This argues strongly for an extension of the waivers granted by the Trump administration in November for anywhere from 90 to 180 days, depending on how the Venezuela situation evolves. These waivers expire at the end of May. This would require us to change our balances assessment, should it occur.   Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see Articles 233, 333, 350 of the Venezuelan constitution. The domestic and international legal debate is beside the point: the effective power of the people, the security forces, and the international community will determine the outcome. 2 For more information on global supply and demand balances, and our most recent oil price forecasts, please see “OPEC Starts Cutting Oil Output; Demand Fears Are Overdone,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy today. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com.  

Special Report

Highlights So What? A collapse in Venezuelan oil production could cause Brent prices to average $92/bbl next year. Why? Venezuelan oil output is in freefall. Years of mismanagement constrain its production potential, severely denting government revenues. External debt is sky-high. Venezuela faces challenges in repaying its obligations. China and Russia are unlikely to provide the large-scale subsidies necessary to stabilize the regime over a long period. The United States is unlikely to lift sanctions anytime soon. Rather they may expand them. Feature "PDVSA is red, red from top to bottom." - Former Energy Minister Rafael Ramí­rez "It has been an interesting activity, working without payment." - Sergio Requensa, President of the Corporation of Intermediary Industries, on volunteer groups trying to boost oil output. Global oil prices have fallen by 28.5% since their peak on October 4. While the world awaits OPEC 2.0's meeting on December 6 in Vienna, it is important to remember that global spare capacity is low while serious supply risks loom in many corners of the world. One such risk is the deterioration of Venezuela's economic, political and social situation, which has already precipitated steady declines in oil production (Chart 1). The odds of halting or reversing this trend are razor thin. The Nicolás Maduro government has managed to hobble along, but there is no firm basis for projecting a stabilization either of the regime or oil output. Although it is possible that Venezuela will secure enough ad hoc funding to survive another year, we have no solid grounds for arguing that it will. Chart 1On A Downward Spiral In our dominant scenario of steadily declining Venezuelan output, we forecast Brent to average $82/bbl in 2019. The event of a complete collapse could push Brent prices as high as $92/bbl next year (Chart 2). Chart 2A Production Collapse Would Trigger A Price Spike Venezuelan Production In Freefall While Venezuelan authorities have stopped reporting official economic data, declining oil production offers clear evidence of a deepening crisis. Venezuela is a founding member of OPEC and was once one of the most prosperous Latin American countries. Decades of gross mismanagement have pushed the country into crisis. Estimated to hold the world's largest crude oil reserves (Chart 3), Venezuela's potential role in global oil markets is massive. Its oilfields have, in the past, accounted for 4% of global oil supply, but have dwindled down to 1% so far this year (Chart 4). Nevertheless, Venezuela's role should not be underestimated. Price risks could be to the upside - on the back of a collapse in output - or to the downside in the unlikely event of production restoration. For now, we project monthly declines will average 35k b/d over the coming year, ending at 681k b/d by the end of 2019. Chart 3Venezuala's Potential Is Unrivaled... Chart 4...But Not Captured By Its Dwindling Production Continued deterioration in supply comes on the back of decades of economic mismanagement at the hands of former President Hugo Chávez and his United Socialist Party of Venezuela. The failed 2002 coup attempt and related labor strikes at Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA) - the state-owned oil and gas company - led to the firing of thousands of employees and their replacement with Chávez loyalists, Chavistas. This event politicized the country's economic engine, catalyzing a steady loss in capital and technical expertise. Furthermore, regulations imposed on the energy sector are unfavorable to international investors. For example, the 2001 Hydrocarbons Law stipulated a massive rise in royalties paid by foreign companies - increasing from a range of 1%-17% to 20%-30%. Today, taxes per barrel in Venezuela are the highest among the major producers and form the largest cost component per barrel of oil and gas (Chart 5). Chart 5High Tax Rate Is Unattractive Other damaging state actions include: A law requiring PDVSA to hold at least 60% equity in joint ventures with foreign firms investing in the Venezuelan oil sector; The nationalization of the Orinoco Belt - a highly fertile region home to the world's largest petroleum deposits; Government expropriation of foreign assets; Payment failures to international oil service companies. These events ultimately culminated in today's production freefall, which has continued despite the rebound in oil prices after 2015. Needless to say, falling revenues are deadly for petro states. Caracas relies on oil sales for 95% of the government's revenue. Falling rig counts are an ominous sign (Chart 6). Chart 6An Ominous Sign To make matters worse, export figures actually understate the dire economic situation. The U.S. EIA estimates that roughly half of Venezuela's oil exports are not generating cash! The Venezuelan government has mortgaged much of its production in exchange for loans from China and Russia in recent years. Under these loans-for-oil schemes, the government secured emergency funding to keep its ailing economy afloat, but sacrificed the long-term ability to ensure its own liquidity. This arrangement also includes shipments to the Vadinar refinery in India, which is owned by Russia's Rosneft (Chart 7). Chart 7U.S. Exports Are Main Source Of Revenue This leaves exports to the U.S. as the main source of revenue for the Venezuelan government. The result is a Catch-22: With fewer oil barrels to go around, Venezuela can either satisfy its foreign creditors to keep open the possibility of future lines of credit, or it can sell to the U.S. in return for badly needed cash. For the moment, Venezuela is opting for cash. Despite having been cut by ~20% since last year, exports to the U.S. appear to have hit a floor. According to EIA data, after coming in at 13.21mm bbl in February, they have rebounded slightly averaging 19mm bbl/month since June. This is occurring despite ongoing production declines. This is ultimately unsustainable, as the evidence of mismanagement goes beyond production facilities: A breakdown in domestic refining facilities has necessitated an increase in Venezuela's imports of U.S. crude. The lighter oil is needed as a diluent - to blend with Venezuela's heavy crude, facilitating transportation. This is forcing Venezuela's economy to divert scarce hard currency to these imports. In fact, imports have picked up even amid declining oil production and the deepening economic crisis. Earlier this year, PDVSA's Caribbean assets fell under risk of being handed over to ConocoPhillips as compensation for Chavez's 2007 nationalization of Conoco's facilities. These Caribbean assets include storage facilities, refineries, and export terminals on the islands of Bonaire, Curacao, St. Eustatius, and Aruba. Terminals there account for 17% of the company's exports - mainly destined for Asia (Table 1). To prevent this transfer, Venezuela has agreed to pay the American company $2 billion in compensation, $345 million of which has been paid. If these payments cannot be met, the Caribbean assets will be in jeopardy once again - and Conoco is by no means the only company preparing lawsuits to claim assets in the event of further defaults. Table 1Caribbean Assets At Risk Of Seizure Similarly, CITGO - PDVSA's U.S. refiner and crown jewel - is at risk to being handed over to creditors. A loss of control of CITGO would disrupt one of the most reliable sources of cash for Venezuela. While U.S. sanctions prevent CITGO from sending dividends to Venezuela, it is so far still allowed to purchase Venezuelan crude. CITGO's assets include three U.S. refineries with a total capacity of 750k b/d. To complicate matters, several creditors are claiming stakes in the refiner: Crystallex International, a Canadian mining company whose Venezuelan assets were nationalized in 2011, is making claims on CITGO. In August, a U.S. federal judge ruled in favor of Crystallex, giving it permission to seize shares of PDV Holding Inc., which owns CITGO. However, the judge also issued a temporary stay on Crystallex - which is planning to auction the shares - until an appeal is decided. If the appeal is in favor of Crystallex it will encourage additional asset grabs by aggrieved foreign companies. PDVSA has offered bond investors a 51% claim on CITGO to push back maturing payments to 2020. The remaining 49% of CITGO was put up as collateral for a $1.5 billion loan from Rosneft. The risk - which intensifies with each missed payment - is that as Venezuela defaults on its debts, more of its facilities will be seized, further reducing its production, refining, and export potential. This would ultimately accelerate the total collapse of Venezuelan output. Bottom Line: Venezuelan oil production is steadily crumbling. Almost two decades of mismanagement have preceded this outcome and, as such, it cannot be reversed easily. We expect monthly declines to average 35k b/d, with the probability of a complete collapse in output rising with each passing day. A Macroeconomic Mess Venezuelans today are paying the price for the unsustainable external debt amassed over the past decade (Chart 8). Estimates of external debt place it around a staggering $150-$200 billion! Sovereign and PDVSA bonds due next year are estimated to be about $9 billion (Chart 9). This does not even account for payments due from other forms of debt (Table 2). Chart 8Debt Levels Are Unsustainable Chart 9It's Payback Time Table 2Yikes! Total reserves leave little room for optimism (Chart 10). They now stand at less than $10 billion, down from $43 billion less than a decade ago. Chart 10Reserves Cannot Lend Support In projecting the country's ability to make payments in 2019, we looked at several oil-price and production scenarios. All scenarios point to default, as shown in Table 3. Even in the optimistic scenario in which production is flat (which is highly unlikely given that it has been declining at an average monthly rate of 47k b/d so far this year), the country needs $14.8 billion in foreign exchange reserves to cover rising PDVSA expenses plus debt-service costs and its total import bill. This will put Venezuela $6 billion in the red. Table 3All Roads Lead To Default This forecast would become even more somber if we were to include payments due on other forms of debt (e.g. private bonds, loans, etc), for which there is no published repayment schedule. Stability is entirely out of reach for the Venezuelan government alone. Maduro's recovery plan announced earlier this year will do nothing to combat the root of the crisis. For instance, the launch of a cryptocurrency - the "petro" - that is backed by five billion barrels of oil reserves, to which the bolivar will be pegged, is not a viable solution.1 In fact, Venezuela's policy options are extremely limited. Only a massive show of support from China and Russia can realistically bring about a substantial improvement. This would require a commitment to pay: (1) debt servicing and import costs; (2) the operating costs of PDVSA and the funds needed to preserve CITGO and other critical assets; (3) the funding of new investment required to revive the oil sector. Over the past decade, China and Russia have provided loans worth ~ $60 billion and ~ $20 billion, respectively. Of these loans, an estimated $28.1 billion and $9.1 billion remain outstanding for China and Russia, respectively.2 Venezuela has paid off not quite half of its debts to these powerful patrons. The last Chinese loan was in 2016. China stopped the credit tap throughout 2017 and most of 2018 amid Venezuelan instability. While China expressed its intention to extend a $5 billion loan in September, this amount is small by comparison with the double-digit billions of loans and direct investment that China provided annually from 2009-15. It would not cover Venezuela's shortfall of funding in our three scenarios even if it were devoted entirely to paying immediate obligations. Moreover, the Chinese loan has not been finalized.3 Thus, China's diplomatic "return" to Venezuela suggests that Beijing is not willing to provide the large-scale subsidies necessary to stabilize the regime over a long period. Indeed, China's state oil firm Sinopec has joined other foreign companies in suing Venezuela for unpaid debts!4 Moreover, Chinese and Russian funds are hardly likely to exceed the large amount invested over the past decade - and those amounts did not prevent Venezuela from falling into its current crisis. Russia is no longer capable of fully financing a satellite state in the way the Soviet Union financed Cuba in the twentieth century. It is hoping that China will foot most of the bill. While China is probably able to do so in cash terms, it is so far unwilling to pay the strategic price of setting up a Soviet-style power struggle with the United States in violation of the Monroe Doctrine.5 Indeed, plowing tens of billions of additional dollars into Venezuela may be unwise if the U.S. reverts back to its tried and tested strategy of directly intervening in the domestic affairs of Latin American countries. Venezuela, being in South America and on the Atlantic coast, is too far away for China to secure in the event of a showdown with the United States. As such, Beijing must understand that any investment in Venezuela could one day become stranded capital in a traditionally American sphere of influence. In fact, China is concentrated on building its own sphere of influence in Asia. While Venezuela is nominally part of the expansive Belt and Road Initiative, the latter is ultimately directed at making China's outward investment more coherent and expanding influence on the Eurasian continent. Neither of these aims is all that favorable for Venezuela. While China certainly wants privileged access to Venezuelan oil, it does not "need" Venezuelan crude for supply security in the way that is often implied. It frequently re-sells the oil on global markets. Nevertheless, Russia and China can offer debt restructuring and relief. Out of the $9 billion outstanding that is owed to Russia, Moscow has agreed to restructure $3.15 billion to be paid over ten years. Other such restructuring deals could be forthcoming (although, notably, China did not agree to a restructuring when Maduro visited in September). Restructuring will not work with U.S. bondholders. The U.S. imposed sanctions on August 24, 2017 seem to prevent U.S. holders of Venezuelan bonds from participating in such arrangements. The U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control is unlikely to lift sanctions anytime soon.6 More likely, the United States will expand sanctions, as U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton indicated in a speech in Miami on November 2. There he dubbed Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua the "troika of tyranny" in the western hemisphere. Possible sanctions include: First, the Trump administration has moved to restrict purchases of Venezuelan gold, as the government has been increasing exports to Turkey (and likely China).7 Trump is considering putting Venezuela on the list of state sponsors of terrorism, which will cut off aid and loans. Second, the financial sanctions announced in 2017 could be expanded to cover existing debts, the trading of government and PDVSA bonds on secondary markets, and CITGO's newly issued debt - all areas that the Department of Treasury has so far exempted. Third, sanctions on tanker insurance could impede Venezuela's ability to transport its oil to international destinations. Venezuela does not have the tanker capacity to ship its own oil. Fourth, in the most extreme case, restrictions on U.S. imports of crude oil could punish the Maduro administration. The U.S. is reluctant to exacerbate the humanitarian crisis and deal with its second-round effects. But it could ultimately use its leverage as importer to insist that its companies are compensated, one way or another, for Venezuelan defaults. Technically alternative buyers could absorb Venezuela's heavy crude, but the loss of the U.S.'s cash-generating imports would pile more pressure onto an already wobbling regime. Bottom Line: Venezuela has been relying on ad hoc funding to survive thus far. Loans in exchange for oil are now eating up its revenues. President Maduro's recovery plan does not address the root causes of the ongoing macroeconomic mess. All scenarios point to insolvency. A Regime Change Is In Order Hyperinflation and the absence of basic necessities have left Venezuelans pessimistic about their country's future (Chart 11). This is not surprising: A staggering 87% of households are estimated to be below the national poverty line, most of whom are in extreme poverty. GDP per capita is half the level it was only a decade ago (Chart 12). These are the ingredients of a revolutionary brew. Chart 11The Outlook Isn't Rosy Chart 12Purchasing Power Has Been Slashed By Half The deepening humanitarian and economic crisis is causing one of the largest outflows of emigrants in recent years. According to the United Nations, 2.6 million Venezuelans live abroad and 1.9 million of them have left since 2015 (Chart 13). Chart 13Venezuelans Are Fleeing The crisis has naturally translated into a massive shift in public opinion against the regime (Chart 14). Maduro's reelection for a second term in May occurred in an environment in which the opposition boycotted the elections and voter turnout was reported at just 46.1%, hardly half of the 80% rate in 2013. Venezuelans have also lost faith in the armed forces and police, which have buttressed the current regime (Chart 15). Chart 14Maduro Lacks Support Chart 15Loss Of Faith In Security Institutions Opposition parties do not have the power to force a transition to a new government, but under today's extreme circumstances they are not as divided as they were in the past. They all support regime change, domestic resistance, and international pressure. All have refused to participate in any dialogue unless it is to discuss the terms of Maduro's resignation. This means that a fracture within the regime, or an external factor like U.S. action, could tip the balance. Could a military coup provide the way out of the current morass? Ultimately, yes, in the sense that the military is the ultimate arbiter of Venezuelan society over the course of history. But short-term investors should not hold their breath. The Maduro regime has managed to survive as long as it has by ceding ever more power to the army, meaning that, in a sense, the coup has already occurred. Food distribution and oil production are now directly under the control of the military. Once the regime becomes completely fiscally defunct, military leaders may pin the blame on Maduro and reshape or expunge the Socialist Party. The timing, however, is nearly impossible to predict other than to emphasize that the current situation is unsustainable and we do not believe that Beijing will ride to the rescue. One foreboding sign is that Maduro has authorized hikes to domestic gasoline prices, which are heavily subsidized. A hike of this nature prompted the Caracazo social unrest in 1989, which helped motivate the attempted coups of 1992. Another option may be direct U.S. action. While the U.S. has been reluctant to intervene in Latin America since the short-lived, albeit successful, 1989 intervention in Panama, President Trump did raise the idea of a "military option" in August 2017.8 While Trump's comments were largely ignored, and subsequently opposed by the Pentagon itself, the reorientation of U.S. policy towards confronting China may convince the U.S. defense and intelligence establishment to view Venezuela through the prism of a new Cold War. As such, and especially if the humanitarian crisis grows, investors should not completely dismiss the possibility of a U.S. military-backed coup in Venezuela.9 Bottom Line: Opposition parties are not as divided as they were in the past, in a sign that the current regime is failing to maintain control. Given the unsustainability of the economic situation and the military's ever-growing role, odds are in favor of an army takeover at some point. The relevant takeaway for investors is that things will have to get worse before that occurs - adding pressure on global oil supply and leading to additional debt defaults. Investment Implications Declining Venezuelan oil production will continue weighing on global supply. We model monthly production declines of 35kb/d as the dominant scenario in our supply-demand balances. On this basis, we expect Brent to average $82/bbl in 2019 and WTI to trade $6/bbl below that. A complete collapse in Venezuelan production next year could push prices much higher - up to $92/bbl and $86/bbl for Brent and WTI, respectively. While an eventual production collapse is inevitable, Venezuela may be able to hobble along for another year through ad hoc funding. Thus, a premium will be priced into global oil markets in 2019 on the back of falling Venezuelan production - and the risk of its collapse. Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Pavel Bilyk, Research Associate pavelb@bcaresearch.com Juan Egaña, Research Associate juane@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The U.S. is already considering sanctions targeting the cryptocurrency. Please see Franco Ordonez, "Top lawmakers in Congress push tough new measures against Venezuela," September 24, 2018, available at www.mcclatchydc.com. For the text of an earlier proposal please see "Venezuela Humanitarian Relief, Reconstruction, and Rule of Law Act of 2018," introduced into the Senate by Senator Robert Menendez (D, NJ) on the foreign relations committee, S. 3486 at www.congress.gov. 2 Please see "Venezuela: Deuda externa per capita del sector público," Prodavinci, available at especiales.prodavinci.com. 3 Please see "China y Rusia desconfían del régimen chavista y aumentan la supervisión de sus inversiones en Caracas," PD América, October 31, 2018, available at www.periodistadigital.com. 4 Please see Jonathan Wheatley, "Sinopec settles with Venezuela's PDVSA, ending 5-year dispute," Financial Times, December 12, 2017, available at www.ft.com. 5 The Monroe Doctrine was reinforced specifically in relation to Venezuela by the "Roosevelt Corollary" in 1902-03. Recently the United States has reasserted the Monroe Doctrine in the face of a widespread perception that China has gained strategic ground on the continent, namely in Venezuela. Please see Vice President Mike Pence, "Remarks by Vice President Pence on the Administration's Policy Toward China," the White House, October 4, 2018, available at www.whitehouse.gov. 6 On the contrary, sanctions are expanding. Please see U.S. Treasury Department, "Treasury Targets Venezuelan President Maduro's Inner Circle and Proceeds of Corruption in the United States," September 25, 2018, available at home.treasury.gov. 7 Please see the White House, "Executive Order Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela," November 1, 2018, available at www.whitehouse.gov. 8 Please see Jeremy Diamond, "Trump asked advisers about invading Venezuela in 2017," CNN, July 5, 2018; and Dan Merica, "Trump says he won't rule out military option in Venezuela," CNN, August 11, 2017, both available at www.cnn.com. 9 Even the Secretary General of the Organization of American States, Luis Almagro, has refused to rule out any options, including military intervention. Pro-Maduro commentators have claimed that the U.S., along with Colombia and other enemies of the regime, supported the apparent attempt to assassinate Maduro by drones in August this year. Please see "Venezuela President Maduro survives 'drone assassination attempt,'" BBC, August 5, 2018, available at www.bbc.com. The New York Times has also reported that the Trump administration sent officials to "listen" to rebel Venezuelan military officers proposing a coup attempt. Please see Ernesto Londono and Nicholas Casey, "Trump Administration Discussed Coup Plans With Rebel Venezuelan Officers," NYT, September 8, 2018, available at www.nytimes.com. We Read (And Liked)... The Great Leveler: Violence And The History Of Inequality From The Stone Age To The Twenty-First Century Professor Walter Scheidel's opus - The Great Leveler - introduces the "Four Horsemen" of equality: warfare, revolution, state collapse, and pandemics.10 These four factors, he argues, explain all significant levelling of wealth and income throughout history. And by history, Scheidel really means all of human history. The thesis behind The Great Leveler is that only through the "aid" of the Four Horsemen has wealth ever been distributed more evenly in human societies. In every grand passage in history, one of the four terrible afflictions has tipped the scales away from capital and landholders and in favor of laborers. Otherwise, when there is not war, revolution, state collapse, or pandemics, capital and landholders acquire sufficient wealth and political capital to stave off any attempts at leveling. Scheidel's focus on World War I and II is particularly interesting. He controversially argues that the prosperity and equality that prevailed in the western world after these wars was to a great extent the product of government measures imposed in order to win the conflict. These included nationalization, direct intervention in production, fiscal policy, and inflationary monetary policy. Mass mobilization necessary to wage and win a total war left western societies, and Japan, "levelled" by the time the wars ended. BCA Research was honored to have Professor Scheidel attend our annual Investment Conference in Toronto this September. In the talk, he warned the room full of investors to "be careful what you wish for," since the suppression of inequality has "only ever brought forth sorrow." Furthermore, Scheidel rejected the hypothesis that wealth and income inequality bring about their own demise. They usually grow unchecked until one of the Four Horsemen appears exogenously. The takeaway from Scheidel's work is that income and wealth inequality are, according to the scales of human history, essentially part of human existence. As such, one should neither fret too much about them nor worry that they will lead to serious efforts to curb them. There are two weaknesses in this argument. First, the book is primarily a treatise on medieval history. The vast amount of empirical evidence that Scheidel has carefully collected occurred before societies became democratic, and specifically before universal suffrage. While Scheidel focuses on the effects of the world wars in the twentieth century as the causes of modern leveling, he barely mentions the role played by the spread of the electoral franchise during and after the conflicts. And it is true that democracy has not prevented the rise of income inequality in much of the developed world since the 1980s - that is, since the laissez-faire revolution. However, the end to that story is yet to be written. Which brings us to the second weakness: Scheidel dismisses GINI coefficient data on income inequality. It does not support his thesis. For example, his tables show that the "market GINI" of many western European countries is as high as that in the United States. However, after accounting for redistributive effects, it is in many cases significantly lower. Instead, Scheidel focuses on the wealth accruing to the top 1%. But again, continental European countries have experienced much lower concentration of wealth than the laissez-faire economies of the U.K. and the United States. Yes, there is growth in concentration even in the social democracies of Europe, but it is at a much slower pace than in the countries that have been the most committed adherents of the Reagan-Thatcher revolution. The greatest failing of Scheidel's thesis is that it lacks nuance when it comes to the modern era. Its parsimony over the course of human history is astounding and commendable - it is what makes this a true magnum opus of social science. However, the real world is rarely as parsimonious. The facts are quite different from the theory. Chart 1 shows that the wealth accruing to the top 10% of income distribution in France was higher in the 1950-1970 era than in the U.S., and much higher than in the United Kingdom. Then, the supply-side revolution took hold in the Anglo-Saxon world, while France pursued policies that sought to reverse the causes of the May 1968 social angst. The shift in wealth distribution was jarring. Chart 1No Horsemen Here, Just Social Democracy From this one example we can draw two conclusions. First, Scheidel is wrong when he says that the march of income inequality is inevitable. It clearly has not been in western Europe in recent memory. Second, Scheidel is also wrong when he argues that the march of income inequality is irreversible. France was once a right-of-center country ruled by elites who saw revenues accrue to their capital and wealth holdings. Then, all hell broke loose in the country, with teenage Baby Boomers joining up with common workers in a (relatively) bloodless socialist revolution. Rather than adopt laissez-faire capitalism with vigor, French policymakers adopted wealth and income taxes that reversed the rising share of income accruing to the top 10%. Only today, after decades of a deliberately orchestrated and significant leveling, are policymakers in France looking in a different direction. Scheidel claims that his book is pessimistic, but that of course depends on the audience. Our audiences tend to be made up of investors, i.e. of savers. As such, Scheidel's thesis is in fact joyous! A historical opus that proves, without a doubt, that income inequality is irreversible short of apocalypse!? Sounds too good to be true! It is. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 10 Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017, 504 pages.